The Origins Story of the Assassins Brotherhood Feels Messy and Incomplete | Assassins Creed Origins

Assassin’s Creed Origins sets out to tell the story of how the Brotherhood came to be; how it acquired its iconic weapons and techniques, the meaning of the many symbols associated with the order, and the philosophy behind their beliefs. Unfortunately they are largely superficial narrative elements, that only exist to serve gameplay or other non-brotherhood narrative developments.

The result feels like a series of completed checkboxes, in a messy and unfocused plot, rather than a love letter to a epic, mysterious brotherhood.

ICONOGRAPHY AND TECHNIQUES

Assassin’s Creed Origins introduces and explains most the the important iconography and techniques: the hood, the Hidden Blade, the white robes, the fondness for Eagles, the leap of faith, hiding amongst the crowd, and even the Assassins symbol itself, but few of these are really satisfactory or clear, with some exceptions.

Each of these elements will be addressed in the order they appear in the story.

First, the white robes. The specific garbs of the Assassins Brotherhood seems to stem from the visually similar Medjay robes Bayek is seen wearing before the death of his son. So while it makes sense for Bayek to continue to wear something visually similar that allows for the same functionality and has similar symbolic meaning, the adornments, the timing and additions don’t make sense in terms of storytelling. Where does Bayek’s hood come from? Why does he wear it? Does he always wear it or only sometimes? What about the red and gold sashes? What are those for? Where did they come from? What do they represent?

The origins of the robes become even more confusing in the final mission. Aya and other new members of the brotherhood conspire to kill Caesar as he addresses the senate. Aya, in an attempt to hide her identity and presence, dons a white hooded robe found in the senate building. So where did the white robes and hoods actually come from? Do the Assassins wear white hoods because Bayek happened to? Or was it because Aya found these robes? Do the Assassins wear the hood to hide their identity, if so why is Bayek able to wear the hood throughout the entirety of the game, when that is not a concern of his? Why didn’t Bayek adopt the hood AFTER their transformations into the Hidden Ones? Do assassins throughout history just happen to wear white hoods coincidentally? This may be nitpicking, but this IS an origin story, and the origins of the white hoods, red sashes, and long robes feels messy and confusing.

Second: Eagles, Senu, and Eagle Vision. Bayek’s trusty companion, Senu, is not only his pet eagle, but communicates with him, showing him enemy locations, and points of interest. A great gameplay feature and a large improvement over the previous versions, but how it fits into the game from a narrative standpoint isn’t explained at all at any point in the story. The way he talks with Senu isn’t explained. Can he actually see through her eyes? Or is she more of a messenger bird? If he can see through her eyes, how? Isn’t that extraordinary? Does Bayek see this as a gift from the gods? Maybe it’s related to the falcon headed god Horus? Is this some form of Eagle Vision, different from the one players have in earlier games? Unfortunately the game does nothing with this. Bayek and Senu have some unexplained history and relationship, and this is why the Assassins value them, that’s it. A missed opportunity to better illustrate the symbolism between the brotherhood and the flying creatures they so often resemble.

Thirdly, the leap of faith. Its origin is actually worked into the story nicely, and fits its meaning and purpose. At the beginning of the game, Bayek and Khemu are out together on a hunt. Bayek explains how he was raised by his father to become a Medjay, and now he is doing the same for Khemu. One of the trials leads to the edge of a cliff over a lake in Siwa. Bayek spreads Khemu’s arms, and tells him simply, “Jump!” Khemu hesitates with fear, and backs away. This moment is interrupted and Khemu never gets another chance to make this leap of faith. The leap of faith is not only used as a means of leaving the rooftops after locating a target from above, its seen as an act of faith. It’s a belief in oneself, even in the face of danger and uncertainty. At the very end Bayek is on a rooftop, and has fully transformed into a Hidden One, Bayek hears Khemu’s voice, “Papo…Jump”, to which Bayek obliges. In the story of Assassin’s Creed Origins, it began as a Medjay trial, but became a staple of brotherhood rituals.

Fourth, the hidden blade. The iconic weapon of the Assassins dates back all the way to the death of Xerxes, but other than the first recorded use by Darius its origins are unknown. Assassin’s Creed Origins does nothing more to address this. Bayek receives the blade from Aya, who received it from Cleopatra, claiming it to be a ancient weapon of Justice. And that’s all there really is. The subject is never revisited, and while the symbolism of the blade being used ironically as weapon of oppression (under the command of Cleopatra), is never fully brought to fruition.

There is no further explanation of its previous owner or why that should be important to Bayek or Aya, and why its a weapon of justice. A good example of a similar motif is found in Star Wars. In the first film, Luke receives his FATHER’S saber from Ben Kenobi, a character who will be a mentor throughout the film. Ben describes it as “an elegant weapon from a more civilized age”. Luke is told how his father used this saber as a noble soldier in the Clone Wars, but was killed by the evil Darth Vader. The audience later learns that Luke’s father is Darth Vader, making this moment, and the saber itself all the more significant.

Comparatively, Bayek’s blade was used to kill a villain of no significance to him, by someone he didn’t know, for reasons he never even considered. This also doesn’t explain why Assassins would need this specific type of weapon in the first place. Wouldn’t a small blade do just as well? Assassin’s Creed Origins should have answered this question before the hidden blade was even introduced. Bayek or Aya should have been put in a situation where their regular weaponry and tactics failed, which would then require them to use a more discrete weapon and more discrete tactics. Eventually Bayek goes on a mission where the blade comes in handy, but the introduction of the blade is largely contrived.

Fortunately, what ensues is a great way to introduce one of the iconic features of the brotherhood: the removal of the ring finger. Bayek’s first attack with his new weapon puts him in a dire situation. His death is imminent unless he uses the blade to kill his opponent, there is a problem though: his fist is held clinched. In a last ditch effort he unleashes the hidden blade, sacrificing his finger in the process. This was a great moment and felt natural in its introduction. Bayek didn’t voluntarily cut off his finger, which would have been far less interesting, and would have lead the audience to believe he knew more about the future of the Assassins than he should. He discovered this by accident. He learned it the hard way, not because it was taught or given to him by someone else, but because he earned this knowledge through experience. Voluntary removal was later turned into a ritual by those that joined him at the end of the game, a sign of commitment. This was arguably the best bit of writing in terms of an origins story of the whole game and its disappointing the other elements didn’t turn out the same way.

Fifth, hiding in plain sight. Assassins Creed Origins is completely devoid of its social stealth gameplay elements, which is completely justifiable in terms of narrative. There is no brotherhood, nor tenets, nor creed, for nearly the entirety of the game. Aya and Bayek were trained in the ways of the Medjay. There is no reason to pick up the styles of the Assassins Brotherhood, until their traditional means of combat and assassination no longer effective. But, once they are betrayed by Cleopatra and Ceasar, and discover the secret forces of the Order of the ancients, they decide their old ways of fighting must end. At the end of the game Aya hides amongst Roman senators during the Ides of March, and is amongst the crowd that stabs and kills the newly self appointed emperor Caesar. This felt like a proper introduction of the idea of the tenet “Hide in plain sight”, and a natural decision made by Aya, as both her and Bayek’s previous strategies as very public killers only lead them to ruin, while the Orders of the Ancients still acted in secret.

Unfortunately the dialogue proceeding and following the attack do little to set this up nor pay it off. During the final meeting between Aya and Bayek, Aya admits she regrets killing so publicly, and decides they must only work in the shadows, but doesn’t fully explain why. Is it because it lead to their betrayal? Did it put her in danger? It feels largely contrived with no explanation. She never fully explains why it’s important to be secretive in your actions as an Assassin, this is left solely on the viewer to infer from her few words. Following Caesar’s assassination, there is no verbal creation of the tenet, and leaves the scene feeling like a missed opportunity. One could argue that the narrative at this point would have felt more convoluted with the introduction of the verbal tenet, but then again why even tell this story in the first place if you aren’t going to address the series’ foundational elements?If this story isn’t about the creation of the creed and the tenets, what is the point of this origin story at all?

Finally, the Assassins symbol. Despite the retcons it creates, as this symbol is seen on the statues of Assassins that came before Bayek, it was also a good example of how Bayek and Aya discovered something significant to the Brotherhood. In one of the final scenes of the game, Bayek and Aya meet on the beaches of Alexandria. Their discussion leads to the creation of the Brotherhood and the “Creed”. Bayek and Aya reject their old identities and purposes, in service of new ones. Bayek decides to remove and toss to the ground the eagles skull necklace that he’s worn the entire game, a necklace that Khemu wore before his death. Although it’s unclear why Khemu wore this in the first place, it serves as a symbol for Bayek, propelling him to avenge his son and bring balance to his Ka. Bayek has completed this journey, and he lets it go. As Bayek walks away Aya picks up the skull, which leaves an imprint in the sand, and the Assassins symbol is born. Obviously Aya notices this symbol and carries it onward, a reminder of her lost son Khemu, but also the promise her and Bayek made to their new purpose in life.

I think there is some nice symbolism buried in this that could have been brought to the surface a bit more. Eagles are often symbols of freedom. They’re able to travel anywhere they like without restriction. The skull of an eagle could represent the death of that freedom, and in the case of the Assassins serves as a reminder that freedom can be killed if not protected.

THE CREED

The biggest problem, outside of their introductions, is that none of these elements were created as a result of the Assassin’s Creed and it three tenets, (which are either not addressed, or vaguely defined and contradictory), making them feel superfluous, arbitrary, and contrived.

I. Hide in plain sight.

This tenet commands the Assassins to hide not in the shadows, but amongst the crowd. This allows them to do a few things: it gives them access to their targets in moments of vulnerability, it allows the crowd to shield the Assassin before during and after the attack, and it also gives the power to the crowd itself, where the Assassin is not a independent actor, but the will of the people. The Assassins generally fight in the favor of the majority against tyrannical minorities, this is a physical manifestation of that, and serves as a symbol for their symbiotic relationship.

While this tenet could in theory been established after Aya decides to hide amongst the senate during the ides of March, the tenet is never developed nor adopted, leaving for a missed opportunity.

II. Never compromise the Brotherhood.

This tenet is pretty self explanatory. Never do or say anything that could put the brotherhood or its members in jeopardy or in harm's way. The fight of the Assassins has begun since the beginning of time, and has no end in sight. No one Assassin is worth more than the Brotherhood, nor the fight for humanity’s freedom.

Although the brotherhood isn’t established until about halfway into the narrative, this could have been worked into the story in a meaningful way. One could argue that Cleopatra’s and Caesar’s betrayal is an act of compromising the agreement they had with Aya and Bayek, but that’s not what the point of the tenet. The tenet is about ensuring that members that are supposed to be loyal to the Assassins Brotherhood don’t betray it for their own interests. Cleopatra and Caesar were never part of this brotherhood, just politicians with their own ambitions.

III. Stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent.

This seems to be the most obvious of the three. The Assassins fight to save innocents, not destroy them. But what if they get in the way? What if they’re helping the enemy, knowingly or unknowingly? What if killing the enemy leads to the loss of innocent life? What if the enemy has caused some of the greatest pain, and an Assassin vows to get their vengeance? The Assassins must complete their objectives without causing or creating the loss of innocent life, no matter how difficult it may be. The Assassins must value the lives of even those they don’t have much care for. This tenet is about doing what is right, not what is convenient.

But the thing is Bayek, and Aya as well, don’t really believe in killing innocents to begin with. Bayek is a Medjay and a protector of the people, and Aya is a level headed queensguard that discourages Cleopatra from harming innocents. There should have been a moment where this belief was challenged. Maybe an enraged Bayek could have found himself about to kill a young innocent boy, possibly his opponents son, only to stop before it’s too late, and see the wrong he was about to commit. This is later addressed in The Hidden Ones DLC, but still feels a bit too late.

The Maxim: Nothing is True, Everything is permitted.

While many take this phrase at face value, the Assassins have a deeper understanding of the phrase, recognizing it as an observation, rather than a conclusion. “Nothing is True…” meaning there are no gods, nor divine rulers, and no natural rule to command humanity, there is only humanity itself. But that doesn’t mean the Assassins shouldn’t believe in anything at all. Without in belief in anything the world becomes aimless and chaotic, and cannot progress. “…Everything is permitted” is an understanding that without divine rule or natural law, the Assassins are free to do as they please, without eternal or moral consequence. But that doesn’t mean they should, as it leads it ruin and suffering. The Assassins do not see this phrase as a guiding principle, but as a everlasting warning, and a reminder that humanity only has itself to rely on, and that people should be wise in their choices.

“To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic.”–Ezio Auditore, Assassin's Creed Revelations.

This maxim has followed the Assassin’s throughout time and is often discussed and explained in previous games, but does not make an appearance in Assassin’s Creed Origins. While you can make the case that this phrase isn’t included because it actually wasn’t even coined until the rise of the Hashashin, the real world equivalent of the Assassins Brotherhood featured in Assassin’s Creed I, its still a foundation from which the Assassins make nearly all their decisions and should have been established and verbalized at least at a philosophical level.

“The Creed of the Assassins Brotherhood teaches us that nothing is forbidden for us. Once I thought that meant we were free to do as we would, to pursue our ideals no matter the cost. I understand now. Not a grant of permission, the Creed is a warning. Ideals to easily give way to dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism. No higher power sits in judgement of us. No supreme being watches to punish us for our sins. In the end only we ourselves can guard against out obsessions. Only we can decide whether the road we walk carries too high a toll.” — Arno Dorian, Assassin’s Creed Unity

Aya and Bayek’s individual arcs do a great job of violating both halves of the maxim. “Nothing is True…” Aya violates this half by believing in the power Cleopatra wields, often considering her a goddess, and the one who will save Egypt. Eventually she is betrayed and learns her faith was misplaced. “I believed in the wrong goddess”, and later admits “The Gods are dead”. Aya learned to believe in herself, instead of acting to advance a secret tyrant. “…Everything is permitted”, Bayek violates this half by giving into his worst instincts, inflicting his rage on the world around him, bringing his blade to anyone who wronged him, while never giving himself peace. Bayek learns he cannot just inflict pain on others to counteract his own, but he must find it in himself to let go, and must use his blade for the justice of all.

The big problem is that these two lessons never quite come together to form the totality of the Creed as its been presented in previous games, at least not in a way that is easily interpreted by the player. Bayek and Aya never seem to share these lessons with each other. Instead they jump past these lessons, and focus on fighting for freedom from oppression in the shadows, referring to a vague “New Creed”, with Bayek claiming that “all will fall to it”. But working in secret to fight for freedom isn’t the Creed at all. “We sharpen our blades…and pull what hope is left from this foul earth” is not the Creed, but a decision made after understanding the Creed. The Creed is about seeing the world as it is, knowing that we only have ourselves to depend on. It’s about not giving in to our temptations, and to take person responsibility of our actions and consequences. The decision to act on this new understanding is the mission of the Brotherhood, but not the Creed itself. Assassin’s Creed Origins confuses the two, and misses the entire first step of this belief structure.

There is also a large elephant in the room in relation to the Creed: Bayek’s religious nature and spiritual belief. None of the proceeding Assassins are spiritual in belief, nor believe in a higher power, or afterlife. If the Creed is supposed to be created by Aya and Bayek, shouldn’t they believe in it’s basic components? How could Bayek believe in the phrase “Nothing is True…” when his entire journey is about creating spiritual balance for his son. If Bayek was to find out the true nature of his existence, (knowing that the afterlife does not exist for anyone) it would have likely broke him. It would have been a very difficult for Bayek to accept he’ll never see his son in the field of reeds, as it doesn’t exist, but would have forced him to reassess his values and purpose, creating a stronger character arc. While it would conveniently absolve him of spiritual sins, it would amplify his real world sins and the consequences of his acts. He would have had to learn that he could not rely on afterlife to bring him peace, and that the actions in the real world are far more significant, knowing that it is all he has left.

“All that we do, all that we are, begins and ends with ourselves.” -Arno Dorian, Assassin’s Creed Unity

CONTINUITY WITH ESTABLISHED LORE

One of the game’s final reveals is the creation of “Amunet”. As Aya breaks free from her original persona, and her new life as a hidden one, she takes on a new moniker: Amunet. Amunet, the Egyptian Goddes, is the feminine version of the Egyptian god Amun, “The Hidden One”. But unfortunately this too feels half finished and sudden.

Amun, king of the gods, is only mentioned in passing over the course of the game, so it’s difficult to understand the significance of this new name, and why this name specifically. The story of Amunet’s (the Goddess) creation, as she is technically a creation by Amun when he split himself into two, is only explained in a optional stargazing puzzle. So unless the player does this puzzle, it isn’t really clear why Aya chose this name at all. Although it completes her transformation into a Hidden One, the new meaning of the new persona can be easily lost.

There is also the missing element of why this is a significant piece of the Assassin’s Creed lore. Amunet is one of 7 statues featured in the Auditore Villa found in Assassin’s Creed II and Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood. Each of these Assassin’s had a prolific target known for the oppression. Amunet is known for Assassinating Cleopatra, which in popular knowledge was considered a suicide, but Amunet supplied the asp. Players who haven’t played previous games don’t learn this information at all, ESPECIALLY since Cleopatra’s death is completely left out of the narrative entirely. This also is a misstep for Aya’s overall character arc, as assassinating someone she devoted her life to, that then betrayed her, would have been a powerful ending.

This leads into one of the biggest missteps in terms continuity with the rest of the Assassin’s Creed lore: none of the previous Assassins are directly mentioned, and the exsitance of any brotherhood before the Hidden Ones, is arguably retconned. While Darius, the first Assassin to use the Hidden Blade was indirectly mentioned for assassinating Xerxes early in the game, there is no further discussion on who he was, how he got or made the Hidden Blade, why he chose it, and why he was an Assassin at all. Another blatantly obvious miss is Iltani, known for ending the life of Alexander the Great with poison. Alexander the Great while not a significant character in Assassin’s Creed Origins is so highly lauded by Caesar, that they visit his tomb, and praise his life’s work. Iltani or her actions are not at all acknowledged, and could have served as a foreshadowing of the games later events.

This leads into problems with the Assassin’s Brotherhood and its symbol being associated with these early Assassins. If Aya and Bayek, the creators of this brotherhood didn’t know about them, how do later Assassins discover them? And why are they all adorned with the Assassin’s Symbol, when for most of them, hadn’t even been invented yet? Most of these inconsistencies have been excused, with the argument that these early Assassins were “proto-assassins” and not part of any larger organization, and the symbols were a result of “artistic interpretation” by the statue builder themselves. Unfortunately all these excuses feel more like cop-outs rather than properly planned world building, and have rightly earned the label of “retcon”. It would have made much more sense for this story to be a reformation of the brotherhood, that was lost over time, and reignited by Aya and Bayek, inspired by the brave acts Assassins before them.

CONCLUSION

You could argue that Assassin’s Creed Origins technically tells an origins story, it unfortunately does it in a way that feels messy and incomplete, implementing ideas and elements unnaturally, while missing the philosophical meat to back it all up. It’s a story that is supposed to pay homage to the great history of the brotherhood, but in the end feels more like an obligation rather than a celebration.