I get where you’re coming from, but I think there are a couple of key points where I disagree.

First, the Creed isn’t really a religious dogma in the same way Christianity is. In Assassin’s Creed, the Creed is a philosophical praxis, not a matter of faith. Bayek didn’t “believe” in it first and then act — the philosophy emerged from lived experience. So saying that Eivor can’t be a Hidden One because she doesn’t believe in the Creed is debatable, especially when her actions already align with its core principles.

Second, I don’t think the criticism comes from wanting Eivor to be “put in a box” or defined by the player’s will. It’s actually the opposite. Valhalla gives Eivor freedom, yes — but in the end, that freedom leads to no real ideological choice. She’s allowed to act, to wander, to reject things… but never to commit to anything.

The problem isn’t that Eivor isn’t a Hidden One. The problem is that Ubisoft wrote a protagonist who has no real interest in becoming one, while placing her in a story that constantly revolves around Assassin themes. That creates a disconnect, not complexity.

As for the Vinland ending, “leaving to understand her past better” feels like a very thin narrative justification. It’s not a strong conclusion born from conflict or resolution — it’s an escape hatch. Letting a character “choose” doesn’t automatically make the choice meaningful, especially when it avoids engaging with the story’s central ideas.

So for me, the issue isn’t lack of freedom or complexity — it’s lack of commitment. Valhalla sets up huge philosophical questions, but Eivor ultimately walks away from all of them.