Assassins creed (1) is the most interesting game in the series in terms of storyline and theme. As you assassinate each target, almost all of them tell you that their actions were for the greater good. Unlike the traditional video game or movie, these assassination targets are not representative of the typical ‘evil’ or ‘bad guy’. I enjoyed seeing that there was complexity behind the actions of each assassination target that were not immediately apparent.
As we witness the dictatorial/authoritarian attitude of these assassination targets in a cutscene that is juxtaposed shortly before we are meant to kill them, we feel a sense of self-righteousness about the task at hand. These people are obviously cruel and the world would have justice by their elimination. But after they are killed, a dialogue begins where their motives and intent become much more questionable. The targets explain their actions had a positive cause behind it and that appearances are deceiving. This brings up an air of mystery and confusion on whether the main character himself represents a force of ‘good’. By judging and condemning these targets with our limited information, we see a potential danger in automatically assuming we are doing the right thing. These targets themselves have shown that they are merely what they are doing what they think is right, and that ill intention was not necessarily there. What separates our views from theirs? This is the next point.
We often see these targets ruling and commanding others with authoritarian-like force. We even see a ‘doctor’ breaking a man’s feet for trying to escape from ‘treatment’ aka captivity. Yet after killing him, he laments that his patients and others will not be able to have access to better treatment. Treatments that have already helped many under the ‘wisdom’ of the doctor. He reasons, so what if he broke a few legs on the way? This teaches us that it can be a mistake to judge someone by style or method. Our intent says a lot more.
But even the game pokes further fun at the merit of intent. The assassins believe that people should have free will to act, praising individuality. In that sense, they are justified in killing those who oppose them and that idea. The templars (the enemies of the assassins) believe order and control is more important. They believe salvation can be shepherded by those ‘who know better’, and therefore have a right to act on it. Both have supposedly good intent but are constantly battling with each other for dominance over their own ideas.
So what is the real lesson? Perhaps that we should trust nothing to be certain and that ambiguity itself is important to embrace because it helps us reach the closer end of truth. Or perhaps a realization that there may be no truth at all! This would certainly explain the assassins creed well then: ‘nothing is true; everything is permitted’. At the end of the day, both sides use power to push their ideas, the one who wins and claims the truth just exerts power better than the other side. Interestingly enough, “The Creed” of the assassins acknowledges the contradictions within their philosophy.
The Three Great Ironies of the Assassins Creed is:
1. The Assassins seek to promote peace, but commit murder.
2. The Assassins seek to open the minds of men, but require obedience to rules.
3. The Assassins seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet practice it themselves.
The argument about acknowledging these great ironies is that by being able to admit these contradictions, the creed itself is superior to other philosophies that fail to acknowledge their own contradictions. In that sense, you can trust it more.
As the later games in the series are introduced, it seems these themes are deemphasized, if not totally dissolved. But overall, the presence of these conflicts and questions within the first Assassins Creed game makes it the best in the series by far.