... Everything is Permitted?

“Nothing is true; everything is permitted.”

Those are the words of the Assassin Order, a fictional organization from Ubisoft’s successful Assassin’s Creed franchise. For the layman, the Assassins are a group of individuals engaged in an ideological and physical war with a rival group called the Templars. The struggle stems from the two groups’ contrasting beliefs: the Assassins believe in the free will of man, whereas the Templars believe in a man-made utopia created from control and man-imposed order.

Even at first glance, it’s easy to tell that the Assassins are the designated protagonists of this struggle: fighting for a world free from oppression and tyranny. The games themselves enforce this assignment of roles by portraying the Templars as corrupt and power-hungry, more motivated by selfish greed than the desire for order. For example: the Templar Rodrigo Borgia, the primary antagonist of Assassin’s Creed II and its spin-off/expansion, Brotherhood. Borgia is portrayed as a scheming, despicable individual, using lies, coercion and murder in pursuit of his goals. He exploits his position in the Templar Order to improve his own financial and political standing, eventually gaining enough leverage to become the Pope*!

[*One key characteristic of the Assassin’s Creed series is its co-opting of actual historic figures in its storylines; such figures are often embellished for that purpose, and are rarely (if at all) portrayed accurately in terms of character and personality. Rodrigo Borgia, an actual Pope during the Italian Renaissance, is one such figure.]

On the other hand, the Assassins are primarily portrayed with traditionally heroic traits and backgrounds. Ezio Auditore da Firenze (the protagonist of AC II and its spin-offs) is the righteous survivor of a betrayal that left most of his family dead, seeking justice against those responsible. Connor Kenway (from AC III) is the defender of his Native American people, against the encroachment of British (and later American) settlers on their ancestral land. To be fair, there are exceptions to this rule: Altair Ibn-Lahad (from the first game) is initially arrogant, self-absorbed and reckless, and Edward Kenway (from the most recent Assassin’s Creed IV) is greedy and materialistic. However, those characters eventually realize the errors of their ways and achieve redemption through their actions. The same cannot be said of the Templar characters.

In my opinion, that has resulted in a dull, one-dimensional narrative that has so far failed to capitalize on the promising main conflict of the series. The ideological conflict between the Templars and Assassins is a very intriguing one: which is more precious? Is it free will? Or is it order?

A bystander (perhaps even you) might ask, is it impossible to have both? An optimist would answer in the affirmative, but I beg to differ. From my personal experience, freedom will almost always result in chaos.

My reason for that is simple: man simply cannot always be trusted to regulate his own actions. Left to his own devices, man will follow what he wants. Morality, faith and laws may give him pause, but they are far from perfect as deterrents to undesirable behavior. We can see that in the events around us, from the mundane (thievery, reckless driving) to the more exotic (murder, rape). Crime, misdemeanor… they stem not (as people would have you believe) from the lack of education, the corrupting influence of the media, the failing morality of the increasing self-centered capitalistic society, etcetera, etcetera, but from free will: the ability to do what you desire, no matter how harmful or disruptive.

Man cannot always be trusted to regulate his actions. We are slaves to our desires, wanderers in a wasteland where the only sustenance is the flesh and blood of our companions. A morbid metaphor, but an apt one:  the people around us are almost always victims of our desires, sacrificed so that we may have our satisfaction.

Last year, I was plagued by bass noise from a next-door neighbour’s sound system. Eventually, I approached the proper authority and lodged a formal complaint. That problem has (so far) ceased to exist. I do not mention this to further antagonize anyone, or to reopen old wounds. The purpose is to introduce an authentic example in which I have observed my argument in practice. Both the actions of my neighbor and I were motivated by personal wants: his was the want of listening to music, while mine was to have my rightful peace in my own residence. Arguably, I was in “the right”, being the “victim” in this situation. And yet, because of my complaint, he received a warning and can no longer listen to music as he used to. Now, the tables have turned, with him as my victim, being denied what should be a right. And so the conflict continues, without a satisfying resolution (which I doubt exists).

And that, patient reader, brings us to the crux of my argument: free will is chaos, because man is compelled by desire, and is therefore selfish. How can there be order, when every man and woman is competing for what they believe is their due? How can there be peace, when one man’s belief is another’s taboo? Whether we admit it or not, we are locked in mutual conflict, desperate to advance our own goals, like drowning sailors pushing and tugging, biting and scratching to be the one who gets the next breath of air.

Still. What is the alternative? Order is desirable, but how can it be achieved without sacrificing free will? How can quarreling cousins come to an accord, without either side having to concede their stand? I have no answers to that question. Evidently, neither do the professional writers employed on the creative teams behind the Assassin’s Creed franchise, or else they might have portrayed the Templars in more positive and nuanced manner.

With that, I conclude this piece of written thought in the most abrupt and unsatisfying of ways: unresolved. Thank you for indulging me and my rambling thoughts. I hope they at least provoked some thinking on the matter.