@theperennialwriter Yep, that's the one! Thanks! I was able to find it and give it a second read.
I think what people missed out on in at least AC III, Rogue, and Unity is that, yes, both sides are deeply flawed and at certain time periods equally destructive. Yes, they are both run by flawed individuals and can harm innocents --
But then there are small details that people miss.
Both sides are deeply flawed and dogmatic: The usual takeaway from AC Unity is that Bellec and Élise are both driven by fanaticism. Their motivations, however, differ. Based off what little detail we get (haven't read the novelization, maybe I'm fucking up), we understand that Élise was groomed to place the Order before herself from childhood (this is Dan Jeannotte's interpretation in the AC Den podcast, based off how she went after Germaine fully accepting that she could die). Bellec, on the other hand, states that he's seen Templars put entire villages to the torch, so his motivation comes from preventing more innocent life loss.
(Also like...side note...François De La Serre was good and kind for taking in Arno and not turning him into a Templar, and even seeking middle ground with the Assassins, but the flashback where he turns down the King of Beggars does imply that he still had a classist attitude where a man is lesser than due to his background. Whereas the Parisian Assassins actually gave Arno chances despite him fucking up twice before they kicked him out, partially because of Bellec but also partially because they were more openminded. But this is a way, way more personal interpretation that we don't actually have a lot of evidence for.)
Both can harm innocents: Achilles's leadership was Not Good, which is the general fandom consensus, and it stemmed from poor decision-making and arrogance, hence the earthquake that leveled Lisbon and his shit handling of Shay's understandable fit of trauma. Haytham, on the other hand, was a great, effective leader, but...well...his precious protégé literally hate-crimed a five-year-old in the woods. Clearly, he wasn't teaching his subordinates to not be racist. Haytham himself clearly only cared enough about Ratohnhaké:ton's village to use its destruction as a "gotcha" moment against Assassin ideology (which, slightly off-tangent, is such a virtue signaling thing to do lol) without regard for its people's wellbeing. And his own devotion to the Templar order came from manipulation by Reginald Birch.
Time period matters: During AC III, the Brotherhood was in shambles. The fandom knows this. And it wasn't perfect. It allied itself with slaveowners (Sam Adams). Ratohnhaké:ton aided the revolutionaries who would go on to take his people's land just like the Templars tried to do. But Ratohnhaké:ton also rebuilt the Brotherhood, and I have to imagine (because Ubisoft likes to pretend AC III never happened, so we have no fucking hint as to how he ran it after the game) that he reformed it to be more equitable and inclusive to everyone, because that's exactly what he did with the homestead.
Aaaanyway, those are just some raw thoughts off the top of my head that I think support the idea that, yeah, the storytelling does tell us that both sides can be destructive and have good and bad people, but we have to remember what each side's ultimate goals are.
prguitarman
baratheonpilled
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
yousharknotpass
vaporwave
andulkaphoto
tangentwithtanner
discoholicmusic
