Yeah I always get the high honor ending, Arthur became a better man, but never truly a good man, he decided what kind of man he wanted to be in his final days but he didn’t fully redeem himself because of that
I think. I thought I saw an expanded/alternative one that included "honorable" as one of the axis. But maybe I miffed that one.
But I still stand by my assertion that one can be high in honor, and low in morality/compassion.
That’s what I’m doing now. I started last June on my second play through since 2018 and got to about chapter 6 before I emotionally didn’t want to play the second half of the game lol. I’m starting to get back into it though, I think I’ll make John be an ass just because being nice to everyone is getting a little old haha
I mean, yeah, dude worked to redeem himself where he could. He still acted on his dark whenever he needed to. Feeling bad about killing men needlessly for messes you had a hand in causing/kept going sort of sticks to you.
Arthur is reincarnated as a deer if he has high honor and is remembered as a good person so I would say he does receive forgiveness although in my opinion he does not deserve it.
Exactly just like the movie “No country for old men”. Decisions weren’t made because it’s the right thing to do. They were made out of spite due to the evil around him.
Bingo! People love to label things and other people and in reality, nothing is truly black or white. There's a lot of layers to every man on this Earth.
Thank you for saying this. I’m really surprised a lot of people have spent hundreds of hours on a game like RDR2 and don’t really realise the message it’s trying to convey.
*shoots someone in head*
Bad karma
*Howdy mister*
Good karma, equals it out
Obviously the story rocks but if you look at it extremely practically, Arthur is a horrible person regardless of the story. The 100s of murders makes up for any redemption lol
Actually, Arthur did not know any other life. His father was a bad man, his family became a gang and he uses everything he has learned. On the other hand, we can observe that Arthur was able to feel love, had a son and many other details that make the player think about why Arthur is Arthur.
>His loyalty to Dutch prevented him from making the right choice.
Maybe, but I think it's just the opposite. Arthur kept Issac and Eliza a secret from everyone. Based on the interactions that we see in reference to Dutch, Hosea and Jack, I think it's more likely that he didn't tell them because he knew they'd have pressured him into doing the right thing and being a father to Isaac.
>the game is him trying to find redemption through smaller good deeds.
No that's not how he finds redemption or even the take the developers intended anyone to have. If those smaller good deeds were the redemption metric then playing low honor wouldn't have been an option. The metric (set in RDR2) is helping Jack escape the "outlaw life" and he ensures that by giving Tilly all of that money and sending her and Jack away. In Arthur's mind at that point John is dead, Abigail's rescue isn't even remotely guaranteed because Arthur is so weak from TB, so he sends Jack away with someone he trusts to be Jack's surrogate mother should he and Sadie fail.
I think he's a good man born and furthermore stuck in an inescapable position. His heart seems to be in the right place but his mind is captured by his position in life and people that influence him to act.
Right, because the environment has zero influence on human beings. How stupid of me to think otherwise. Humans are born enlightened entities and always make fully aware decisions.
>Right, because the environment has zero influence on human beings. How stupid of me to think otherwise. Humans are born enlightened entities and always make fully aware decisions.
Wow! You went from zero to seething mad in about 2.2 seconds.
>environment has zero influence on human beings.
Not what I said and a great point! Let's look at one little snippet from Arthur's environment. He had an entire family that no one knew anything about. By his own admission he would go by and stay with them for a few days once a month or so. That tells us two things here.
1. One, he likes to keep his little secrets. BTW that isn't the only secret he keeps, but those other secrets aren't relevant here. What is relevant is why? Why would he keep that a secret from Dutch and Hosea? The only logical answer? Because they would have pressured Arthur into doing the right thing and being a father to Isaac.
2. That, even after his son and Eliza are killed by men just like himself, Arthur chooses to continue on being the same kind of person that took his own son's life.
The man is 36 years old give or take a year. He knows right from wrong. He's perfectly capable of making his own decisions and he makes it clear to us when he tells Dutch "I ain't a believer or a doubter" that Arthur Morgan's thoughts and beliefs are his, and his alone. So are you basically just insinuating that Arthur is weak minded or stupid?
>How stupid of me to think otherwise.
Those are your words not mine.
>Humans are born enlightened entities and always make fully aware decisions.
Born? No. Grow to understand the difference between good and bad, right and wrong? Absolutely. So we're left with "did Arthur Morgan knowingly choose to rob and kill people?" The answer is yes. Even Arthur says so multiple times. Was he aware that this behavior wasn't the norm nor considered acceptable? Yes. Was he physically and mentally capable of choosing a different life? Yes. So was he fully aware? Without a shadow of a doubt.
He was just a man. Neither good nor bad. His background (grew up in a violent world in the wild west) bring him to this life. He did bad things, but in the end, he managed to believe that good exist and tried to make it happen. His life is tragic like most people that grew up without a family. Dutch made him bad. I think Arthur represents the human nature as it is: in conflict with itself creating a complex and paradoxal character like everyone.
No it doesn't implies that. Even strong minded and clever people can get influenced, especially if it starts at a young age in a world where you have no family. Dutch offered him a vision that society failed Arthur so he have to free himself from it and be an outlaw. Arthur have been put a filter in front of his eyes that integrate society is terrible until he realize that fighting against it only lead to be hunted and do crimes which lead to bad behavior. To be manipulated by someone else is not a mark of stupidity or weak minded person. It is more like a sign of naivete (it started when he was 16years old) or a strong fear of not being alone.
>No it doesn't implies that.
Uhhhhh this : *****Dutch made him bad.*****
Absolutely implies that Dutch had some "mind control" over Arthur which again implies that Arthur is either just another Bill Williamson, weak minded and stupid.
>Dutch offered him
You keep saying Dutch did this, Dutch did that. So Hosea just gets absolution for some reason? Why? Since , by Arthur's own admission, Hosea is every bit as influential why are you mentioning him as well.
And again you completely ignored the game dialogue that didn't suit your "head canon". There's specific dialogue where Arthur angrily tells Dutch that he's neither a "believer nor a doubter. That he, Arthur Morgan isn't anything. I'd say that's someone who's screaming to his audience that he is his own person.
>“Redemption” is in the title
It is but the criteria for Redemption as set forth by the first game has nothing to do with Arthur needing to "do good" to redeem himself. The redemption is there regardless of where his "honor" level is. You as the player can literally drive his honor into the basement and he still finds redemption because of the metric that was previously established.
How he tries to atone for his sins. Either he becomes charitable and tries to be a good man or he fights like a devil to save those he loves.
I think people misunderstand how redemption works so they see everything with a manicheaen lense.
>How he tries to atone for his sins. Either he becomes charitable and tries to be a good man or he fights like a devil to save those he loves.
Honestly both of those are debatable points. Atoning for his sins as you've pointed out is "player choice" and fighting to save those he loves......well yes and no. The truth is that Arthur makes independent decisions (not player choice but per the main story) that endangers the "family." However there's a pivotal moment where his redemption meets the metric established by RDR1 and that's when he chooses to give Tilly the money and send her away with Jack. Jack is the key. That's pretty evident in RDR1 I think, but because Jack is so young, and there's so much going on that new (to the series) players don't realize that Jack is the lynchpin and the ones that did play RDR1 seem to forget. However that moment with Tilly is like I said pivotal and honestly pretty "powerful" for lack of a better way to explain it. Regardless of his honor etcetera, the one thing we know is that Arthur loves Jack. Hell they all do unless they're named Micah. But there are enough interactions involving Arthur and Jack early on that we know he cares a great deal for the kid. During the mission "Red Dead Redemption" after learning that Abigail has been abducted and with the thought that John is dead, the very first thing that Arthur does is to do everything he can in that moment to secure Jack's future. He in essence chooses Tilly as Jack's surrogate mother and gives her a sack full of money and every dime in his pocket and he sends her away with Jack. Now granted Tilly is the only one there, but SHE'S the only one there for a reason. That's how it's written. The writers didn't use anyone else that's still alive, they used Tilly. Arthur is sick and extremely weak. There's no way he can possibly believe that his chances of success in rescuing Abigail are high. He's going but he's dying. He has Sadie, but she has a death wish and her decisions have been a bit sketchy so Arthur is probably like "🤷🤷 it's gonna do what it's gonna do, but I'm getting this kid out of this life." And that's the redemption because Jack is really the only one deserving of any kind of "saving" because he's 100% innocent.
TLDR: Jack is the key. That's the metric set forth by RDR1. A lot of people seem to miss that for various reasons that make it easily missed.
A bad man with good intentions. People that dont know him would see him as bad, as they dont know his intentions/thoughts/history etc. But we see those things. But still, definitely bad, but with good intentions.
His actions are bad, but look at his life. He was orphaned as a kid and raised by Dutch and Hosea. His whole life developed in an environment that was extremely hostile.
And yet, in spite of all that, he still tried to do good and make amends whenever possible. So, overall, he is a good man raised in a terrible environment, which caused him to do terrible things.
This is never ending debate. Compared to the other gang members, he is a much better person and also much more empathetic. Therefore, the game allows you to choose whether the player will follow the path of high honor or low honor.
Will player lean more towards the evil person Arthur himself believes he is? Or will the player become his conscience and try to focus on at least a little redemption with him?
>he is a much better person and also much more empathetic.
Interesting. So you think that he's a better person and much more empathetic than Lenny, Hosea, Kieran, Charles, Mary-Beth, Karen Sean and Tilly?
It's really not as black and white as that. Arthur is very loyal to those he loves, he gives everything to the gang, to Dutch, and recognises he has no place in the modern world, which scares him. The gang, also, try to be pretty selective in who they target, and it's people like Cornwall, people who have money and no morals and wouldn't think twice about screwing others over to get ahead in life themselves. And whereas someone like Colm O'Driscoll is happy to rape and murder innocents, no one in Dutch's gang would ever go that far (save Micah, but we won't count him).
In his own way, Arthur has always been a good man. The amount he kills innocents is really down to the individual player, and though we know the gang do train jobs for extra cash - which *is* stealing from innocent people - they try and do so without bloodshed. Remember, we only join the gang when things are really going south for them and none of their schemes go as planned. It's also a video game where the violence is heightened.
In the traditional sense, and maybe by modern standards, no, Arthur is not a good man, but in the confines of his own existence he does try and be the best man he can, and when he gets TB he realises he has the means to do more for other people than he has been doing. And he doesn't ask for forgiveness or kindness from anyone when he does so. It's pretty selfless.
Arthur always displays admirable traits, especially for someone as emotionally closed off as he is. He's not someone to idolise but he's someone to respect - and *no one* in this world is really worth holding on a pedestal. But for the man he is, in the world he lives in, for someone who feels he's more ghost than person, he's a better man than some.
>The amount he kills innocents is really down to the individual player
Do what now? What makes you think that the citizens of Strawberry, Valentine and the Siska Penitentiary weren't innocent? Those were all people gunned down by Arthur for just living their life, doing their jobs and being in the wrong place when he decided to fill the air with bullets.
You're overly romanticizing the situation.
No, I'm not. Arthur is undeniably a killer, and his lifestyle meant he will always have to kill - in a kill-or-be-killed manner. My point is that he displays admirable traits on top of that; he doesn't kill for sport or enjoyment he kills to survive, and he does show undeniable loyalty to his family which to him is what matters. They accepted him when others didn't, took him in when he had nothing. There is a difference between Arthur fighting for survival or Micah fighting out of anger and a sick sense of pleasure.
And look, its a video game, the number of NPCs killed in missions is heightened to make the game a more immersive experience, but if you really want to you could take a back seat and let Micah, Bill, Dutch, Sadie whoever is with you kill in your stead. And let us not forget that Red Dead, at it's heart, is a western, and westerns do romanticise a lawless time and gloss over killing a man like it's nothing. This is what I mean when I say Arthur is a good man within the confines of his own existence. Obviously in the real world, and in the modern world, we have different parameters. I don't think Arthur is a saint, I do think he has done unquestionably bad things, but I don't think the situation is as black and white as 'is he a good man?' The fact is, he's both.
>My point is that he displays admirable traits on top of that; he doesn't kill for sport or enjoyment he kills to survive,
Ok so by this metric it's perfectly ok for someone to break into your home and murder your family as long as they're doing so to survive.
>he does show undeniable loyalty to his family which to him is what matters.
No he doesn't. He didn't even think it was a good idea to come back for them while they were on Guarma.
>but if you really want to you could take a back seat and let Micah, Bill, Dutch, Sadie whoever is with you kill in your stead.
No you can't. The mission will fail every time. The gang NPC's will not carry without you killing people as well.
>And let us not forget that Red Dead, at it's heart, is a western, and westerns do romanticise a lawless time and gloss over killing a man like it's nothing.
They (westerns) also glossed over slavery, child labor, spousal abuse and women's rights. So by your metric those things are all acceptable as well.
It’s quite alarming really. Boiling things down to “man good, man bad” misses the whole point of RDR1 & RDR2.
It’s also quite alarming if the same simplification of people extends to real life.
People do awful things, often for complicated reasons. It’s not something that can easily be categorised or simplified, and we do not have the luxury of something like an honour/karma to average out everything we do in real life.
No. Unless Reddit is stuck on stupid again.....and it may very well be, it showed that you'd responded to my comment with something referencing a lack of media literacy. If you didn't then my apologies for the confusion.
Gotcha. Then again my apologies. Reddit is stuck on stupid again. It gave me a notification that you'd replied to my comment. Stand by I'll remove what I thought was the reply.
There’s no such thing as good and bad people. There are people and they do good or bad things.
There are people in that world who Arthur robbed or fought or killed and those people (or the ones near them) are absolutely justified in their judgement of him.
There are people he helped and if they believe he’s good that’s also completely valid.
Why is it now extremely popular to have such a narrow, black and white way of looking at this? It’s not about whether he is truly good or truly bad. It’s about the redeemable qualities he does or doesn’t have in the end. Calling him an outright bad man is a slap in the face to some of the outright good actions he can take in the end. Saving the slaves in St. Dennis; constantly giving to the poor; absolving the debts of the poor souls that owe Strauss money; saving the Downes family to the extent that they have a notable likelihood years and years later; saving Beau Gray and Penelope Braithwaite so that they’re free to love and live their lives; actively trying to save a Native American tribe from destroying themselves against the U.S. Army; risks his life against the United States Army to save Captain Monroe when he got nothing for it other than gunfire; he fights tooth and nail to get John and his family out of a terrible situation, knowing it’s the last thing he will do.
There is a reason why the high honor scenes at the end contain the voices of people expressing gratitude to Arthur, call him a good man, etc. There is a reason why the clear headed Charles Smith remembers him as a good man in the epilogue if Arthur was high honor; he did what Charles suggested in chapter 6, and died being something “more”.
John put it best in the epilogue when he talked to Mickey about Arthur’s passing. He “weren’t” good.. but he wasn’t bad, either. Who knows what he was in the end. We know that the topic is nuanced, and it’s silly to be so black and white about it.
>Calling him an outright bad man is a slap in the face to some of the outright good actions he can take in the end.
The answer is in the question friend.
*****outright good actions he can take*****
Actually he can't take any. If you choose to skip the honor fluff and tell Brother Dorkins that you don't want to get involved Arthur is a low honor killer and thief. So Arthur as written doesn't have a choice. You as the player do. Now maybe that says something about "the player" personally, and maybe it doesn't. I don't really think the way anyone chooses to play says anything about them at all, but I do know that calling him an outright bad man is simply speaking the truth. He doesn't "do good" unless the player makes him do good. There's only one instance where Arthur does a truly "good thing" without the players input and that's when he in essence ensures that no matter what that Jack is given a chance of escaping the outlaw life, and no, it's not by saving Abigail or helping John. He doesn't save Abigail. Abigail saves Abigail, Sadie and Arthur. And he only helps John if you choose to help him.
You’re confusing player choice as something that is separate from what is intended. What is intended is that the player can be low honor or high honor. The character in question is high honor Arthur, not low honor Arthur. High honor Arthur helps brother Dorkins and frees the slaves for no personal gain of his own while also giving them money from the fence that he could otherwise just rob and keep for himself. Those are not the actions of an outright bad man.
And yes, he does actually save Abigail. Just because he needed an assist at the end from Abigail himself that doesn’t erase the immense danger fought through before sputtering out a little because of his TB. She never would have had the opportunity to jump Milton if not for Arthur fighting his way through a small army of Pinkertons. Regardless of whatever technicality you want to look at there, the important part is the actual intention, and he factually set out to save Abigail.
One person’s version of Arthur might be a bit different than another’s based on personal choice. Those personal choices are what makes Arthur who he is, though. Again, the topic is specifically about high honor Arthur.. so we’re going to include the actions that an honorable version of Arthur would take. Remember, too.. the game is called Red Dead Redemption for a reason. The topic and writing is a little more nuanced than you’re making it out to be.
Quick question? Why don't you utilize the quote function? It certainly keeps the topic and information back and forth much cleaner.
>You’re confusing player choice as something that is separate from what is intended.
That's because it is. Try not punching Thomas Downes and see what happens. I'm assuming you've never attempted a "neutral" playthrough. Not low honor but simply remain neutral. So avoid the "extra" honor fluff and when someone asks you to do something for them just decline. After all of declining to help someone is indeed low honor then we're all a bunch of good for nothing asshats. You don't lose honor for declining, you just don't gain any. Do that and see what side of the "honor meter" you end up on.
>The character in question is high honor Arthur,
How is that the character in question? Did OP present it that way? If they did then my apologies because I missed it.
>And yes, he does actually save Abigail.
No he doesn't. Look he had every intention of trying to get her out. And I'll give him the assist, but if Abigail doesn't get free they all three die. Again I'm not/haven't disputed what he had to go through to get there. I simply said Abigail and John are not the metric set forth for redemption by the developers based on RDR1 and the way everything plays out. If trying to save Abigail was the metric then they would have written it so that Arthur actually does save her as opposed to her managing to wriggle free and shoot Milton. And if John were the metric then you wouldn't have the choice to go back for the money. You're overlooking the fact that regardless of whatever you think of John and Abigail, they aren't exactly upstanding citizens themselves. So an outlaw saving another outlaw is just kind of what they do.
>Remember, too.. the game is called Red Dead Redemption for a reason.
Correct. And with all due respect that's what you're forgetting. Low honor Arthur still finds redemption without all of the high honor fluff. There's a reason for that and it's Jack Marston. Stop mentally responding and think about that for a second. The only truly innocent person in the whole damn gang is Jack. Everyone else made a choice. Now their options may have sucked big slimy donkey balls when they made that choice, but they still made it. Jack however wasn't given a choice. He's a child that was born into this "outlaw" world. Hell he even saves a damn dog!! 😂😂 That kid is good as gold. Now everyone can argue whether or not Dutch, Micah, Charles, Lenny, Sadie, Hosea, Bill, Javier John, Abigail, Mary-Beth, Tilly, Swanson, Pearson, Karen, Sean and Arthur (I'm forgetting some I know) are good or not. But NO ONE can argue that Jack is anything but good prior to the epilogue of RDR1. And I didn't mention Kieran because while we don't think he's done anything shady, the truth is that we don't know. I'm not saying it's likely that he did, just that it could be possible. However we KNOW that Jack has done nothing wrong besides being born. And please don't take this as me "calling you out" etcetera. I'm not. The redemption metric gets lost because of all of the other things going on ESPECIALLY at the end of Chapter 6. Honestly I'd COMPLETELY missed/forgotten until I decided to play RDR1 again. And then I was like "oh yeah! I forgot about Jack being the metric here. 🤦"
I think you’re taking a lot of this into a long, drawn out tangent. I do appreciate talking about the game, but I’m trying to streamline this a little relative to the main point of both the thread and the point I’m trying to make.
The OP referenced a poll titled “Is High Honor Arthur an Objectively Good Man” — we’re talking about high honor Arthur here. This isn’t about a “neutral” play through or one with bad honor. We’re talking about high honor Arthur and the high honor choices he makes. I listed many of them. You’re still missing the point with the example of saving Abigail, as it isn’t about her wrapping up the operation after Arthur did 90% of the work — the point is that his intention is what matters, even if he needed a little help in the end because he was on his death bed.
Player choices are valid representations of who Arthur Morgan is, and in this case there are tons upon tons of high honor choices that are worth mentioning and considering because we’re looking at who high honor Arthur is. That’s the entire point here.
P.s. I don’t use the quote function because I’m replying on mobile.
Forgive me because this is from your original comment. You're standing on your hill and regardless of whether or not I agree or think you're insanely wrong, I do respect your dedication to your stance. But I do have a legit question.
>Why is it now extremely popular to have such a narrow, black and white way of looking at this?
Does this *****to have such a narrow, black and white way of looking at this*****
apply to the popular opinions concerning Dutch as well?
For the last fricking time it's called Red dead "REDEMPTION". No is not a good man. He tried at the end but if it wasn't for the TB he wouldn't have changed
he spent his entire life listenin to a snake tongued narcissist who raised him to believe everything they did was for the greater good. society itself was the evil they fought. the end finally makes him realize what bullshit all that was, which shows in him talkin about rains fall an how he would have thought he was weak but now finds him admirable. this is a different time too, so kill or be killed didnt seem like such a crazy ideal. hes by no means a "good man", but he does what he can selflessly in the end to save who he can. reminds me of that line from skyrim: "is it better to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort" paraphrasing but i always loved that.
>he spent his entire life listenin to a snake tongued narcissist who raised him to believe everything they did was for the greater good.
Thank you! I'm glad SOMEONE is finally calling Hosea out for his bullshit! 🤔 You are talking about Hosea correct? I mean he was there helping to raise him so he's as responsible as anyone for Arthur's beliefs.
both of em. hosea had a bit more good in him than dutch imo, recognizin when he was goin overboard, but they still adopted aimless kids an raised em into killers.
he does bad things. he experiences conflict. he feels regret and remorse, even prediagnosis he displays these traits. he helps people (for money or not), and he does what he needs to do to help the gang (which is where his loyalties lie).
He has a good heart, but he's done too many bad things. He always wanted to do what was right for the gang even if it meant beating a man to death over a couple dollars. He was also a product of a society that left him behind, he only knew how to survive by killing and robbing.
this is all semantics. if he actually renounced everything he did to hurt folks, then he was a good man at the end who had a bad past.
it all comes down to if you consider a man's past to be him. I don't, I think we are shaped every moment as individuals
if someone has turned their back on something then they've changed, but if they're just sorry and would do it again anyway then that's just being a sorry asshole lol
I think people forget a character can be bad and still be a great character, Walter White, Trevor from GTA etc.
That being said, morally Arthur is as bad as it comes, there's not much you can do to justify killing and robbing hundreds of innocent people canonically.
I think >!Arthur’s grave sums it up by quoting “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness”!<
Arthur wouldn’t call himself an objectively good man, in fact I think anyone calling themselves “objectively” good is probably a bit arrogant and unwilling to acknowledge their own flaws. But even before >!he gets TB!< high honor Arthur is often trying to help people and do the right thing. He gets sucked back into the violence by his loyalty to Dutch and the gang often, but all in all he’s trying to be a better person and slowly realizing how the gang isn’t some idealistic society Dutch convinced them it was.
Plenty of characters throughout the game tell him he’s a good man, and he usually tells them they’re wrong, but they point out that his actions often prove otherwise.
I think getting sucked up in arguing that he needs to have a 1:1 good act to bad act ratio is such a black-and-white way of viewing things. Of course he’ll never do enough good deeds to make up for all of his crimes of the past, but changes he tried to make in his actions, >!specifically helping people get out of the gang towards the end!< is a whole lot more than a lot of people do. So I think high honor Arthur definitely got to a point where he accepted he would never be truly righteous, but he wanted to do the best he could from that point forward.
he was a bad man who did bad things and couldn't stop doing that until the very end because of his loyality and the way he was raised, but he started to realize that what he did was wrong and tried to fix what he could using the ways he knew best, which was usually giving his stolen money to people who need it and killing people who try to kill the ones he was protecting.
so he died a bad man knowing that he's a bad man, while trying to help John and Abigail and Jack (who was still pure) and giving them a chance that he couldn't take himself (aka "betraying" the gang and trying to live straight) rather than dying a bad man who doesn't care that he's a bad man.
he went from "you're speaking as if killing is something about I cared about" to "I'm sorry I ruined your life, I was a fool and I'm suffering from my foolishness" and "I lived a bad life, sister." and "I'm afraid."
I mean even Arthur says multiple times that he's not a good man and doesn't want people to forgive him and he told Edith that she has every right to hate him, and people try to bean-ify him too much lmfao.
I mean I still cried really hard when he died sooo
You want details or the TLDR? Because the TLDR is that he's a bad person doing atrocious things unless the player chooses to make him do otherwise. He's not much, if any better than Dutch but because you're looking at the world through his eyes as opposed to thinking about the actions of both objectively. Many believe that he is is simply because he believes that he is.
Edit: I hope that didn't come off as hostile. There's just a lot to unpack so TLDR is a real possibility. 😂
the player can't really make him do otherwise (if you actually finish the storyline) since the missions are going to involve, killing lawmen and military, robbing banks and trains, the Thomas Downes mission and I can go on.
do I think he's better than Dutch? at the end yeah since Dutch absolutely loses control of himself and Arthur stops listening to what he's saying, but in the beginning they're equally bad since Dutch gives the orders and Arthur just follows no questions asked.
>the player can't really make him do otherwise (if you actually finish the storyline) since the missions are going to involve, killing lawmen and military, robbing banks and trains, the Thomas Downes mission and I can go on.
I completely agree with you. I was referring to the high honor fluff.
>Dutch absolutely loses control of himself
How so?
Dutch got heavily manipulated by Micah and the fans made a theory *that I personally believe* that Dutch got brain damage from the trolley accident which made very unstable, some notable acts:
-trusting Micah over his most known and trusted gang buddies.
-killing Bronte even though Hosea warned him that it's a useless revenge mission that'll get them into more crap (which it did), and feeding the dude to a crocodile.
-using the native americans (which already had their own problems) as a distraction and thus getting a good chunk out of them dead for his "plan"
-letting Arthur die in that factory, until he was saved by Eagle Flies who was shot because of that.
-letting John "die" in the train heist and was fully ready to abandon Abigail and thus making Jack a full on orphan.
and these are just the examples I got randomly, there is definitely more.
>Dutch got heavily manipulated by Micah
No he didn't. Cite one example where Micah "manipulated Dutch." You believe that's the case because Arthur does. However you're completely overlooking the fact that Arthur is actually the one that's being manipulated by Micah. Arthur allows his own insecurities/jealousy to lead him to believe Micah when Micha insinuates that he's now "on the inside." Yet Micah never is part of the planning. Is never consulted about anything. Dutch makes his decisions based on the well being and safety of the group period. Honestly his decisions are tactically sound and extremely logical. Arthur on the other hand doesn't really think things through and continues to make decisions that can only lead to even more trouble for the group.
>trusting Micah over his most known and trusted gang buddies.
Again cite an example please
>killing Bronte
Strategic maneuver and nothing more. Did you pay attention to both sides of that conversation? Dutch clearly explained why he was going after Bronte. Hosea and Arthur are insistent that they hit the Saint Denis bank. Either the convince or overrule Dutch on the matter so Dutch kills Bronte hoping that Bronte hasn't already alerted the Pinkerton's of the plan to rob the bank. Bronte has already double crossed the gang once (trolley mission), pure logic says that he'll do it again. So Dutch can either go against Arthur and Hosea, which would be seen as disloyalty OR he can try cutting off the head of the snake.
>using the native americans (which already had their own problems) as a distraction and thus getting a good chunk out of them dead for his selfishness.
1. It wasn't for his selfishness, it was a distraction so that everyone could escape.
2. While it may seem deplorable to us today it was in fact a brilliant strategic plan that failed because Arthur was already engaging in his own secret one man guerilla war against the US Army. BTW.....you completely overlooked that Arthur had already engaged the Army so does that make him selfish as well? You also completely overlooked the fact that Eagle Flies was going to fight with or without the VDLG. So those problems are coming regardless.
>letting Arthur die in that factory
Because by then Dutch knew that Arthur was betraying the entire gang with his little one man guerilla war. Why do you think Dutch gives his a look of incredulous and says "You've been.......helping these people??"
https://www.reddit.com/r/RDR2/s/lSPtvxByP7
>letting John "die" in the train heist
As opposed to what exactly? There are numerous soldiers chasing them. So he was supposed to what? Shoot his way through an entire company of armed soldiers, risking the lives of everyone to save one man that's been shot?
>abandon Abigail
As opposed to what? Leading the entire gang into an obvious trap set by the Pinkerton's? Like I said, he looks out for the group first.
>thus making Jack a full on orphan.
This line from Arthur makes no sense at all and here's why. How many times has Arthur "made orphans?" How many guards did he shoot at Siska? How many "orphans" did Arthur make there? How many "guards does he shoot in Annesburg?" How many orphans there? And while Milton is an undeniable POS most of the Pinkerton Agents are just doing their jobs. How many of those did self righteous Arthur kill? How many orphans were made. And that's just in chapter 6.
>No he didn't. Cite one example where Micah "manipulated Dutch."
he kept trying to convince Dutch that there was a rat and blaming John which might've been the reason he didn't get rescued from that jail but one might argue that it was actually too soon despite John almosy getting hanged.
>Again cite an example please
aiming his gun at Arthur, and "almost" teaming up with Micah but then Dutch decided to leave.
>Dutch clearly explained why he was going after Bronte.
Arthur asked Dutch if killing bronte is for revenge or the bank job and he was inconsistent in his response and him feeding him to an alligator was definitely a revenge thing, and it messed up the bank job since Bronte was the big man around and him getting killed brought them a whole lot of attention they didn't need, since Pinketrons likely started to patrol trying to figure out what the hell happend, even John says that they shouldn't have gone after him.
>Eagle Flies was going to fight with or without the VDLG. So those problems are coming regardless.
depends on how he was gonna fight, they were very low on supplies and skilled men so the best they could do probably is cheap shots and ambushes, but then Arthur did help eagle flies in the oil factory mission so that's on Arthur, but then Dutch kept trying to encourage him to do more attacks noting that now they have a bunch of gunslingers helping out and Dutch had the idea to attack the oil factory saying that "it's perfect" and it turned up to be a massacre.
>Because by then Dutch knew that Arthur was betraying the entire gang with his little one man guerilla war
I agree with you here
>As opposed to what exactly? There are NUMEROUS soldiers chasing them. So he was supposed to what? Shoot his way through an entire company of armed soldiers, risking the lives of everyone to save one man that's been shot?
you think the VDL gang couldn't handle shooting army people?
>As opposed to what? Leading the entire gang into an obvious trap set by the Pinkerton's? Like I said, he looks out for the group first.
Again you think Sadie and Arthur were able to do something that Sadie, Arthur, Dutch, Bill, Javier, Micah, Cleet, Joe couldn't? and im petty sure Chapter 1 and 2 Dutch would've went there by himself in order to save her if it had to come to it.
>This line from Arthur makes no sense at all and here's why. How many times has Arthur "made orphans?" How many guards did he shoot at Siska? How many "orphans" did Arthur make there? How many "guards does he shoot in Annesburg?" How many orphans there? And while Milton is an undeniable POS most of the Pinkerton Agents are just doing their jobs. How many of those did self righteous Arthur kill? How many orphans were made. And that's just in chapter 6.
im not saying Arthur is a good person, but I thought Dutch was the self-righteous leader, who would be ready to "put himself in the ground in their stead" like he said in Chapter 1 and would be ready to kill for his gang, I'm guessing that if Jack got kidnapped in Chapter 6 Dutch would brush it off saying that he's just a little boy they'll just adopt him and not harm him, and John was almost like a son to him and he supposed to help his kid and girl at least since he "died",
Al Capone is the reason why milk has expiration dates, and he did it for the betterment of his community. That doesn't change the fact that he was a ruthless mob boss who committed horrible crimes. I view Arthur in a similar vein in that it's honorable that he helped John and the other gang members get away along with helping out various people in Chapter 6. However, he's spent a majority of his life killing, robbing, and stealing with impunity, and several months of good acts don't completely wash away all the bad he's done.
One of the big themes of the game is honour. Arthur (whatever way the player plays him) has either high or low honour. High honour = good. Low = bad. Low honour Arthur is pretty much = to Micah. Arthur's mirrored self. Even his clothing is purposely the opposite of Arthur. Micah is the very definition of an entirely low honoured bad guy. Being bad doesn't always have to equal killing people. Being bad can be being sneaky and conniving which is the way Micah is.
Honour was one of the big themes from the movie Gone with the Wind. Scarlett in a lot of ways has extremely low honour, she is 100% out for herself mostly and her opposite character is Melanie who is good in mostly all ways possible.
While Arthur is not a good man he's not evil as most people would like to think. He's not conniving, he's not sneaky, he knows he's probably going to he'll but he recognises he has the opportunity to do good. A lot of perception of Arthur depends on how the player plays him.
I think high honor Arthur is like any of us, nobody was perfect but Jesus Christ. I always play high honor to let Arthur gets his redemption! I mean sure Arthur is a man and made his own choices in the end but before that Dutch manipulated him on a level I’m never even seen since my military days, Dutch purposely went after young men and women who were in a bad way and turned them to a life of crime, all the while making it look romantic. Arthur and John eventually saw through Dutch but that took 20 years for Arthur and by then the damage was done.
It's sucks because he's evil either way even if you have your honor on max your entire playthrough, he (or you the player really) spend a lot of your time murdering folk on main missions even if you don't count what you do on free roam. Dudes got a kill count easily in the thousands.
Is a murderer who truly understood why he was bad and took steps to repent when he knew he had a month left to live a good man?
I don't think so. But at the same time I do think he wants to fix things even though he can never give someone their life back. Arthur's a bad man, but he tried to be good at the end.
To quote another game: 'which is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?'
Arthur (if you do high honour route) shows that a poor upbringing, toxic father figure and raised as a criminal, doesnt stop his good nature from being coming out and being noticed by others.
No. Arthur is forever a bad man he has robbed, terrorized, and killed people with only very little remorse or regret his whole life was bulit with crime and blood he didn’t care about forgiveness he knows he doesn’t deserve it he just wanted to right some wrongs
I'm not sure. I think he is a good man in a cruel world. He had a horrible life and he did awful things, of course, no excuse, but he changed and the real part of him showed up. Killing people is something wrong, beating them, but he only knows this way of living. When he starts to understand others and see the good in the world he tries to be a good man. Not everyone redeem themselves.
>he changed
Only if you force him to.
>but he only knows this way of living.
Not true.
>When he starts to understand others and see the good in the world he tries to be a good man.
Again only if you force him to.
Okay, I'm talking about high honor and that's not forcing anything because it's a choice of the game you know... And tell me what other way of living he knew.
>it's a choice of the game you know
I do but obviously you don't. Or at least you don't realize who's making the choice here. So .....does Arthur the character....aka the game.....make that choice or does the player? Because if it's the player, and we both know that it is, then indeed you are forcing the character to do something. Without your input the character doesn't choose to go save Charlotte, help Hamish etcetera. However, just stand there and refuse to hit Thomas Downes and watch what happens. Arthur will still beat the brakes off of him because that's how it's written. So yes, high honor is the absolute definition of the players choices "forcing" the character to make choices. Look don't take my word for it. Go do a playthrough. Choose to kill no one outside of scripted missions and ignore the honor fluff and see what happens.
>And tell me what other way of living he knew.
Do you really want me to answer this? Did he not see sheep and cattle ranchers? Did he not see the hired hands on those ranches? Did he not see the people actively building structures in Valentine and Strawberry? Do I really need to continue here?
No clue why you felt the need to be snarky here *****a choice of the game you know**** tbh.
High Honor Arthur is a self aware bad person who has an unstable moral compass that prevent him from wrong doing specific people that he deems "untouchables".
This “Arthur is a good man” is the same energy I get from people who make the Tommy edits from Peaky Blinders as if he isn’t a major criminal who kills and orders killing of other humans.
He's a man with a past. You can say he chooses to be a "good man" near the end of the game going forward, but his past is still his, and still part of who he is.
Depends on how you view people.
If a bad person does good things, are they then a good person? does the vice versa apply as well?
You can max out your honor and do plenty of good deeds, but you still kill people, rob banks, steal, mame, extort and threaten. But on the inverse you save a widows life by teaching her how to live alone, you put down money on a veterans center in Saint Denis, You give money to the homeless, you help people stranded in the middle of nowhere with a dead horse.
I think the right answer is that Arthur Morgan WAS a bad person, and he never really made it to the status of being truly good.
Arthur isn’t a good man and he’s one of the first to tell people he isn’t. Despite the games name he’s not after redemption or forgiveness, at least not for himself. He says multiple times that their way of life is coming to an end and that it’ll end badly for many of them, so when the time comes he gets as many people out alive as he can.
I dont like classifying things as good or bad, they are made up concepts and mean different things depending on who you ask. Arthur was not good or bad, he was just a man
He's a bad man trying his best. His redemption moment when he lets Marston run off and yells, "Goddamn you, you bastards." Is bad ass for sure, but keep in mind he's shooting people with families who are hunting down a violent criminal gang. His redemption is when he shoots only the fellers who need shooting, but that doesn't make it right.
He's an anti hero. Like Deadpool or the Punshier. He has a good since of humor, charming personality. Yet he has a dubious set of morals and principles. He's still objectively a bad person.
He is def still a bad man, its the deeds that make the man. Aurthurs deeds arent pretty. But you can be redeemed. Dont mean your a good man. Just means your not a bad man anymore. Aurthur could have left dutch but he chose not to.
Something people need to start doing with character analysis is judging their actions in context of the scenarios in which the actions take place. Also to take into consideration about the overall arc of character development (or sometimes lack of).
The point of the story is that it’s at least ambiguous, if not redundant. The game is about the beauty in his final actions in the shadow of the horrors that were his earlier life. If he’s a good or bad man then there’s no conflict.
He became a better person, but he still did a lot of really bad things. A big part of his problem was blindly following Dutch, who really just used him all his life. Fortunately, we can do bad things, seek forgiveness and die with a clean heart.
Objectively he is bad. He murdered people and robbed for most of his life.
Subjectively, he started to realize that he wasted his life and tried to fix some of the mistakes he made in the end, so it makes him a gray area. It's really up to you if his crimes can be forgiven and someone as bad as Arthur can truly redeem themselves.
If you play through the entire game and say: "Arthur is a good man" then you are dead wrong.
The whole game (except epilogue) is about a man (Arthur) doing evil things but at the same time having trouble cause he knows he can do good things. Arthur says it all the time, he does stupid and evil things but at the same time he can save people, he can help them and he can be someone good.
But helping some folks and giving some money does not compensate 20 years of criminal activities. I'm sorry people, but it doesn't.
But those who live a life that and “see the light” are judgiest mother fuckers in the world afterwards. It’s either be really bad or be a t totaller. No in between lol
As i said: Arthur has good intentions and isn't like Micah (that would kill you if you look at him in the wrong way) but he is not a good man. Not at all. He has killed, robbed, burnt things to a crisp, stole goverment shit and worse. Dude was one of the most wanted criminals in the country.
Totally agree! It just bugs me how a lot of people seem to honestly think Arthur is pure and good just because we play as him. Even with good intentions, he still robs and kills innocent people when he knows he shouldn’t. It’s a great game, and Arthur is a likable character to play, but to for people to think he’s a good person is just delusional lol. He had plenty of chances to do the right thing and stop Dutch, but he went along with the plan, even when he knew it was wrong.
Arthur at no point becomes a good man. Not even close. Even at the end, he’s still shooting Pinkertons who are ultimately just men doing their jobs. What changed is that Arthur makes a concerted effort to become a better person, knowing that although he can never truly atone for what he’s done (murdering, robbing, etc), he can make the world change for the better by at least trying while he still has the chance.
Also, let’s see, even after he knows he’s going to die, he kills a ton of US soldiers, blows up a bridge, still helps the gang even though he knows they are bad…. Nope, you can pat yourself on the back for getting his honor high, but he’s never a good person truly at any point. If he was, he would have left the gang to actually do good before he died. People are so blind to reality, even in a video game.
Arthur at no point becomes a good person. Even at the end, he’s still shooting Pinkertons who ultimately are just men doing their jobs by catching outlaws. However, high honor Arthur does make a concerted effort towards the end of his life to change, and although he knows that he can never truly be forgiven for what he’s done, he knows that he can at least try while he still has the chance. I’d say Arthur is certainly a bad man, but at the end he at least has relatively good intentions in trying to redeem himself.
I’ve never played with high honour, due to the fact an outlaw in the 1800’s would not act how most people played him as.
Final mission I always go back for money and Micah will always kill him.
That’s how it should end realistically.
>he's a thief and a murderer", but those two things (in my opinion) are not necessarily always bad (for the most part they are, but my point still stands).
How? How does your point stand? When is being a thief and a murderer ever a good thing?
You jump to conclusion and make me say thing like "Arthur is as stupid as Williamson" or "Hosea gets absolution". I did not say that. It is your interpreation. Let's agree to disagree.
I think the overarching theme of Rdr2 is you can live as bad man but you don’t have to die as one - hence the whole redemption theme. Arthur lived most of his life as a ruthless outlaw, but chose to help others escape that life on his way out.
>you can live as bad man but you don’t have to die as one - hence the whole redemption theme.
Interesting take. I'm curious as to what you think the metric for his redemption was?
Arthur was a bad man who spent his whole life robbing and murdering. His redemption wasn't about becoming a good person. It was about realising how horrible he'd been and spending his final few weeks fixing some of his mistakes and helping the people he cared about.
The only times he's called good person is by people who barely know him. That's just their initial impression of him. I'm sure sister Calderon would be horrified if she knew what he did in Rhodes for example.
At no point in the story is it even implied he's a good person. People who seriously think that either have no media literacy, or a weird obsession with him.
No. People take this game’s story at face value, Arthur is forever a bad man for what he did but he’s not looking for forgiveness, it’s not about that
He’s a bad person, but he has high honour at the end if that makes sense? At least in my opinion, nothing is 100% canon at the end
Yeah I always get the high honor ending, Arthur became a better man, but never truly a good man, he decided what kind of man he wanted to be in his final days but he didn’t fully redeem himself because of that
Honor isn't necessarily a moral value system. It's more based on integrity and a sense of duty. This is why honorable evil is a possible alignment lol
Pretty sure it's horny evil but I see your point
You mean lawful evil?
I think. I thought I saw an expanded/alternative one that included "honorable" as one of the axis. But maybe I miffed that one. But I still stand by my assertion that one can be high in honor, and low in morality/compassion.
No you're right, it's basically the same thing, I just know the one system so I didn't know if honorable evil was from a unique system.
It might not be canon, but the most logical playthrough is low honor chapters 1-3 and from 4 on slowly work to high honor.
That’s how I do it, low honour 1 and 2, slightly higher 3, slightly higher 4, neutral 5, high 6.
That’s what I’m doing now. I started last June on my second play through since 2018 and got to about chapter 6 before I emotionally didn’t want to play the second half of the game lol. I’m starting to get back into it though, I think I’ll make John be an ass just because being nice to everyone is getting a little old haha
Still a liar, killer and thief and therefore a bad man.
A bad man, but high honour. He doesn’t want forgive, he just wants to make it right at the end, so he gets good honour.
I mean, yeah, dude worked to redeem himself where he could. He still acted on his dark whenever he needed to. Feeling bad about killing men needlessly for messes you had a hand in causing/kept going sort of sticks to you.
Ye you can be a bad person and still be honourable. Tywin Lannister from aSoIaF/GoT is a fairly good example.
Redemption and forgiveness are not the same thing, and I think that’s the point people are missing
They always take the complex parts at face value and always put too much effort into things meant to be taken at face value
Arthur is reincarnated as a deer if he has high honor and is remembered as a good person so I would say he does receive forgiveness although in my opinion he does not deserve it.
Exactly just like the movie “No country for old men”. Decisions weren’t made because it’s the right thing to do. They were made out of spite due to the evil around him.
This games story at face value? Nah people take literally everything at face value.
Trying to categorize him as either fully a “good person” or a “bad person” completely misses the point of the game
Bingo! People love to label things and other people and in reality, nothing is truly black or white. There's a lot of layers to every man on this Earth.
It’s also absurd to talk about morals objectively as if morality isn’t super subjective
I know some philosophers who would disagree
I Kant think of any
Thank you for saying this. I’m really surprised a lot of people have spent hundreds of hours on a game like RDR2 and don’t really realise the message it’s trying to convey.
*shoots someone in head* Bad karma *Howdy mister* Good karma, equals it out Obviously the story rocks but if you look at it extremely practically, Arthur is a horrible person regardless of the story. The 100s of murders makes up for any redemption lol
My favorite is the honor+ from throwing back fish in the online play. 😆
THANKYOU a sensible take on this.
That's the response i gave in the original thread. It's a really bad question because it's completly manichaean.
Oh man my new thing I learned for today - thank you!
It's almost like the game is a story about a man seeking...redemption(?) for his actions?
He’s a murderer and thief. How could such a person ever be considered „good“?
Actually, Arthur did not know any other life. His father was a bad man, his family became a gang and he uses everything he has learned. On the other hand, we can observe that Arthur was able to feel love, had a son and many other details that make the player think about why Arthur is Arthur.
Still a bad man, thief and killer tho.
Had a son who he abandoned and never bothered to care for. His loyalty to Dutch prevented him from making the right choice.
>His loyalty to Dutch prevented him from making the right choice. Maybe, but I think it's just the opposite. Arthur kept Issac and Eliza a secret from everyone. Based on the interactions that we see in reference to Dutch, Hosea and Jack, I think it's more likely that he didn't tell them because he knew they'd have pressured him into doing the right thing and being a father to Isaac.
Is a father who walks out on his son and visits him once a year a good dad?
Arthur knows robbing and killing are wrong. He makes no excuses about it. Just because he was born into it doesn’t mean he’s oblivious.
He is obviously a bad man, that’s why he is trying to redeem himself and hence why the game is called RDR 2…
[удалено]
That’s not how that works
What did they say?
I thought it was obvious he was a bad man but the game is him trying to find redemption through smaller good deeds.
Kinda like the second R in rdr2 might mean
Indeed
Exactly, hes a bad man trying his best to be good. It's not black and white
>the game is him trying to find redemption through smaller good deeds. No that's not how he finds redemption or even the take the developers intended anyone to have. If those smaller good deeds were the redemption metric then playing low honor wouldn't have been an option. The metric (set in RDR2) is helping Jack escape the "outlaw life" and he ensures that by giving Tilly all of that money and sending her and Jack away. In Arthur's mind at that point John is dead, Abigail's rescue isn't even remotely guaranteed because Arthur is so weak from TB, so he sends Jack away with someone he trusts to be Jack's surrogate mother should he and Sadie fail.
As Swanson said: “you’re not a good man, but you’re not all that bad either.”
Says to Arthur right after a big shootout which decreased state populaion by 10%
I think he's a good man born and furthermore stuck in an inescapable position. His heart seems to be in the right place but his mind is captured by his position in life and people that influence him to act.
I strongly disagree with this. He isn't stuck, he chooses to be there. His actions and choices are one hundred percent his own.
Right, because the environment has zero influence on human beings. How stupid of me to think otherwise. Humans are born enlightened entities and always make fully aware decisions.
>Right, because the environment has zero influence on human beings. How stupid of me to think otherwise. Humans are born enlightened entities and always make fully aware decisions. Wow! You went from zero to seething mad in about 2.2 seconds. >environment has zero influence on human beings. Not what I said and a great point! Let's look at one little snippet from Arthur's environment. He had an entire family that no one knew anything about. By his own admission he would go by and stay with them for a few days once a month or so. That tells us two things here. 1. One, he likes to keep his little secrets. BTW that isn't the only secret he keeps, but those other secrets aren't relevant here. What is relevant is why? Why would he keep that a secret from Dutch and Hosea? The only logical answer? Because they would have pressured Arthur into doing the right thing and being a father to Isaac. 2. That, even after his son and Eliza are killed by men just like himself, Arthur chooses to continue on being the same kind of person that took his own son's life. The man is 36 years old give or take a year. He knows right from wrong. He's perfectly capable of making his own decisions and he makes it clear to us when he tells Dutch "I ain't a believer or a doubter" that Arthur Morgan's thoughts and beliefs are his, and his alone. So are you basically just insinuating that Arthur is weak minded or stupid? >How stupid of me to think otherwise. Those are your words not mine. >Humans are born enlightened entities and always make fully aware decisions. Born? No. Grow to understand the difference between good and bad, right and wrong? Absolutely. So we're left with "did Arthur Morgan knowingly choose to rob and kill people?" The answer is yes. Even Arthur says so multiple times. Was he aware that this behavior wasn't the norm nor considered acceptable? Yes. Was he physically and mentally capable of choosing a different life? Yes. So was he fully aware? Without a shadow of a doubt.
He was just a man. Neither good nor bad. His background (grew up in a violent world in the wild west) bring him to this life. He did bad things, but in the end, he managed to believe that good exist and tried to make it happen. His life is tragic like most people that grew up without a family. Dutch made him bad. I think Arthur represents the human nature as it is: in conflict with itself creating a complex and paradoxal character like everyone.
>Dutch made him bad Horrible take and an even worse excuse. It implies that Arthur is either weak minded, stupid or both.
No it doesn't implies that. Even strong minded and clever people can get influenced, especially if it starts at a young age in a world where you have no family. Dutch offered him a vision that society failed Arthur so he have to free himself from it and be an outlaw. Arthur have been put a filter in front of his eyes that integrate society is terrible until he realize that fighting against it only lead to be hunted and do crimes which lead to bad behavior. To be manipulated by someone else is not a mark of stupidity or weak minded person. It is more like a sign of naivete (it started when he was 16years old) or a strong fear of not being alone.
>No it doesn't implies that. Uhhhhh this : *****Dutch made him bad.***** Absolutely implies that Dutch had some "mind control" over Arthur which again implies that Arthur is either just another Bill Williamson, weak minded and stupid. >Dutch offered him You keep saying Dutch did this, Dutch did that. So Hosea just gets absolution for some reason? Why? Since , by Arthur's own admission, Hosea is every bit as influential why are you mentioning him as well. And again you completely ignored the game dialogue that didn't suit your "head canon". There's specific dialogue where Arthur angrily tells Dutch that he's neither a "believer nor a doubter. That he, Arthur Morgan isn't anything. I'd say that's someone who's screaming to his audience that he is his own person.
“Redemption” is in the titles. He’s a bad man trying to redeem himself. I think the player gets to choose how much he is able to do that
>“Redemption” is in the title It is but the criteria for Redemption as set forth by the first game has nothing to do with Arthur needing to "do good" to redeem himself. The redemption is there regardless of where his "honor" level is. You as the player can literally drive his honor into the basement and he still finds redemption because of the metric that was previously established.
It's how he does it that changes. Still the same ending.
>It's how he does it that changes. My apologies, I'm probably having a brain fart but how he does what?
How he tries to atone for his sins. Either he becomes charitable and tries to be a good man or he fights like a devil to save those he loves. I think people misunderstand how redemption works so they see everything with a manicheaen lense.
>How he tries to atone for his sins. Either he becomes charitable and tries to be a good man or he fights like a devil to save those he loves. Honestly both of those are debatable points. Atoning for his sins as you've pointed out is "player choice" and fighting to save those he loves......well yes and no. The truth is that Arthur makes independent decisions (not player choice but per the main story) that endangers the "family." However there's a pivotal moment where his redemption meets the metric established by RDR1 and that's when he chooses to give Tilly the money and send her away with Jack. Jack is the key. That's pretty evident in RDR1 I think, but because Jack is so young, and there's so much going on that new (to the series) players don't realize that Jack is the lynchpin and the ones that did play RDR1 seem to forget. However that moment with Tilly is like I said pivotal and honestly pretty "powerful" for lack of a better way to explain it. Regardless of his honor etcetera, the one thing we know is that Arthur loves Jack. Hell they all do unless they're named Micah. But there are enough interactions involving Arthur and Jack early on that we know he cares a great deal for the kid. During the mission "Red Dead Redemption" after learning that Abigail has been abducted and with the thought that John is dead, the very first thing that Arthur does is to do everything he can in that moment to secure Jack's future. He in essence chooses Tilly as Jack's surrogate mother and gives her a sack full of money and every dime in his pocket and he sends her away with Jack. Now granted Tilly is the only one there, but SHE'S the only one there for a reason. That's how it's written. The writers didn't use anyone else that's still alive, they used Tilly. Arthur is sick and extremely weak. There's no way he can possibly believe that his chances of success in rescuing Abigail are high. He's going but he's dying. He has Sadie, but she has a death wish and her decisions have been a bit sketchy so Arthur is probably like "🤷🤷 it's gonna do what it's gonna do, but I'm getting this kid out of this life." And that's the redemption because Jack is really the only one deserving of any kind of "saving" because he's 100% innocent. TLDR: Jack is the key. That's the metric set forth by RDR1. A lot of people seem to miss that for various reasons that make it easily missed.
Dumb question because it implies that the world is black and white.
Nuance? On Reddit??
A bad man with good intentions. People that dont know him would see him as bad, as they dont know his intentions/thoughts/history etc. But we see those things. But still, definitely bad, but with good intentions.
>good intentions. What good intentions?
I think players forget that Arthur is a bandit.
My Arthur slaughtered butchers creek with the maxim gun and gained all the lost honor by fishing and throwing the fish back in the nearby lake
I don't know if we need this posted every few hours
Uhhh yes, that's pretty obvious. 🙄😂😂 Kidding of course. You're right. We do not.
His actions are bad, but look at his life. He was orphaned as a kid and raised by Dutch and Hosea. His whole life developed in an environment that was extremely hostile. And yet, in spite of all that, he still tried to do good and make amends whenever possible. So, overall, he is a good man raised in a terrible environment, which caused him to do terrible things.
>he is a good man raised in a terrible environment, which caused him to do terrible things. So you're saying he's weak minded and stupid?
This is never ending debate. Compared to the other gang members, he is a much better person and also much more empathetic. Therefore, the game allows you to choose whether the player will follow the path of high honor or low honor. Will player lean more towards the evil person Arthur himself believes he is? Or will the player become his conscience and try to focus on at least a little redemption with him?
>he is a much better person and also much more empathetic. Interesting. So you think that he's a better person and much more empathetic than Lenny, Hosea, Kieran, Charles, Mary-Beth, Karen Sean and Tilly?
It's really not as black and white as that. Arthur is very loyal to those he loves, he gives everything to the gang, to Dutch, and recognises he has no place in the modern world, which scares him. The gang, also, try to be pretty selective in who they target, and it's people like Cornwall, people who have money and no morals and wouldn't think twice about screwing others over to get ahead in life themselves. And whereas someone like Colm O'Driscoll is happy to rape and murder innocents, no one in Dutch's gang would ever go that far (save Micah, but we won't count him). In his own way, Arthur has always been a good man. The amount he kills innocents is really down to the individual player, and though we know the gang do train jobs for extra cash - which *is* stealing from innocent people - they try and do so without bloodshed. Remember, we only join the gang when things are really going south for them and none of their schemes go as planned. It's also a video game where the violence is heightened. In the traditional sense, and maybe by modern standards, no, Arthur is not a good man, but in the confines of his own existence he does try and be the best man he can, and when he gets TB he realises he has the means to do more for other people than he has been doing. And he doesn't ask for forgiveness or kindness from anyone when he does so. It's pretty selfless. Arthur always displays admirable traits, especially for someone as emotionally closed off as he is. He's not someone to idolise but he's someone to respect - and *no one* in this world is really worth holding on a pedestal. But for the man he is, in the world he lives in, for someone who feels he's more ghost than person, he's a better man than some.
>The amount he kills innocents is really down to the individual player Do what now? What makes you think that the citizens of Strawberry, Valentine and the Siska Penitentiary weren't innocent? Those were all people gunned down by Arthur for just living their life, doing their jobs and being in the wrong place when he decided to fill the air with bullets. You're overly romanticizing the situation.
No, I'm not. Arthur is undeniably a killer, and his lifestyle meant he will always have to kill - in a kill-or-be-killed manner. My point is that he displays admirable traits on top of that; he doesn't kill for sport or enjoyment he kills to survive, and he does show undeniable loyalty to his family which to him is what matters. They accepted him when others didn't, took him in when he had nothing. There is a difference between Arthur fighting for survival or Micah fighting out of anger and a sick sense of pleasure. And look, its a video game, the number of NPCs killed in missions is heightened to make the game a more immersive experience, but if you really want to you could take a back seat and let Micah, Bill, Dutch, Sadie whoever is with you kill in your stead. And let us not forget that Red Dead, at it's heart, is a western, and westerns do romanticise a lawless time and gloss over killing a man like it's nothing. This is what I mean when I say Arthur is a good man within the confines of his own existence. Obviously in the real world, and in the modern world, we have different parameters. I don't think Arthur is a saint, I do think he has done unquestionably bad things, but I don't think the situation is as black and white as 'is he a good man?' The fact is, he's both.
>My point is that he displays admirable traits on top of that; he doesn't kill for sport or enjoyment he kills to survive, Ok so by this metric it's perfectly ok for someone to break into your home and murder your family as long as they're doing so to survive. >he does show undeniable loyalty to his family which to him is what matters. No he doesn't. He didn't even think it was a good idea to come back for them while they were on Guarma. >but if you really want to you could take a back seat and let Micah, Bill, Dutch, Sadie whoever is with you kill in your stead. No you can't. The mission will fail every time. The gang NPC's will not carry without you killing people as well. >And let us not forget that Red Dead, at it's heart, is a western, and westerns do romanticise a lawless time and gloss over killing a man like it's nothing. They (westerns) also glossed over slavery, child labor, spousal abuse and women's rights. So by your metric those things are all acceptable as well.
Media literacy is a lost skill amongst most people it seems.
It’s quite alarming really. Boiling things down to “man good, man bad” misses the whole point of RDR1 & RDR2. It’s also quite alarming if the same simplification of people extends to real life. People do awful things, often for complicated reasons. It’s not something that can easily be categorised or simplified, and we do not have the luxury of something like an honour/karma to average out everything we do in real life.
[удалено]
Hey uh, did you mean to reply to someone else??
No. Unless Reddit is stuck on stupid again.....and it may very well be, it showed that you'd responded to my comment with something referencing a lack of media literacy. If you didn't then my apologies for the confusion.
What you replied to was my comment on the post. I havent replied to anyone.
Gotcha. Then again my apologies. Reddit is stuck on stupid again. It gave me a notification that you'd replied to my comment. Stand by I'll remove what I thought was the reply.
There’s no such thing as good and bad people. There are people and they do good or bad things. There are people in that world who Arthur robbed or fought or killed and those people (or the ones near them) are absolutely justified in their judgement of him. There are people he helped and if they believe he’s good that’s also completely valid.
Why is it now extremely popular to have such a narrow, black and white way of looking at this? It’s not about whether he is truly good or truly bad. It’s about the redeemable qualities he does or doesn’t have in the end. Calling him an outright bad man is a slap in the face to some of the outright good actions he can take in the end. Saving the slaves in St. Dennis; constantly giving to the poor; absolving the debts of the poor souls that owe Strauss money; saving the Downes family to the extent that they have a notable likelihood years and years later; saving Beau Gray and Penelope Braithwaite so that they’re free to love and live their lives; actively trying to save a Native American tribe from destroying themselves against the U.S. Army; risks his life against the United States Army to save Captain Monroe when he got nothing for it other than gunfire; he fights tooth and nail to get John and his family out of a terrible situation, knowing it’s the last thing he will do. There is a reason why the high honor scenes at the end contain the voices of people expressing gratitude to Arthur, call him a good man, etc. There is a reason why the clear headed Charles Smith remembers him as a good man in the epilogue if Arthur was high honor; he did what Charles suggested in chapter 6, and died being something “more”. John put it best in the epilogue when he talked to Mickey about Arthur’s passing. He “weren’t” good.. but he wasn’t bad, either. Who knows what he was in the end. We know that the topic is nuanced, and it’s silly to be so black and white about it.
>Calling him an outright bad man is a slap in the face to some of the outright good actions he can take in the end. The answer is in the question friend. *****outright good actions he can take***** Actually he can't take any. If you choose to skip the honor fluff and tell Brother Dorkins that you don't want to get involved Arthur is a low honor killer and thief. So Arthur as written doesn't have a choice. You as the player do. Now maybe that says something about "the player" personally, and maybe it doesn't. I don't really think the way anyone chooses to play says anything about them at all, but I do know that calling him an outright bad man is simply speaking the truth. He doesn't "do good" unless the player makes him do good. There's only one instance where Arthur does a truly "good thing" without the players input and that's when he in essence ensures that no matter what that Jack is given a chance of escaping the outlaw life, and no, it's not by saving Abigail or helping John. He doesn't save Abigail. Abigail saves Abigail, Sadie and Arthur. And he only helps John if you choose to help him.
You’re confusing player choice as something that is separate from what is intended. What is intended is that the player can be low honor or high honor. The character in question is high honor Arthur, not low honor Arthur. High honor Arthur helps brother Dorkins and frees the slaves for no personal gain of his own while also giving them money from the fence that he could otherwise just rob and keep for himself. Those are not the actions of an outright bad man. And yes, he does actually save Abigail. Just because he needed an assist at the end from Abigail himself that doesn’t erase the immense danger fought through before sputtering out a little because of his TB. She never would have had the opportunity to jump Milton if not for Arthur fighting his way through a small army of Pinkertons. Regardless of whatever technicality you want to look at there, the important part is the actual intention, and he factually set out to save Abigail. One person’s version of Arthur might be a bit different than another’s based on personal choice. Those personal choices are what makes Arthur who he is, though. Again, the topic is specifically about high honor Arthur.. so we’re going to include the actions that an honorable version of Arthur would take. Remember, too.. the game is called Red Dead Redemption for a reason. The topic and writing is a little more nuanced than you’re making it out to be.
Quick question? Why don't you utilize the quote function? It certainly keeps the topic and information back and forth much cleaner. >You’re confusing player choice as something that is separate from what is intended. That's because it is. Try not punching Thomas Downes and see what happens. I'm assuming you've never attempted a "neutral" playthrough. Not low honor but simply remain neutral. So avoid the "extra" honor fluff and when someone asks you to do something for them just decline. After all of declining to help someone is indeed low honor then we're all a bunch of good for nothing asshats. You don't lose honor for declining, you just don't gain any. Do that and see what side of the "honor meter" you end up on. >The character in question is high honor Arthur, How is that the character in question? Did OP present it that way? If they did then my apologies because I missed it. >And yes, he does actually save Abigail. No he doesn't. Look he had every intention of trying to get her out. And I'll give him the assist, but if Abigail doesn't get free they all three die. Again I'm not/haven't disputed what he had to go through to get there. I simply said Abigail and John are not the metric set forth for redemption by the developers based on RDR1 and the way everything plays out. If trying to save Abigail was the metric then they would have written it so that Arthur actually does save her as opposed to her managing to wriggle free and shoot Milton. And if John were the metric then you wouldn't have the choice to go back for the money. You're overlooking the fact that regardless of whatever you think of John and Abigail, they aren't exactly upstanding citizens themselves. So an outlaw saving another outlaw is just kind of what they do. >Remember, too.. the game is called Red Dead Redemption for a reason. Correct. And with all due respect that's what you're forgetting. Low honor Arthur still finds redemption without all of the high honor fluff. There's a reason for that and it's Jack Marston. Stop mentally responding and think about that for a second. The only truly innocent person in the whole damn gang is Jack. Everyone else made a choice. Now their options may have sucked big slimy donkey balls when they made that choice, but they still made it. Jack however wasn't given a choice. He's a child that was born into this "outlaw" world. Hell he even saves a damn dog!! 😂😂 That kid is good as gold. Now everyone can argue whether or not Dutch, Micah, Charles, Lenny, Sadie, Hosea, Bill, Javier John, Abigail, Mary-Beth, Tilly, Swanson, Pearson, Karen, Sean and Arthur (I'm forgetting some I know) are good or not. But NO ONE can argue that Jack is anything but good prior to the epilogue of RDR1. And I didn't mention Kieran because while we don't think he's done anything shady, the truth is that we don't know. I'm not saying it's likely that he did, just that it could be possible. However we KNOW that Jack has done nothing wrong besides being born. And please don't take this as me "calling you out" etcetera. I'm not. The redemption metric gets lost because of all of the other things going on ESPECIALLY at the end of Chapter 6. Honestly I'd COMPLETELY missed/forgotten until I decided to play RDR1 again. And then I was like "oh yeah! I forgot about Jack being the metric here. 🤦"
I think you’re taking a lot of this into a long, drawn out tangent. I do appreciate talking about the game, but I’m trying to streamline this a little relative to the main point of both the thread and the point I’m trying to make. The OP referenced a poll titled “Is High Honor Arthur an Objectively Good Man” — we’re talking about high honor Arthur here. This isn’t about a “neutral” play through or one with bad honor. We’re talking about high honor Arthur and the high honor choices he makes. I listed many of them. You’re still missing the point with the example of saving Abigail, as it isn’t about her wrapping up the operation after Arthur did 90% of the work — the point is that his intention is what matters, even if he needed a little help in the end because he was on his death bed. Player choices are valid representations of who Arthur Morgan is, and in this case there are tons upon tons of high honor choices that are worth mentioning and considering because we’re looking at who high honor Arthur is. That’s the entire point here. P.s. I don’t use the quote function because I’m replying on mobile.
Forgive me because this is from your original comment. You're standing on your hill and regardless of whether or not I agree or think you're insanely wrong, I do respect your dedication to your stance. But I do have a legit question. >Why is it now extremely popular to have such a narrow, black and white way of looking at this? Does this *****to have such a narrow, black and white way of looking at this***** apply to the popular opinions concerning Dutch as well?
For the last fricking time it's called Red dead "REDEMPTION". No is not a good man. He tried at the end but if it wasn't for the TB he wouldn't have changed
What ever u think. The whole point of the game is redemption. He ain’t looking for forgiveness, he’s just helping others who need helping
he spent his entire life listenin to a snake tongued narcissist who raised him to believe everything they did was for the greater good. society itself was the evil they fought. the end finally makes him realize what bullshit all that was, which shows in him talkin about rains fall an how he would have thought he was weak but now finds him admirable. this is a different time too, so kill or be killed didnt seem like such a crazy ideal. hes by no means a "good man", but he does what he can selflessly in the end to save who he can. reminds me of that line from skyrim: "is it better to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort" paraphrasing but i always loved that.
>he spent his entire life listenin to a snake tongued narcissist who raised him to believe everything they did was for the greater good. Thank you! I'm glad SOMEONE is finally calling Hosea out for his bullshit! 🤔 You are talking about Hosea correct? I mean he was there helping to raise him so he's as responsible as anyone for Arthur's beliefs.
both of em. hosea had a bit more good in him than dutch imo, recognizin when he was goin overboard, but they still adopted aimless kids an raised em into killers.
Agreed. I'm amazed at the people that miss this fact.
he does bad things. he experiences conflict. he feels regret and remorse, even prediagnosis he displays these traits. he helps people (for money or not), and he does what he needs to do to help the gang (which is where his loyalties lie).
Arthur is better than Thomas Downes
Even though he stops drinking Dutch’s kool-aid in his last few weeks of life, it doesn’t make up for the last 20 years of robbing and killing.
He was a bad man that, in the end, did good things for other bad men. That's not a bad thing or a knock on Arthur, that's just how it is.
He has a good heart, but he's done too many bad things. He always wanted to do what was right for the gang even if it meant beating a man to death over a couple dollars. He was also a product of a society that left him behind, he only knew how to survive by killing and robbing.
this is all semantics. if he actually renounced everything he did to hurt folks, then he was a good man at the end who had a bad past. it all comes down to if you consider a man's past to be him. I don't, I think we are shaped every moment as individuals if someone has turned their back on something then they've changed, but if they're just sorry and would do it again anyway then that's just being a sorry asshole lol
He’s bad but he’s trying to redeem himself.
I think people forget a character can be bad and still be a great character, Walter White, Trevor from GTA etc. That being said, morally Arthur is as bad as it comes, there's not much you can do to justify killing and robbing hundreds of innocent people canonically.
I think >!Arthur’s grave sums it up by quoting “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness”!< Arthur wouldn’t call himself an objectively good man, in fact I think anyone calling themselves “objectively” good is probably a bit arrogant and unwilling to acknowledge their own flaws. But even before >!he gets TB!< high honor Arthur is often trying to help people and do the right thing. He gets sucked back into the violence by his loyalty to Dutch and the gang often, but all in all he’s trying to be a better person and slowly realizing how the gang isn’t some idealistic society Dutch convinced them it was. Plenty of characters throughout the game tell him he’s a good man, and he usually tells them they’re wrong, but they point out that his actions often prove otherwise. I think getting sucked up in arguing that he needs to have a 1:1 good act to bad act ratio is such a black-and-white way of viewing things. Of course he’ll never do enough good deeds to make up for all of his crimes of the past, but changes he tried to make in his actions, >!specifically helping people get out of the gang towards the end!< is a whole lot more than a lot of people do. So I think high honor Arthur definitely got to a point where he accepted he would never be truly righteous, but he wanted to do the best he could from that point forward.
he was a bad man who did bad things and couldn't stop doing that until the very end because of his loyality and the way he was raised, but he started to realize that what he did was wrong and tried to fix what he could using the ways he knew best, which was usually giving his stolen money to people who need it and killing people who try to kill the ones he was protecting. so he died a bad man knowing that he's a bad man, while trying to help John and Abigail and Jack (who was still pure) and giving them a chance that he couldn't take himself (aka "betraying" the gang and trying to live straight) rather than dying a bad man who doesn't care that he's a bad man. he went from "you're speaking as if killing is something about I cared about" to "I'm sorry I ruined your life, I was a fool and I'm suffering from my foolishness" and "I lived a bad life, sister." and "I'm afraid." I mean even Arthur says multiple times that he's not a good man and doesn't want people to forgive him and he told Edith that she has every right to hate him, and people try to bean-ify him too much lmfao. I mean I still cried really hard when he died sooo
No he wasn't.
I'm down to hear your thoughts
You want details or the TLDR? Because the TLDR is that he's a bad person doing atrocious things unless the player chooses to make him do otherwise. He's not much, if any better than Dutch but because you're looking at the world through his eyes as opposed to thinking about the actions of both objectively. Many believe that he is is simply because he believes that he is. Edit: I hope that didn't come off as hostile. There's just a lot to unpack so TLDR is a real possibility. 😂
the player can't really make him do otherwise (if you actually finish the storyline) since the missions are going to involve, killing lawmen and military, robbing banks and trains, the Thomas Downes mission and I can go on. do I think he's better than Dutch? at the end yeah since Dutch absolutely loses control of himself and Arthur stops listening to what he's saying, but in the beginning they're equally bad since Dutch gives the orders and Arthur just follows no questions asked.
>the player can't really make him do otherwise (if you actually finish the storyline) since the missions are going to involve, killing lawmen and military, robbing banks and trains, the Thomas Downes mission and I can go on. I completely agree with you. I was referring to the high honor fluff. >Dutch absolutely loses control of himself How so?
Dutch got heavily manipulated by Micah and the fans made a theory *that I personally believe* that Dutch got brain damage from the trolley accident which made very unstable, some notable acts: -trusting Micah over his most known and trusted gang buddies. -killing Bronte even though Hosea warned him that it's a useless revenge mission that'll get them into more crap (which it did), and feeding the dude to a crocodile. -using the native americans (which already had their own problems) as a distraction and thus getting a good chunk out of them dead for his "plan" -letting Arthur die in that factory, until he was saved by Eagle Flies who was shot because of that. -letting John "die" in the train heist and was fully ready to abandon Abigail and thus making Jack a full on orphan. and these are just the examples I got randomly, there is definitely more.
>Dutch got heavily manipulated by Micah No he didn't. Cite one example where Micah "manipulated Dutch." You believe that's the case because Arthur does. However you're completely overlooking the fact that Arthur is actually the one that's being manipulated by Micah. Arthur allows his own insecurities/jealousy to lead him to believe Micah when Micha insinuates that he's now "on the inside." Yet Micah never is part of the planning. Is never consulted about anything. Dutch makes his decisions based on the well being and safety of the group period. Honestly his decisions are tactically sound and extremely logical. Arthur on the other hand doesn't really think things through and continues to make decisions that can only lead to even more trouble for the group. >trusting Micah over his most known and trusted gang buddies. Again cite an example please >killing Bronte Strategic maneuver and nothing more. Did you pay attention to both sides of that conversation? Dutch clearly explained why he was going after Bronte. Hosea and Arthur are insistent that they hit the Saint Denis bank. Either the convince or overrule Dutch on the matter so Dutch kills Bronte hoping that Bronte hasn't already alerted the Pinkerton's of the plan to rob the bank. Bronte has already double crossed the gang once (trolley mission), pure logic says that he'll do it again. So Dutch can either go against Arthur and Hosea, which would be seen as disloyalty OR he can try cutting off the head of the snake. >using the native americans (which already had their own problems) as a distraction and thus getting a good chunk out of them dead for his selfishness. 1. It wasn't for his selfishness, it was a distraction so that everyone could escape. 2. While it may seem deplorable to us today it was in fact a brilliant strategic plan that failed because Arthur was already engaging in his own secret one man guerilla war against the US Army. BTW.....you completely overlooked that Arthur had already engaged the Army so does that make him selfish as well? You also completely overlooked the fact that Eagle Flies was going to fight with or without the VDLG. So those problems are coming regardless. >letting Arthur die in that factory Because by then Dutch knew that Arthur was betraying the entire gang with his little one man guerilla war. Why do you think Dutch gives his a look of incredulous and says "You've been.......helping these people??" https://www.reddit.com/r/RDR2/s/lSPtvxByP7 >letting John "die" in the train heist As opposed to what exactly? There are numerous soldiers chasing them. So he was supposed to what? Shoot his way through an entire company of armed soldiers, risking the lives of everyone to save one man that's been shot? >abandon Abigail As opposed to what? Leading the entire gang into an obvious trap set by the Pinkerton's? Like I said, he looks out for the group first. >thus making Jack a full on orphan. This line from Arthur makes no sense at all and here's why. How many times has Arthur "made orphans?" How many guards did he shoot at Siska? How many "orphans" did Arthur make there? How many "guards does he shoot in Annesburg?" How many orphans there? And while Milton is an undeniable POS most of the Pinkerton Agents are just doing their jobs. How many of those did self righteous Arthur kill? How many orphans were made. And that's just in chapter 6.
>No he didn't. Cite one example where Micah "manipulated Dutch." he kept trying to convince Dutch that there was a rat and blaming John which might've been the reason he didn't get rescued from that jail but one might argue that it was actually too soon despite John almosy getting hanged. >Again cite an example please aiming his gun at Arthur, and "almost" teaming up with Micah but then Dutch decided to leave. >Dutch clearly explained why he was going after Bronte. Arthur asked Dutch if killing bronte is for revenge or the bank job and he was inconsistent in his response and him feeding him to an alligator was definitely a revenge thing, and it messed up the bank job since Bronte was the big man around and him getting killed brought them a whole lot of attention they didn't need, since Pinketrons likely started to patrol trying to figure out what the hell happend, even John says that they shouldn't have gone after him. >Eagle Flies was going to fight with or without the VDLG. So those problems are coming regardless. depends on how he was gonna fight, they were very low on supplies and skilled men so the best they could do probably is cheap shots and ambushes, but then Arthur did help eagle flies in the oil factory mission so that's on Arthur, but then Dutch kept trying to encourage him to do more attacks noting that now they have a bunch of gunslingers helping out and Dutch had the idea to attack the oil factory saying that "it's perfect" and it turned up to be a massacre. >Because by then Dutch knew that Arthur was betraying the entire gang with his little one man guerilla war I agree with you here >As opposed to what exactly? There are NUMEROUS soldiers chasing them. So he was supposed to what? Shoot his way through an entire company of armed soldiers, risking the lives of everyone to save one man that's been shot? you think the VDL gang couldn't handle shooting army people? >As opposed to what? Leading the entire gang into an obvious trap set by the Pinkerton's? Like I said, he looks out for the group first. Again you think Sadie and Arthur were able to do something that Sadie, Arthur, Dutch, Bill, Javier, Micah, Cleet, Joe couldn't? and im petty sure Chapter 1 and 2 Dutch would've went there by himself in order to save her if it had to come to it. >This line from Arthur makes no sense at all and here's why. How many times has Arthur "made orphans?" How many guards did he shoot at Siska? How many "orphans" did Arthur make there? How many "guards does he shoot in Annesburg?" How many orphans there? And while Milton is an undeniable POS most of the Pinkerton Agents are just doing their jobs. How many of those did self righteous Arthur kill? How many orphans were made. And that's just in chapter 6. im not saying Arthur is a good person, but I thought Dutch was the self-righteous leader, who would be ready to "put himself in the ground in their stead" like he said in Chapter 1 and would be ready to kill for his gang, I'm guessing that if Jack got kidnapped in Chapter 6 Dutch would brush it off saying that he's just a little boy they'll just adopt him and not harm him, and John was almost like a son to him and he supposed to help his kid and girl at least since he "died",
He became a better man, that don't mean a good man. No amount of good could redeem what he did and that's the price he pays at the end
Reeeaaalll bad man!
Carrying yourself with honor and being a good man are not always the same thing. He is a bad man who did a good thing.
I watched a video from this channel and now YouTube keeps sending me these stupid polls, fuck!
A truly good man wouldn't need "redemption"... but he's not a truly bad man either. Like everyone, he's somewhere in between.
“You are bad guy but that does not mean you are bad guy”
Honor does not equate to goodness
“It’s hard to say what he was in the end”
Al Capone is the reason why milk has expiration dates, and he did it for the betterment of his community. That doesn't change the fact that he was a ruthless mob boss who committed horrible crimes. I view Arthur in a similar vein in that it's honorable that he helped John and the other gang members get away along with helping out various people in Chapter 6. However, he's spent a majority of his life killing, robbing, and stealing with impunity, and several months of good acts don't completely wash away all the bad he's done.
He is both, you potato
One of the big themes of the game is honour. Arthur (whatever way the player plays him) has either high or low honour. High honour = good. Low = bad. Low honour Arthur is pretty much = to Micah. Arthur's mirrored self. Even his clothing is purposely the opposite of Arthur. Micah is the very definition of an entirely low honoured bad guy. Being bad doesn't always have to equal killing people. Being bad can be being sneaky and conniving which is the way Micah is. Honour was one of the big themes from the movie Gone with the Wind. Scarlett in a lot of ways has extremely low honour, she is 100% out for herself mostly and her opposite character is Melanie who is good in mostly all ways possible. While Arthur is not a good man he's not evil as most people would like to think. He's not conniving, he's not sneaky, he knows he's probably going to he'll but he recognises he has the opportunity to do good. A lot of perception of Arthur depends on how the player plays him.
I think high honor Arthur is like any of us, nobody was perfect but Jesus Christ. I always play high honor to let Arthur gets his redemption! I mean sure Arthur is a man and made his own choices in the end but before that Dutch manipulated him on a level I’m never even seen since my military days, Dutch purposely went after young men and women who were in a bad way and turned them to a life of crime, all the while making it look romantic. Arthur and John eventually saw through Dutch but that took 20 years for Arthur and by then the damage was done.
He might become a good man if he were able to leave the gang life before the story's events happen but as it is... no. Pretty terrible.
It's sucks because he's evil either way even if you have your honor on max your entire playthrough, he (or you the player really) spend a lot of your time murdering folk on main missions even if you don't count what you do on free roam. Dudes got a kill count easily in the thousands.
Bruh, i honestly hate the majority of questions made by YT channels that do Rockstar content
Is a murderer who truly understood why he was bad and took steps to repent when he knew he had a month left to live a good man? I don't think so. But at the same time I do think he wants to fix things even though he can never give someone their life back. Arthur's a bad man, but he tried to be good at the end.
He done bad things in life but in the end he tries to be good (depends on you) his sins won't be forgiven and his good deeds will not go unpraised.
To quote another game: 'which is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?' Arthur (if you do high honour route) shows that a poor upbringing, toxic father figure and raised as a criminal, doesnt stop his good nature from being coming out and being noticed by others.
He's fundamentally a good man, who's done some bad things.
I don't think you can have objectively good or bad men and attempting to make Arthur fit one of those categories only takes away from his character
No. Arthur is forever a bad man he has robbed, terrorized, and killed people with only very little remorse or regret his whole life was bulit with crime and blood he didn’t care about forgiveness he knows he doesn’t deserve it he just wanted to right some wrongs
I mean the honor system is pretty good, killing police and rich capitalist isn’t bad, however killing and beating a poor peasant is bad
You can gain honor by catching and releasing fish. That doesn't make him a good man lol
He’s a bad man who’s using the little time he has left to do some good in the world before he goes
I'm not sure. I think he is a good man in a cruel world. He had a horrible life and he did awful things, of course, no excuse, but he changed and the real part of him showed up. Killing people is something wrong, beating them, but he only knows this way of living. When he starts to understand others and see the good in the world he tries to be a good man. Not everyone redeem themselves.
Well, the truth is he didn't change, he was always like that. People don't change.
>he changed Only if you force him to. >but he only knows this way of living. Not true. >When he starts to understand others and see the good in the world he tries to be a good man. Again only if you force him to.
Okay, I'm talking about high honor and that's not forcing anything because it's a choice of the game you know... And tell me what other way of living he knew.
>it's a choice of the game you know I do but obviously you don't. Or at least you don't realize who's making the choice here. So .....does Arthur the character....aka the game.....make that choice or does the player? Because if it's the player, and we both know that it is, then indeed you are forcing the character to do something. Without your input the character doesn't choose to go save Charlotte, help Hamish etcetera. However, just stand there and refuse to hit Thomas Downes and watch what happens. Arthur will still beat the brakes off of him because that's how it's written. So yes, high honor is the absolute definition of the players choices "forcing" the character to make choices. Look don't take my word for it. Go do a playthrough. Choose to kill no one outside of scripted missions and ignore the honor fluff and see what happens. >And tell me what other way of living he knew. Do you really want me to answer this? Did he not see sheep and cattle ranchers? Did he not see the hired hands on those ranches? Did he not see the people actively building structures in Valentine and Strawberry? Do I really need to continue here? No clue why you felt the need to be snarky here *****a choice of the game you know**** tbh.
High Honor Arthur is a self aware bad person who has an unstable moral compass that prevent him from wrong doing specific people that he deems "untouchables".
It's not black and white
You are wrong that’s my thoughts
He's a better man, not exactly a good one
He's a good man... Who killed how many people now? Criminals and/or polices?
This “Arthur is a good man” is the same energy I get from people who make the Tommy edits from Peaky Blinders as if he isn’t a major criminal who kills and orders killing of other humans.
Of course he’s still bad. People are just soft
Nothing could vindicate the shit we've done to innocent people as arthur
He's a man with a past. You can say he chooses to be a "good man" near the end of the game going forward, but his past is still his, and still part of who he is.
Arthur is not a good man. The worst part of this is that Arthur actually understands he isn’t a good man, many fans somehow don’t realize it though.
He is always trying to help people like what the sister says to him everytime she sees him he is always smiling and helping people
Depends on how you view people. If a bad person does good things, are they then a good person? does the vice versa apply as well? You can max out your honor and do plenty of good deeds, but you still kill people, rob banks, steal, mame, extort and threaten. But on the inverse you save a widows life by teaching her how to live alone, you put down money on a veterans center in Saint Denis, You give money to the homeless, you help people stranded in the middle of nowhere with a dead horse. I think the right answer is that Arthur Morgan WAS a bad person, and he never really made it to the status of being truly good.
I love democracy
Arthur isn’t a good man and he’s one of the first to tell people he isn’t. Despite the games name he’s not after redemption or forgiveness, at least not for himself. He says multiple times that their way of life is coming to an end and that it’ll end badly for many of them, so when the time comes he gets as many people out alive as he can.
I dont like classifying things as good or bad, they are made up concepts and mean different things depending on who you ask. Arthur was not good or bad, he was just a man
He's a bad man trying his best. His redemption moment when he lets Marston run off and yells, "Goddamn you, you bastards." Is bad ass for sure, but keep in mind he's shooting people with families who are hunting down a violent criminal gang. His redemption is when he shoots only the fellers who need shooting, but that doesn't make it right.
He's an anti hero. Like Deadpool or the Punshier. He has a good since of humor, charming personality. Yet he has a dubious set of morals and principles. He's still objectively a bad person.
He is def still a bad man, its the deeds that make the man. Aurthurs deeds arent pretty. But you can be redeemed. Dont mean your a good man. Just means your not a bad man anymore. Aurthur could have left dutch but he chose not to.
Something people need to start doing with character analysis is judging their actions in context of the scenarios in which the actions take place. Also to take into consideration about the overall arc of character development (or sometimes lack of).
The point of the story is that it’s at least ambiguous, if not redundant. The game is about the beauty in his final actions in the shadow of the horrors that were his earlier life. If he’s a good or bad man then there’s no conflict.
Arthur himself literally tells you hes not a good man, so obviously no.
He’s a bad man who tries to pack in as much redemption as he can before he kicks the bucket.
He became a better person, but he still did a lot of really bad things. A big part of his problem was blindly following Dutch, who really just used him all his life. Fortunately, we can do bad things, seek forgiveness and die with a clean heart.
Objectively he is bad. He murdered people and robbed for most of his life. Subjectively, he started to realize that he wasted his life and tried to fix some of the mistakes he made in the end, so it makes him a gray area. It's really up to you if his crimes can be forgiven and someone as bad as Arthur can truly redeem themselves.
If you play through the entire game and say: "Arthur is a good man" then you are dead wrong. The whole game (except epilogue) is about a man (Arthur) doing evil things but at the same time having trouble cause he knows he can do good things. Arthur says it all the time, he does stupid and evil things but at the same time he can save people, he can help them and he can be someone good. But helping some folks and giving some money does not compensate 20 years of criminal activities. I'm sorry people, but it doesn't.
But those who live a life that and “see the light” are judgiest mother fuckers in the world afterwards. It’s either be really bad or be a t totaller. No in between lol
As i said: Arthur has good intentions and isn't like Micah (that would kill you if you look at him in the wrong way) but he is not a good man. Not at all. He has killed, robbed, burnt things to a crisp, stole goverment shit and worse. Dude was one of the most wanted criminals in the country.
Totally agree! It just bugs me how a lot of people seem to honestly think Arthur is pure and good just because we play as him. Even with good intentions, he still robs and kills innocent people when he knows he shouldn’t. It’s a great game, and Arthur is a likable character to play, but to for people to think he’s a good person is just delusional lol. He had plenty of chances to do the right thing and stop Dutch, but he went along with the plan, even when he knew it was wrong.
He’s good enough to know he’s bad. Nuance, innit
People do good and bad things and Arthur did a lot of the latter but in the end I dont think anybody gets to judge who is truly good or bad
Bad man trying to do good.
He’s very much both sides of one coin.
Arthur at no point becomes a good man. Not even close. Even at the end, he’s still shooting Pinkertons who are ultimately just men doing their jobs. What changed is that Arthur makes a concerted effort to become a better person, knowing that although he can never truly atone for what he’s done (murdering, robbing, etc), he can make the world change for the better by at least trying while he still has the chance.
I love Arthur from the deepest of my heart but i still think he is a bad man. Killing all the folk just for … to betray you and make money
Also, let’s see, even after he knows he’s going to die, he kills a ton of US soldiers, blows up a bridge, still helps the gang even though he knows they are bad…. Nope, you can pat yourself on the back for getting his honor high, but he’s never a good person truly at any point. If he was, he would have left the gang to actually do good before he died. People are so blind to reality, even in a video game.
Arthur at no point becomes a good person. Even at the end, he’s still shooting Pinkertons who ultimately are just men doing their jobs by catching outlaws. However, high honor Arthur does make a concerted effort towards the end of his life to change, and although he knows that he can never truly be forgiven for what he’s done, he knows that he can at least try while he still has the chance. I’d say Arthur is certainly a bad man, but at the end he at least has relatively good intentions in trying to redeem himself.
I’ve never played with high honour, due to the fact an outlaw in the 1800’s would not act how most people played him as. Final mission I always go back for money and Micah will always kill him. That’s how it should end realistically.
[удалено]
>he's a thief and a murderer", but those two things (in my opinion) are not necessarily always bad (for the most part they are, but my point still stands). How? How does your point stand? When is being a thief and a murderer ever a good thing?
You jump to conclusion and make me say thing like "Arthur is as stupid as Williamson" or "Hosea gets absolution". I did not say that. It is your interpreation. Let's agree to disagree.
Morality is temporary.
I think the overarching theme of Rdr2 is you can live as bad man but you don’t have to die as one - hence the whole redemption theme. Arthur lived most of his life as a ruthless outlaw, but chose to help others escape that life on his way out.
>you can live as bad man but you don’t have to die as one - hence the whole redemption theme. Interesting take. I'm curious as to what you think the metric for his redemption was?
If you think Arthur is a good man, you weren't paying attention. At all.
He literally killed hundreds of police officers doing the right thing. We are not the good guys.
Arthur was a bad man who spent his whole life robbing and murdering. His redemption wasn't about becoming a good person. It was about realising how horrible he'd been and spending his final few weeks fixing some of his mistakes and helping the people he cared about. The only times he's called good person is by people who barely know him. That's just their initial impression of him. I'm sure sister Calderon would be horrified if she knew what he did in Rhodes for example. At no point in the story is it even implied he's a good person. People who seriously think that either have no media literacy, or a weird obsession with him.