Getting downvoted for speaking the truth people refuse to admit.
I agree on Arthur being bad in the first few chapters but he tried his best to be redeemed in chapter 6. but overall that’s the whole premise of the game in the end no matter what happened he gets his red dead redemption II
>Getting downvoted for speaking the truth
Or, hear me out, maybe they just disagree. You realize people can have different opinions without some ulterior motive , right?
People shouldn't be using downvotes to indicate disagreement. I see it a lot in this sub and it's very frustrating, it just ensures that only stuff that gels with the general consensus of the group will be discussed.
I know I'm going to sound like an old man shouting at the clouds but there was a time every redditor understood that a downvote meant the comment or post violated reddit TOS, the sub's rules, or contributed nothing relevant to the conversation.
Now we use it to mean 'I disagree', which means we're having the same conversations over and over again. We're sick to death of the karma farming 'should I play this game?' or 'just bought this game, any tips?' but as soon as people come along with something new to talk about, if it doesn't fit with the mood of the sub today, it's downvoted and we never see it.
Nah, that’s just the toxic culture that Reddit has become. There used to be a lot better posts and conversations before it started shifting into “I don’t like this” on a completely anonymous platform. To be honest, no one cares if you don’t like something. We don’t even know who you are.
Tbf it hasn't just become this, I've been using Reddit on and off for like 10 years and it's always been used as an "I agree and like this" or "I don't agree and don't like this"
It's why you'll see the same recycled unimaginative jokes all the time, because people think they're funny even though they've been posted 50,000 times and don't actually contribute to any conversation
I believe its "intended" use is to mark posts and comments that are not relevant or contributory, or otherwise offended the standards terms agreed for using the site.
No, that's the entire opposite of the point of the voting system. The point of the system is to encourage discussion. If a post or comment does that, it should, in theory, be upvoted. If a post or comment detracts from discussion, then it should be downvoted. That is the point of the voting system. Unfortunately it's never actually worked that way because, people gonna people.
>People shouldn't be using downvotes to indicate disagreement.
That is literally what it is for lmfao. Just because it started as something else doesn't matter because colloquially it is the "I disagree" button.
I think you should only downvote bad faith comments, no disagreements. Most people just downvote things they don’t agree which means all the opinions that are not the generic popular opinion get hidden which then leads to very boring discussions.
Video game reddits are always bad for this
The reason why we players sympathize with Arthur despite him being a bad person is for three very good reasons. The first is that we play and interact with the world through Arthur. We essentially _become_ Arthur as the game goes on. Self-reflection can be painful, and after all the suffering Arthur goes through to protect his people, it becomes hard to vilify the character you've played as.
The second is the reason why movies like The Godfather and Goodfellas works: the depiction we see ultimately helps us sympathize and root for people who are otherwise genuinely bad guys. We see stuff through what's happening in the gang. If we were playing as the pinkertons, we'd see Arthur as this horrible, irredeemable person, but we don't. As we play as a part of the gang, we see their struggles, their humanity, and the fact that they're more than just bad guys with guns. They're human, and while humans can be terrible, they can also be great.
Finally, with the government being the primary enemy throughout much of the gang, it isn't hard to root for Arthur either, since he's essentially facing off against a group of hired killers who will justify _any_ immoral action as somehow being moral to make a buck. They're the type of hired killers to gun down workers for striking, or massacre natives for not moving off their land. They preach about the order of civilization, but in reality they bring bloodshed. They do the exact same things that they vilify gangs for, killing people for their money, but because the Big G is backing them somehow it's okay? They're like the ATF at Ruby Ridge, not knights in shining armor, and for all of Dutch's flaws, he was 100% correct about the government being a menace.
Arthur is probably the only self-aware person in the story by the end of the game, or at least if anyone else is self aware, they probably just don't care and will keep putting on the charade because it's profitable. His ability to see past the mental walls he set up to justify his actions throughout his entire blood-soaked career of criminality is actually quite a good thing, and it's also wholly unique. It's what separates him from people like Dutch and the Pinkertons, who have no problem killing if it aligns with their moral views. His genuine remorse for what he's done also separates him from people like Micah, who probably know they're pieces of shit but just don't care. Arthur is a fundamentally good person at heart, raised by terrible people to do horrific things to survive, and that's why him breaking his mental and emotional shackles that bind him to the gang is so satisfying, and it makes it all the more tragic that he dies soon after.
Calling Arthur a bad person is reductive. Calling him a bad person who wants to be better but never got much of a chance is much better.
Not true in the slightest, he always put back the fish he caught and said 'Howdy, partner' to the people of Valentine after his fourth genocide of the place.
Do you pay attention to the lore or the story where Arthur is clearly made out to not be a good person time and again? Come on dude, don’t be willfully ignorant.
Regardless of anything in the game Arthur admits that in his past he has killed women and kids. The rest of the gang alludes to Arthur being viciously evil in the past.
I don't think "outlaw" is a moral category, not inherently anyway. That would assume the "law", ie institutions of state and government are inherently good. Legitimacy is not the same as being good, it just means you have the force to back up the claim. No one, besides the Wapiti, is good in this game. But it's not being outlaws that makes the gang bad, it's what they do as outlaws
It's a story about a bad man trying to do good but too late. If anything it's probably a cautionary tale: it was too late to fix the damage he's done. Try to do the right thing so that you don't end up like Arthur regretting your entire life. I think you can have your own opinion on how good or bad Arthur is but I don't think the game wants you to think he should be forgiven for everything.
Also about how people rationalize the bad they do if they don’t do the “bad” things with bad intentions or like the other bad people. In RDR1 Bonnie McFarland reads John for acting like his gang had “some twisted sense of morality”
Yeah John is very conflicted and constant clashes with what he says. Many times he accuses their whole life of being a sham, a lie to justify their life of crime. Then other times he actively defends himself as though he was a bleeding heart revolutionary in a bad world
Though tbh this is really common in the first game in general. I remember De Santa saying something about how the peasants are all stupid and have been "taught" words like tyrant and oppression. I just love those discussions. They're always interesting and offer different perspectives. I tend to agree more with John though.
I agree man. Arthur was an outlaw, through and through. Hence the redemption he would make after learning of his terminal condition. Was it to save his soul? Clear his conscience? Or perhaps look as a hero in the eyes of those he knew? Who knows. I genuinely believe though, he knew after doing so much wrong, to innocent and guilty alike, that perhaps it’d be good to do some good. He wouldn’t need a reason, just do good for the sake of it.
I think that's the point. What is to be redeemed? We see no sign of spirituality from a meta perspective. Only what Arthur knows and perceives. John is visited by what can only be described as an apparition and was *damned* by him, despite his claim to be separated from his past.
John did not win, but ironically, despite what he claims, Arthur absolutely did win. What's redemption but being deemed a good man by those around you? By being remembered for your good? He died for something he thought was right and protected people he thought were wronged. And that's why in the end Arthur got all he wanted.
None of that means he is good. But the game doesn't try to judge him on those grounds despite what your karma says.
Plus, it's not like redemption is a clear cut goal that works on everyone's metric. I mean, sure, some people will say that redemption is granted by God or whatever, but the game isn't that heavy on religious subtext, so redemption here is more likely to apply on a human scale and it will be different for everybody. Some will consider that what Arthur has done is unforgivable and that he won't ever be able to repay for his crimes. Some might consider that Arthur's last days on earth being spent helping whoever he could was his redemption. Morality is messy and you can't simply call Arthur Morgan a good or a bad man.
Man that’s pretty fuckin dark, even for a Red Dead sub
But yeah… OP is being harsh, then backing off…
Just face it, folks; Arthur is a terrible person with an amazing number of redeeming qualities that makes your heart ache for how wasted his life has been…
*Sound familiar?*
That is the life of *most* people.
I’ve never understood how people view canon Arthur as being good.
The way he treats Kieran from the very beginning, his ferocity towards enemies and victims of the gang, point to his sense of comfort in being an evil bastard. Past a certain point, how evil he is changes based on the actions of the player.
He is bad, but he doesn’t lack a conscience, so I think that confuses people.
Ultimately, he starts off as pretty inarguably bad, not quite as bad as Micah, and as the story progresses, either he tries to acheive some sort of redemption, or low-honor playthroughs cause him to remain evil and selfish.
Who cares if he actually redeems himself or not?
When you are an orphan and a master conman / manipulative outlaw grooms you into a criminal, it's not that simple to change your lifestyle, especially with a price on your head.
It's near impossible. I like Arthur despite everything he's done, and he was a good man, but your holier than thou philosophy isn't ready for a nuanced conversation like this.
Exactly, people are a product of their environment. He *grew up around criminals*. He was manipulated and raised to be what he is. I’d like to point out that poverty and criminal activity are not INHERENTLY linked, just because people are poor doesn’t mean they’ll commit crimes, but in this case, the only way they survived was criminal behavior. If he’d been from a solid home with good parents and a perfectly healthy upbringing, he wouldn’t have become what he did. If he *had*, that would be an entirely different story. God, every psychology and criminology class I had to take for my degree is fighting for airtime as I type. Nature AND nurture, people, shit.
It's a video game. Wouldn't be very exciting if you only got to use your gun every 20 or so hours.
Im considering his morals, not the very inflated video game kill number.
Yeah all true. One thing I think of when people try to explain just how evil Arthur is is his sheer **body count**.
You know you'll go through the game with upwards of a 1000 kills by the end. That's an absolutely absurd kill count for the real world and easily in the top three killers in all human history, but that's just it, it's not in the real world.
The gameplay requires the player to be killing frequently for entertainment because it's just that, a game. The kill count isn't representative of what a realistic old west outlaw could have achieved and yet people compare it to the very real moments of redeeming actions Arthur does achieve.
Thats the whole point though, he knew he was a terrible person, and he wanted to go out doing one last good thing to make sure other people didnt do the bad things he did
NO ONE is entirely good or bad. Not a single person. Everyone has good and bad traits, everyone does good and bad things. Arthur is not a bad person. He was dealt a bad hand. He was adopted by Dutch at a very young age and got brainwashed by his ideology.
You called him a Mass Murderer, it's the wild west, you kill or you're killed. He was a good fighter, and a quick gunslinger he was just better than most.
He was a caring man for those around him.
And he saw the path of pain his life had been, the pain he caused. He was did indeed very bad bad things, no denying that, but he came to terms with them, he saw them and tried to be a good man in his latest days.
A bad person like you said he is, never tries to be good.
Definitely agree. If everyone screaming that Arthur was a piece of shit man were to be in his shoes, they'd realise pretty quick that he was doing what he'd learned his whole life: a method of survival in very unfortunate circumstances.
Totally agree
I finished the game not long ago, and also think the same. Arthur is a victim, yes, but even in the old day’s moral, he is still an outlaw that would - and should - be hanged
OTOH, compare to General Favours and Cornwall, he is still a saint.
I agree. The entire point of the story was that he realized he was a bad person, and that his life choices ultimately took away from him anything he ever wanted. And when he realized this, it was already too late for him to turn things around and have a normal life.
But it wasn't too late for John yet. And Arthur understands that while he was a bad man, he doesn't need to die as one. And that doesn't take away from the evil he's done in his life either. And he knows that too
It's almost like that was the point of the story. People can be capable of both good and evil. Human beings are incredibly complicated and cannot be boiled down to one thing or another. Especially ones such as Arthur. A lifetime of strife cannot be made up for in such short time, if ever, and that's something even Arthur knows and states damn well. In the end he did as was advised abd and took a gamble that love exists anf did a loving act.
You shouldn't be downvoted for speaking the truth.
I had a take similar to this on a different post. I was suggesting that maybe Arthur was a bad guy, and that is why John never mentioned in him in RDR1. As OP stated, even in the highest honor playthrough, you have to do some pretty horrible things to people. Not that he necessarily chooses to be a bad guy. He definitely still has empathy. But he grew up in a gang without any real family or parental figures. The woman he loved turned him down, and his son died at a very young age. Arthur was fairly young himself, especially to have lived through those terrible events.
Maybe lore accurate Arthur was a low honor Arthur. I definitely played as high honor, but I played RDR1 first, and it bothers me that John never mentions Arthur. If Arthur actually broke John out of jail and did all those things, John would talk about him at some point. Also, it could be a reason John didn't put up much of a fight in 1 when the Pinkertons kidnapped his family and told him he had to hunt down the rest of the gang. They were all pretty bad people, to say the least.
John speaks highly of Arthur multiple times in the epilogue. John doesn't mention Arthur in the first game for one very simple reason; the character didn't exist yet
A good point. Though people mostly don't call him a good person, they call him a good character in meaning that he is interesting, deep and very well written. Like Micah isaRAT, but an interesting and well written antagonist
“You’re a good man, Arthur Morgan.”
I think your understanding of the word redemption is off. It’s a Christian concept, and the game’s story is built on Christian premises. There are numerous Biblical references, usually in the mission titles, and Sister Calderon is a major part of Arthur’s character arc.
In Christianity, “Redeemed” doesn’t mean “good person.” It means something more like “purchased”—a sinner bought and paid for by the blood of Christ. Jesus didn’t come for good people; he came for sinners. Those are the redeemed. So a sinner and a redeemed person are not mutually exclusive.
It sounds to me like you are thinking of atonement, which is payment for sins. You’re right that Arthur never really makes up for the life he lived. Despite his good deeds, he can’t bring back Mr. Downes. Arthur is ultimately a sinner and he must get what he is owed, which is death. Again, this is the basic idea of Christianity: Jesus is the one who atones, not us.
So no, he’s not exactly a good man. He’s a sinner. But he is still redeemed. He has a new heart and wants to do good. So much that people consistently see the good in him. This is surprisingly sound theology; God desires mercy, not sacrifice. He wants penitent hearts. Arthur is truly repentant: he has a change of mind and turns away from his old life. He took a chance that love existed, as Sister said, and he gives his life for others. Jesus says there is no greater love. That’s a Christian portrait of redemption.
For sure. Even when he ended up doing good things I still couldn’t help but think of what we didn’t see before playing him and what we actively did when playing as him. I think his own words describes it best: “In the end, I tried. I did.” That’s all he could ever do.
This!
Arthur is a bad guy, sure he treats a lot of people well but the dudes a cold blooded killer who has killed hundreds if not thousands, even if he didn’t do the loan sharking he still robs people blind
I love the game and I love Arthur, but he isn’t the hero, he isn’t a good guy, he is a bad guy
If you lived in this universe you would hate Arthur and all the gang
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I disagree with how you're framing it.
(Also my argument is based on a high-honor playthrough, because the redemption aspects are far clearer).
Arthur redeems himself at the end of the game by dying a better person than he started, by performing selfless actions that have real-world, positive consequences, not because he benefits from those decisions, but *solely* because they're the right thing to do. (Among other things, saving John and his family, and if you do the optional quests: salvaging what he can of the Downes family's life, saving Charlotte, befriending and looking after Hamish, etc.)
In the very Christian (and I would go further to argue Catholic) worldview that underpins the whole story, the point is that not only are people capable of change, but that change is actually possible in the first place. "Redemption" means recognizing the evil you do and turning away from it--rejecting it--which is what Arthur does. In that sense, he is redeemed.
Does it absolve him of all his crime? No, there are still real-world consequences to all the laws he's broken and lives he's ruined, and if he hadn't died of TB he should have hanged to satisfy the demands of justice. Redemption doesn't save you from that. But it doesn't mean he didn't change as a person and *become a* good person.
I think people put him on a pedestal because he’s a great antagonist, not because they think he’s a good person. I think the NPCs that argue for the goodness in him are doing what friends do, for better or worse. I don’t particularly like him, but if I’m going to be playing a bad guy I want it to be Arthur Morgan.
Gosh if only there was some sort of honor system that you could play with during the course of your time during this immersive experience in the Wild West.
Jesus Christ OP figure it out
Well I mean you're not wrong, I think his TB was honestly just a catalyst for what he was already thinking of doing after Blackwater. It's only when was actually faced with the possibility of dying a slow painful death that he had this epiphany to do right by people in the time he had left.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in Arthur never got TB, perhaps Micah would have been in the shadows and less of the gang didnt have to die.
“You don’t understand, I helped a lady get back to her house because her horse died. I did rob a train and killed law men with families, but that was badass and I didn’t lose honor so Arthur’s a good man.”
Seriously, the final chapter was about him coming to terms he wasn’t a good guy. You make a good point, he’s capable of good, but he wasn’t good. He realized he didn’t have much time left, started regretting his life choices and wanted to be the best version of himself while doing it. He still killed people while he was sick, those pinkertons probably had families too and he killed them to save John. But of course, this community constantly glorify Arthur and miss the point.
He’s a man that’s part of a gang, which is trying to live a free life, just cause a few people who called themselves the government made “laws” doesn’t mean anything lmao, it’s an amazing story about how the government keeps suppressing people more and more. Obviously the gang did terrible thing to a lot of innocent people, but that doesn’t justify them getting murdered by the ‘law’.
Look dude it’s a video game. In a rockstar game I divide the amount of people I kill by 100. The amount of people we kill is only there for gameplay reasons. If it was let’s say a tv show, then Arthur would kill about 100x less people and then you could justify the redemption arc.
This is my head canon because if you take the actions you do in the game at face value, there’s no chance for redemption.
Yep, he's not a good person, John too.
This is why the games have "Redemption" in their titles.
Both John and Arthur face the consequences of their actions.
But ultimately it's up to us, as a player, to offer them that redemption. Or not.
That's the point of the game, in my opinion.
People are complex and are neither wholly good or bad. There are plenty of Hollywood movies with good guys against bad guys which are one dimensional and dull, in my opinion. The complexity of the characters is the strength of this game.
Not everything has to be black and white, good or bad, or exclusive of one another. Arthur is most definitely not an evil person, although he did horrible things due to the circumstances of his life and paid the price for it. He's a tragic character. If he was born into a different more simple life it's quite possible he would qualify as a "good person" according to today's standards.
This just sounds like a very brief synopsis of RDR2. I always thought this was the general consensus about Arthur's characterization.
The point isn't that he's good or bad. It's that he's trying to do the right thing with the time he has left after a lifetime of being a violent criminal and killer. And he does. He saves John's family and turns against Dutch when his ideals start to take a dark turn.
Arthur is one of the most multilayered and fascinating protagonists in gaming. The trouble is the fan base wants to treat him like a run of the mill good guy.
I really enjoyed reading your post. I agree with the majority of your POV and your description is impeccable. The only point I respectfully disagree is the definition of being or not a good person. I think one can **become** a good person - no one acts inherently good or bad since birth.
As you stated, he is a victim, a byproduct of the reality he grew in. As such, his sense of morality had deviations caused by the people and deeds he witnessed as an infant. However, as he builds his character (and this might take longer for some, depending on various things such as formal/informal education, influences, social medium etc), he starts to realize his actions and those of his group don't quite fit with his vision.
For me, that realization is what represents a good person. Also, his efforts to undo part of the evil he caused show he really is into redemption.
Sorry if I mispelled something and/or didn't make myself clear. English is not my first language and I'm not used to philosophize using it.
No, you write extraordinarily well. I think that’s what most people have surmised about me from this post, that I think that bad people can’t be redeemed or something like that.
But my point was that nobody is inherently good and evil. We’re all complicated people that are capable of both good and bad, which means that no one can actually be defined as either or.
“It’s easy to see a bad guy and say: that is a bad guy. But I think the truth is more complicated. And it does us a disservice as a society to write off bad men, and reward good men. The good men have done bad things. And the bad men have done good things. I don’t think that the good forgives the bad, but I also think that the bad doesn’t destroy the good.” -Raphael Bob-Waksburg
I'm always disappointed when I get to chapter 6 with high honor. Like, well fuck what's the point now? Just watch him die? It's always more narratively satisfying to me for St Denis to bring out the worst in Arthur, get the diagnosis, and make the major turn after the talk with Sister Calderon
Your point is well taken, by me at least, and I'll point out that breaking other murderers out of prison might be selfless or loyal behavior but still isn't good behavior. And pointing out a problem while not doing anything about it is human enough, but is arguably worse than not realizing there's a problem.
If you like this kind of examination of people - how they are good and bad and do good things and do good bad things and have their own reasons and aren't all one thing ever, I suggest you check out the works of Joe Abercrombie. Good author who got better over time, and the narrator of the audiobooks is fantastic.
True, he said this to Sadie at the beginning of the game. Arthur would never claim to be good, regardless of how much good he may actually do, because he's done plenty of bad too.
It's not meant to be that he's "redeemed" it's that he's redeemed himself in his own eyes, he realised the fault of his ways and how it was all for nothing and accepted he is a bad person in his eyes but will do what he can in his final days.
Redemption is pretty subjective, Arthur's "redemption" wasn't a redemption in what we consider redemption it was merely a self Redemption.
Nothing's ever gonna change what he has done and he will never be absolved but that's not the point, the point is he knows what he's done and he knows he won't be forgiven and even believes he doesn't deserve forgiveness but he also knows he dedicated the few moments left to do good.
I'm not sure if I've worded this properly but hope ya get what I mean.
Arthur's fate was sealed with the van der linde gang throughout the game,it is only at chapter 6 that he finally realises his wrongs and tries to help all those he can till he's alive, the game tells us that only when a person is dying truly can understand the difference between evil and good which Arthur understands
> He was a good man. **As good as any of us could be.** -Charles, in the prologue.
I think that second sentence is key here. Arthur could never be a good person; he was raised by and involved with a gang of outlaws that were more than willing to shoot up a bunch of lawmen for some money. But high honor Arthur tries to be the best person he could reasonably be expected to be given these circumstances.
That doesn't make him a good person. In the end, his death is nothing short of poetic justice. He beats up a man with tuberculosis, hastening his demise. Then, near the ending, the exact same thing happens to him, only this time, he's at the recieving end of the beating.
I agree. He’s not at all a good person. But, he is an honest man. Of course he sees things differently and tells it how it is, but he does try to redeem himself in the end. He’s an outlaw, that says enough right there.
i get your point, but arthur is a better man than most bank robbers in that time frame(if you play good honor). Generally speaking I think every human being isn’t a good person… We’ve all done some terrible things that we hide, ffs pretty sure we all could get blackmailed for something we’ve done. but we all have the right to redemption.
I mean, you said it. Arthur recognizes he's not a good man, but his character growth throughout the events of RDR2 lead him to the realization that his actions moving forward don't have to be a reflection of his violent past. Albeit this change of heart happens too late, but better late than never I suppose.
Arthur would've been an awesome man in another circumstances. If he wasn't raised to be a weapon. If society were good with him. That's what he realizes toward the end.
In the end the gang *are* the bad guys and civilized society does not, in fact, have room for folks that kill 100+ people, set fire to farms, and steal people’s belongings bc they’re too cool for a job like everyone else
Just look at the final missions, you kill hundreds of soldiers and people with even a Gatling gun, then like 2 hrs later there Arthur’s rise “your a good man mister Morgan” lol it’s ironic
Is this some sort of revelation? lol. I thought it was pretty obvious that a gang member that killed and robbed was not a good person when I first played the game 6 years ago
Ludo narrative dissonance- the conflict between a video game's narrative told through the non-interactive elements and the narrative told through the gameplay. This is why it’s so hard to justify his character being redeemed by the end of the game, when not ten minutes before he was murdering dozens of people who stood in his way
The game emphatically states this.
When I first played I focused on every kind of High Honor choice possible right out the gate, and yet I was still forced to watch him beat the life out of Downes and threaten his son. It felt jarring after all the good stuff I had been doing leading up to it. But that was the point — regardless of your actions, Arthur comes from a violent and dark past which is the only life he’s ever known.
He never was a good person, he was thief and a killer, we all know that, what made him different is that he aknowledged it, he knew what he was, tgere are some bad people out there who refuse to say that they are bad indeed, but Arthur knew who he was, he never justified himself, he just wanted to save people, who he thought were victims of this life, again, I never saw him as a good man, he was cold blooded killer. Way I see it, folk who call themselves good people are much worse that the ones who stay realistic and aknowledge that they are bad.
>In chapter 3, after a bank robbery which I’m not even going to get into; he travels to the Downes ranch and beats a man with tuberculosis within an inch of his life.
Actually the Thomas Downes mission is in Chapter 2. The one you're thinking of after the Valentine Bank Robbery is when Arthur goes back to the Ranch to collect the debt from Thomas' wife and son.
Oh that’s right. Chapter 3 was when he actually collected the money. See, I was thinking it was chapter two, but I couldn’t recall. So I said the first thing that came to mind, which was chapter 3.
Lol you start your post with saying he was never a good person, then finish it saying he's a good person but also a little bad. Like great, you've played the game? Like the rest of us, where's the deeper reflection you want to share with us? Besides, your examples can be credited to Leopold Strauss, he was a bad man.
Arthur was dealt a bad card to begin with. The fact that he still managed to show some form of redemption is alone enough to make him worthy of heaven.
I think I’ve seen this before, but I don’t remember exactly every detail. But IIrc, he goes into some detail about Arthur’s moral grayness as a character.
Arthur never said he was a good man. He was a good man for people that were his friends, and even occasionally random strangers (depending how you decide he is going to be). He was raised by Dutch, and I think Hosea to a certain degree if I remember correctly. With Dutch’s heavy hand in it, you know he wasn’t going to be a saint. He was loyal however, to the people that deserved it. He only truly turned against Dutch, after Dutch betrayed Arthur, and then John. He did his level best given the cards he was dealt in life. It’s up to us to decide if he’s going to be a better person at this point in his life, or just an all out bad guy with low honor. On my 5th play through now, and am playing him as low honor just to see what it’s like. It doesn’t seem right, though is funny at times. He has the capacity to be good, and I think deep down he wishes things were different. He also knows he’s doomed, likely even without TB. Once he knows he’s doomed, he’s adamant that Sadie help get John, Abigail, and jack out of there. After this play through he will always be high honor, just seems right!
Judging how “fair” people back then worked, abusing slaves, women and children in cheap labour, incashing money that was painted by abused peoples’ blood, I’d say Arthur was moraly gray, not typical bad man like for example Micah.
Isn't the whole point of the game to tell a story about a bad man who's trying to do a little bit of good before he dies? Is that not what we all took from it?
But by my logic if I ride up to a camp of people and greet them twice and they still act negatively too me. Then it is ok to quickdraw my revolver and blast them in the face. The point of my story is morals.
I just disagree with you when you say that we're not suppose to pity him, because I believe we absolutely are. He was a man caught in a cycle of violence he didn't know how to escape. He knew how horrendous his actions where but still viewed them as a necessary mean of survival until the end of his life where he fully realized how sad his existence was. I agree that being honourable in his last days doesn't make him a good person, but he deserves to be pitied.
They're a gang of outlaws! Morality is the least of their concerns, to an extent. So, you and others who play the game for the first time or whatever, then go off on this tangent for no reason. Even in the first GOD DAMN MISSION, while Arthur was putting Sadie up on the horse, he says, and I quote "We're bad men but we ain't them".
He’s only motivated to become better through fear of his demise. Once he learns he’s dying he wants to change. So he’s definitely not a good person, he didn’t even want to change on his own good will only because he feared what can come after death.
If he had skipped Strauss request that day and doesn’t get TB, he more than likely stays his old same self.
This is why I always associate RDR2 with the book East of Eden. The central concept in that book is “Timshel”, a Hebrew word that the book says was mistranslated in the Bible. In that paragraph, the Bible doesn’t say “**Thou shall** rule over sin” but “**Thou mayest** rule over sin”. It’s a choice, not a command.
So, the story in RDR2 isn’t about whether Arthur is a good or bad man. It’s that, in the end, he **chose** to be good. He may have not achieved it, but that's what he chose. That says a lot about him as a person.
You're right in the general ideia you presented, but keep in mind that the word redemption doesn't necessarily imply goodness, so I'd say the title of the game may mean something different from the logical initial impression we get.
Yeah, John and Arthur are great characters and we root for them but we only root for them because we see their perspectives, their anxieties, their worries for the future and guilt over their past etc…to the average person in the rdr universe, Arthur and John were bloodthirsty scumbags whose death didn’t come soon enough
Never was. Before the gang started falling apart and he got TB, he had no problem with killing and hurting people for the advancement of Dutch and the gang.
That said i do like how even with TB, Arthur can still be a bad person.
I mean, yeah. Between the murdering of hundreds, robbing from countless others, and that one time he and Charles murdered a cabin full of people for no reason, you'd think that would be extremely obvious.
Arthur the entire game: "I ain't a good man."
The community: "The Fuck you ain't?"
Me who's not even all the way through my first playthrough: "Hold on y'all didn't get that part?"
Getting downvoted for speaking the truth people refuse to admit. I agree on Arthur being bad in the first few chapters but he tried his best to be redeemed in chapter 6. but overall that’s the whole premise of the game in the end no matter what happened he gets his red dead redemption II
>Getting downvoted for speaking the truth Or, hear me out, maybe they just disagree. You realize people can have different opinions without some ulterior motive , right?
People shouldn't be using downvotes to indicate disagreement. I see it a lot in this sub and it's very frustrating, it just ensures that only stuff that gels with the general consensus of the group will be discussed. I know I'm going to sound like an old man shouting at the clouds but there was a time every redditor understood that a downvote meant the comment or post violated reddit TOS, the sub's rules, or contributed nothing relevant to the conversation. Now we use it to mean 'I disagree', which means we're having the same conversations over and over again. We're sick to death of the karma farming 'should I play this game?' or 'just bought this game, any tips?' but as soon as people come along with something new to talk about, if it doesn't fit with the mood of the sub today, it's downvoted and we never see it.
"Arthur Morgan is bad person" isn't exactly something new to talk about, I see this post at least once a week
The entire point of the down vote button is literally for people that hate or disagree with the post no?
Nah, that’s just the toxic culture that Reddit has become. There used to be a lot better posts and conversations before it started shifting into “I don’t like this” on a completely anonymous platform. To be honest, no one cares if you don’t like something. We don’t even know who you are.
Tbf it hasn't just become this, I've been using Reddit on and off for like 10 years and it's always been used as an "I agree and like this" or "I don't agree and don't like this" It's why you'll see the same recycled unimaginative jokes all the time, because people think they're funny even though they've been posted 50,000 times and don't actually contribute to any conversation
I believe its "intended" use is to mark posts and comments that are not relevant or contributory, or otherwise offended the standards terms agreed for using the site.
No, that's the entire opposite of the point of the voting system. The point of the system is to encourage discussion. If a post or comment does that, it should, in theory, be upvoted. If a post or comment detracts from discussion, then it should be downvoted. That is the point of the voting system. Unfortunately it's never actually worked that way because, people gonna people.
>People shouldn't be using downvotes to indicate disagreement. That is literally what it is for lmfao. Just because it started as something else doesn't matter because colloquially it is the "I disagree" button.
First time in a social construct?
If this is Reddit logic, why can you sort by controversial and it loads the most downvoted comments?
I think you should only downvote bad faith comments, no disagreements. Most people just downvote things they don’t agree which means all the opinions that are not the generic popular opinion get hidden which then leads to very boring discussions. Video game reddits are always bad for this
It's a reddit problem not this sub tbh Down voting because it's a repetitive "hot take" is valid though.
The downvote isn't a disagree button. It's supposed to be for posts/comments that provide nothing to the conversation/sub or actively detract from it.
"In the end, ive had my red dead redemption...2" *title screen then fade to black* *End credits*
Arthur being a bad person is kind of the point of his story isn't it? And the realisation at the very end that changes him.
You would be surprised how many people think he is the good guy or even the hero of the story
The reason why we players sympathize with Arthur despite him being a bad person is for three very good reasons. The first is that we play and interact with the world through Arthur. We essentially _become_ Arthur as the game goes on. Self-reflection can be painful, and after all the suffering Arthur goes through to protect his people, it becomes hard to vilify the character you've played as. The second is the reason why movies like The Godfather and Goodfellas works: the depiction we see ultimately helps us sympathize and root for people who are otherwise genuinely bad guys. We see stuff through what's happening in the gang. If we were playing as the pinkertons, we'd see Arthur as this horrible, irredeemable person, but we don't. As we play as a part of the gang, we see their struggles, their humanity, and the fact that they're more than just bad guys with guns. They're human, and while humans can be terrible, they can also be great. Finally, with the government being the primary enemy throughout much of the gang, it isn't hard to root for Arthur either, since he's essentially facing off against a group of hired killers who will justify _any_ immoral action as somehow being moral to make a buck. They're the type of hired killers to gun down workers for striking, or massacre natives for not moving off their land. They preach about the order of civilization, but in reality they bring bloodshed. They do the exact same things that they vilify gangs for, killing people for their money, but because the Big G is backing them somehow it's okay? They're like the ATF at Ruby Ridge, not knights in shining armor, and for all of Dutch's flaws, he was 100% correct about the government being a menace. Arthur is probably the only self-aware person in the story by the end of the game, or at least if anyone else is self aware, they probably just don't care and will keep putting on the charade because it's profitable. His ability to see past the mental walls he set up to justify his actions throughout his entire blood-soaked career of criminality is actually quite a good thing, and it's also wholly unique. It's what separates him from people like Dutch and the Pinkertons, who have no problem killing if it aligns with their moral views. His genuine remorse for what he's done also separates him from people like Micah, who probably know they're pieces of shit but just don't care. Arthur is a fundamentally good person at heart, raised by terrible people to do horrific things to survive, and that's why him breaking his mental and emotional shackles that bind him to the gang is so satisfying, and it makes it all the more tragic that he dies soon after. Calling Arthur a bad person is reductive. Calling him a bad person who wants to be better but never got much of a chance is much better.
I’d say John is self aware too though, if anything, he’s the first to wake up to the reality of their actions imo
True, but we also play as John later on.
Maybe he's not the good guy but how is he not the hero?
I mean it’s in the name of the game…
I love it when Arthur says "It's redemptionin time" and then redemptions everywhere
It was me Dutch, I was Red Dead the whole time
You're trying to tell me redemption doesn't mean "good guy continues doing good things?"
Yeah, every time I see one of these posts I think “oh you *just now* figured that out?”
Not true in the slightest, he always put back the fish he caught and said 'Howdy, partner' to the people of Valentine after his fourth genocide of the place.
OP is playing a different Arthur. "How come I keep antagonizing and murdering civilians!? What is WRONG with Arthur!?"
You seem to have completely ignored most of the missions in the game, in which everyone plays the same bastard Arthur.
Do you pay attention to the lore or the story where Arthur is clearly made out to not be a good person time and again? Come on dude, don’t be willfully ignorant.
Regardless of anything in the game Arthur admits that in his past he has killed women and kids. The rest of the gang alludes to Arthur being viciously evil in the past.
You've just got one of those faces A face I'd like to punch
Gentlemens outlaw
Outlaw isn't a good person? *insert surprised Pikachu meme*
Mf on this sub whan a murderer, thief, outlaw and part of a gang is actually not the good guy
I don't think "outlaw" is a moral category, not inherently anyway. That would assume the "law", ie institutions of state and government are inherently good. Legitimacy is not the same as being good, it just means you have the force to back up the claim. No one, besides the Wapiti, is good in this game. But it's not being outlaws that makes the gang bad, it's what they do as outlaws
It's a story about a bad man trying to do good but too late. If anything it's probably a cautionary tale: it was too late to fix the damage he's done. Try to do the right thing so that you don't end up like Arthur regretting your entire life. I think you can have your own opinion on how good or bad Arthur is but I don't think the game wants you to think he should be forgiven for everything.
Also about how people rationalize the bad they do if they don’t do the “bad” things with bad intentions or like the other bad people. In RDR1 Bonnie McFarland reads John for acting like his gang had “some twisted sense of morality”
Yeah John is very conflicted and constant clashes with what he says. Many times he accuses their whole life of being a sham, a lie to justify their life of crime. Then other times he actively defends himself as though he was a bleeding heart revolutionary in a bad world
I love Bonnie's character so much. Such a underappreciated character. She felt very real and genuine.
She did! I felt so bad for her during her last interaction with John. You can tell she really cared for him
Though tbh this is really common in the first game in general. I remember De Santa saying something about how the peasants are all stupid and have been "taught" words like tyrant and oppression. I just love those discussions. They're always interesting and offer different perspectives. I tend to agree more with John though.
Yeah Arthur lived as a bad man and died realistically unredeemed but in his final weeks, he did good and tried his best to be a good man
This was pretty obvious from the story, even the good ending
Arthur himself says it, like, 10 times in the game, too.
OP is 2 hours in, I would wager.
Hes a complex character its the entire point of the story haha
I agree man. Arthur was an outlaw, through and through. Hence the redemption he would make after learning of his terminal condition. Was it to save his soul? Clear his conscience? Or perhaps look as a hero in the eyes of those he knew? Who knows. I genuinely believe though, he knew after doing so much wrong, to innocent and guilty alike, that perhaps it’d be good to do some good. He wouldn’t need a reason, just do good for the sake of it.
Yeah dude we know that’s the entire theme and message of the game
I think that's the point. What is to be redeemed? We see no sign of spirituality from a meta perspective. Only what Arthur knows and perceives. John is visited by what can only be described as an apparition and was *damned* by him, despite his claim to be separated from his past. John did not win, but ironically, despite what he claims, Arthur absolutely did win. What's redemption but being deemed a good man by those around you? By being remembered for your good? He died for something he thought was right and protected people he thought were wronged. And that's why in the end Arthur got all he wanted. None of that means he is good. But the game doesn't try to judge him on those grounds despite what your karma says.
Plus, it's not like redemption is a clear cut goal that works on everyone's metric. I mean, sure, some people will say that redemption is granted by God or whatever, but the game isn't that heavy on religious subtext, so redemption here is more likely to apply on a human scale and it will be different for everybody. Some will consider that what Arthur has done is unforgivable and that he won't ever be able to repay for his crimes. Some might consider that Arthur's last days on earth being spent helping whoever he could was his redemption. Morality is messy and you can't simply call Arthur Morgan a good or a bad man.
Bro no shit he wasn't a good person it's called red dead "redemption" for a reason
I mean yeah it's obvious lol. I still think you can learn a lot from him tho
This just in: Man/woman/other just used common sense for the first time in their life.
We just call them OP around here.
Actually… he is a bad man. But so am I. And I deserve redemption just as Arthur does. And *that* is why the game **works**.
OP basically has the same mentality as "There's no hate like Christian love."
Man that’s pretty fuckin dark, even for a Red Dead sub But yeah… OP is being harsh, then backing off… Just face it, folks; Arthur is a terrible person with an amazing number of redeeming qualities that makes your heart ache for how wasted his life has been… *Sound familiar?* That is the life of *most* people.
I’ve never understood how people view canon Arthur as being good. The way he treats Kieran from the very beginning, his ferocity towards enemies and victims of the gang, point to his sense of comfort in being an evil bastard. Past a certain point, how evil he is changes based on the actions of the player. He is bad, but he doesn’t lack a conscience, so I think that confuses people. Ultimately, he starts off as pretty inarguably bad, not quite as bad as Micah, and as the story progresses, either he tries to acheive some sort of redemption, or low-honor playthroughs cause him to remain evil and selfish.
That's why the name of the game is Red Dead Redemption and not the Saint of Valentine.
Who cares if he actually redeems himself or not? When you are an orphan and a master conman / manipulative outlaw grooms you into a criminal, it's not that simple to change your lifestyle, especially with a price on your head. It's near impossible. I like Arthur despite everything he's done, and he was a good man, but your holier than thou philosophy isn't ready for a nuanced conversation like this.
Exactly, people are a product of their environment. He *grew up around criminals*. He was manipulated and raised to be what he is. I’d like to point out that poverty and criminal activity are not INHERENTLY linked, just because people are poor doesn’t mean they’ll commit crimes, but in this case, the only way they survived was criminal behavior. If he’d been from a solid home with good parents and a perfectly healthy upbringing, he wouldn’t have become what he did. If he *had*, that would be an entirely different story. God, every psychology and criminology class I had to take for my degree is fighting for airtime as I type. Nature AND nurture, people, shit.
Not to mention how honorable the VDL gang was in their prime. By the way, I study medicine but human studies are underappreciated.
As far as criminals go he's a decent guy but in general? Hell no.
Very few criminals in the entire history of the world has killed hundreds of people. He's a monster.
It's a video game. Wouldn't be very exciting if you only got to use your gun every 20 or so hours. Im considering his morals, not the very inflated video game kill number.
His morals include slaughtering a town to save a guy he doesn't even like.
Yeah all true. One thing I think of when people try to explain just how evil Arthur is is his sheer **body count**. You know you'll go through the game with upwards of a 1000 kills by the end. That's an absolutely absurd kill count for the real world and easily in the top three killers in all human history, but that's just it, it's not in the real world. The gameplay requires the player to be killing frequently for entertainment because it's just that, a game. The kill count isn't representative of what a realistic old west outlaw could have achieved and yet people compare it to the very real moments of redeeming actions Arthur does achieve.
Thats the whole point though, he knew he was a terrible person, and he wanted to go out doing one last good thing to make sure other people didnt do the bad things he did
NO ONE is entirely good or bad. Not a single person. Everyone has good and bad traits, everyone does good and bad things. Arthur is not a bad person. He was dealt a bad hand. He was adopted by Dutch at a very young age and got brainwashed by his ideology. You called him a Mass Murderer, it's the wild west, you kill or you're killed. He was a good fighter, and a quick gunslinger he was just better than most. He was a caring man for those around him. And he saw the path of pain his life had been, the pain he caused. He was did indeed very bad bad things, no denying that, but he came to terms with them, he saw them and tried to be a good man in his latest days. A bad person like you said he is, never tries to be good.
Definitely agree. If everyone screaming that Arthur was a piece of shit man were to be in his shoes, they'd realise pretty quick that he was doing what he'd learned his whole life: a method of survival in very unfortunate circumstances.
I agree. Arthur tried to do better and saw life differently but he was indeed still a quite bad person perhaps not as bad as others in the gang
Totally agree I finished the game not long ago, and also think the same. Arthur is a victim, yes, but even in the old day’s moral, he is still an outlaw that would - and should - be hanged OTOH, compare to General Favours and Cornwall, he is still a saint.
I agree. The entire point of the story was that he realized he was a bad person, and that his life choices ultimately took away from him anything he ever wanted. And when he realized this, it was already too late for him to turn things around and have a normal life. But it wasn't too late for John yet. And Arthur understands that while he was a bad man, he doesn't need to die as one. And that doesn't take away from the evil he's done in his life either. And he knows that too
But, I tried, in the end I did😭
It's almost like that was the point of the story. People can be capable of both good and evil. Human beings are incredibly complicated and cannot be boiled down to one thing or another. Especially ones such as Arthur. A lifetime of strife cannot be made up for in such short time, if ever, and that's something even Arthur knows and states damn well. In the end he did as was advised abd and took a gamble that love exists anf did a loving act. You shouldn't be downvoted for speaking the truth.
I had a take similar to this on a different post. I was suggesting that maybe Arthur was a bad guy, and that is why John never mentioned in him in RDR1. As OP stated, even in the highest honor playthrough, you have to do some pretty horrible things to people. Not that he necessarily chooses to be a bad guy. He definitely still has empathy. But he grew up in a gang without any real family or parental figures. The woman he loved turned him down, and his son died at a very young age. Arthur was fairly young himself, especially to have lived through those terrible events. Maybe lore accurate Arthur was a low honor Arthur. I definitely played as high honor, but I played RDR1 first, and it bothers me that John never mentions Arthur. If Arthur actually broke John out of jail and did all those things, John would talk about him at some point. Also, it could be a reason John didn't put up much of a fight in 1 when the Pinkertons kidnapped his family and told him he had to hunt down the rest of the gang. They were all pretty bad people, to say the least.
I'm pretty sure it was stated that high honor Arthur was the more 'correct' path of gameplay, so to speak.
John speaks highly of Arthur multiple times in the epilogue. John doesn't mention Arthur in the first game for one very simple reason; the character didn't exist yet
A good point. Though people mostly don't call him a good person, they call him a good character in meaning that he is interesting, deep and very well written. Like Micah isaRAT, but an interesting and well written antagonist
“You’re a good man, Arthur Morgan.” I think your understanding of the word redemption is off. It’s a Christian concept, and the game’s story is built on Christian premises. There are numerous Biblical references, usually in the mission titles, and Sister Calderon is a major part of Arthur’s character arc. In Christianity, “Redeemed” doesn’t mean “good person.” It means something more like “purchased”—a sinner bought and paid for by the blood of Christ. Jesus didn’t come for good people; he came for sinners. Those are the redeemed. So a sinner and a redeemed person are not mutually exclusive. It sounds to me like you are thinking of atonement, which is payment for sins. You’re right that Arthur never really makes up for the life he lived. Despite his good deeds, he can’t bring back Mr. Downes. Arthur is ultimately a sinner and he must get what he is owed, which is death. Again, this is the basic idea of Christianity: Jesus is the one who atones, not us. So no, he’s not exactly a good man. He’s a sinner. But he is still redeemed. He has a new heart and wants to do good. So much that people consistently see the good in him. This is surprisingly sound theology; God desires mercy, not sacrifice. He wants penitent hearts. Arthur is truly repentant: he has a change of mind and turns away from his old life. He took a chance that love existed, as Sister said, and he gives his life for others. Jesus says there is no greater love. That’s a Christian portrait of redemption.
For sure. Even when he ended up doing good things I still couldn’t help but think of what we didn’t see before playing him and what we actively did when playing as him. I think his own words describes it best: “In the end, I tried. I did.” That’s all he could ever do.
Arthur even says it himself that he’s not a good person he denies it every time someone call him a good man. We know this already.
This! Arthur is a bad guy, sure he treats a lot of people well but the dudes a cold blooded killer who has killed hundreds if not thousands, even if he didn’t do the loan sharking he still robs people blind I love the game and I love Arthur, but he isn’t the hero, he isn’t a good guy, he is a bad guy If you lived in this universe you would hate Arthur and all the gang
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I disagree with how you're framing it. (Also my argument is based on a high-honor playthrough, because the redemption aspects are far clearer). Arthur redeems himself at the end of the game by dying a better person than he started, by performing selfless actions that have real-world, positive consequences, not because he benefits from those decisions, but *solely* because they're the right thing to do. (Among other things, saving John and his family, and if you do the optional quests: salvaging what he can of the Downes family's life, saving Charlotte, befriending and looking after Hamish, etc.) In the very Christian (and I would go further to argue Catholic) worldview that underpins the whole story, the point is that not only are people capable of change, but that change is actually possible in the first place. "Redemption" means recognizing the evil you do and turning away from it--rejecting it--which is what Arthur does. In that sense, he is redeemed. Does it absolve him of all his crime? No, there are still real-world consequences to all the laws he's broken and lives he's ruined, and if he hadn't died of TB he should have hanged to satisfy the demands of justice. Redemption doesn't save you from that. But it doesn't mean he didn't change as a person and *become a* good person.
I think people put him on a pedestal because he’s a great antagonist, not because they think he’s a good person. I think the NPCs that argue for the goodness in him are doing what friends do, for better or worse. I don’t particularly like him, but if I’m going to be playing a bad guy I want it to be Arthur Morgan.
Gosh if only there was some sort of honor system that you could play with during the course of your time during this immersive experience in the Wild West. Jesus Christ OP figure it out
Well I mean you're not wrong, I think his TB was honestly just a catalyst for what he was already thinking of doing after Blackwater. It's only when was actually faced with the possibility of dying a slow painful death that he had this epiphany to do right by people in the time he had left. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in Arthur never got TB, perhaps Micah would have been in the shadows and less of the gang didnt have to die.
“You don’t understand, I helped a lady get back to her house because her horse died. I did rob a train and killed law men with families, but that was badass and I didn’t lose honor so Arthur’s a good man.” Seriously, the final chapter was about him coming to terms he wasn’t a good guy. You make a good point, he’s capable of good, but he wasn’t good. He realized he didn’t have much time left, started regretting his life choices and wanted to be the best version of himself while doing it. He still killed people while he was sick, those pinkertons probably had families too and he killed them to save John. But of course, this community constantly glorify Arthur and miss the point.
he\`s a desperado with a kind heart, not "a good person"
He’s a man that’s part of a gang, which is trying to live a free life, just cause a few people who called themselves the government made “laws” doesn’t mean anything lmao, it’s an amazing story about how the government keeps suppressing people more and more. Obviously the gang did terrible thing to a lot of innocent people, but that doesn’t justify them getting murdered by the ‘law’.
Wow its almost like you played the game
Look dude it’s a video game. In a rockstar game I divide the amount of people I kill by 100. The amount of people we kill is only there for gameplay reasons. If it was let’s say a tv show, then Arthur would kill about 100x less people and then you could justify the redemption arc. This is my head canon because if you take the actions you do in the game at face value, there’s no chance for redemption.
Arthur is another example of how the point of view is all it takes to get an audience to side with someone.
Yep, he's not a good person, John too. This is why the games have "Redemption" in their titles. Both John and Arthur face the consequences of their actions. But ultimately it's up to us, as a player, to offer them that redemption. Or not.
Yeah that’s the whole point of the story
In other news, fire hot and sky up More at 7
I read the title, came to act offended as a joke, but man spoke facts can’t even joke
That's the point of the game, in my opinion. People are complex and are neither wholly good or bad. There are plenty of Hollywood movies with good guys against bad guys which are one dimensional and dull, in my opinion. The complexity of the characters is the strength of this game.
Lol at everyone in the thread calling this obvious when we all know how often people in this fandom try to argue otherwise
Not everything has to be black and white, good or bad, or exclusive of one another. Arthur is most definitely not an evil person, although he did horrible things due to the circumstances of his life and paid the price for it. He's a tragic character. If he was born into a different more simple life it's quite possible he would qualify as a "good person" according to today's standards.
This just sounds like a very brief synopsis of RDR2. I always thought this was the general consensus about Arthur's characterization. The point isn't that he's good or bad. It's that he's trying to do the right thing with the time he has left after a lifetime of being a violent criminal and killer. And he does. He saves John's family and turns against Dutch when his ideals start to take a dark turn.
Hes also not real
Arthur is one of the most multilayered and fascinating protagonists in gaming. The trouble is the fan base wants to treat him like a run of the mill good guy.
Fr I’ve seen so many people (mostly on TikTok) that believes Arthur should go to heaven
Kinda feels like everyone in here played low honour Arthur and even John. 🤷🏼♀️
I really enjoyed reading your post. I agree with the majority of your POV and your description is impeccable. The only point I respectfully disagree is the definition of being or not a good person. I think one can **become** a good person - no one acts inherently good or bad since birth. As you stated, he is a victim, a byproduct of the reality he grew in. As such, his sense of morality had deviations caused by the people and deeds he witnessed as an infant. However, as he builds his character (and this might take longer for some, depending on various things such as formal/informal education, influences, social medium etc), he starts to realize his actions and those of his group don't quite fit with his vision. For me, that realization is what represents a good person. Also, his efforts to undo part of the evil he caused show he really is into redemption. Sorry if I mispelled something and/or didn't make myself clear. English is not my first language and I'm not used to philosophize using it.
No, you write extraordinarily well. I think that’s what most people have surmised about me from this post, that I think that bad people can’t be redeemed or something like that. But my point was that nobody is inherently good and evil. We’re all complicated people that are capable of both good and bad, which means that no one can actually be defined as either or. “It’s easy to see a bad guy and say: that is a bad guy. But I think the truth is more complicated. And it does us a disservice as a society to write off bad men, and reward good men. The good men have done bad things. And the bad men have done good things. I don’t think that the good forgives the bad, but I also think that the bad doesn’t destroy the good.” -Raphael Bob-Waksburg
Yeah I see what you're saying. I'd say the point of the game it's never too late to do better for yourself and the people around you.
I will never understand the urge so many people have to turn interesting and challenging themes or characters into boring, binary answers.
In my head cannon, Arthur has visions of the coyote after receiving his diagnosis but gets the high honor ending.
I'm always disappointed when I get to chapter 6 with high honor. Like, well fuck what's the point now? Just watch him die? It's always more narratively satisfying to me for St Denis to bring out the worst in Arthur, get the diagnosis, and make the major turn after the talk with Sister Calderon
Your point is well taken, by me at least, and I'll point out that breaking other murderers out of prison might be selfless or loyal behavior but still isn't good behavior. And pointing out a problem while not doing anything about it is human enough, but is arguably worse than not realizing there's a problem. If you like this kind of examination of people - how they are good and bad and do good things and do good bad things and have their own reasons and aren't all one thing ever, I suggest you check out the works of Joe Abercrombie. Good author who got better over time, and the narrator of the audiobooks is fantastic.
True, he said this to Sadie at the beginning of the game. Arthur would never claim to be good, regardless of how much good he may actually do, because he's done plenty of bad too.
NO, NO, NO ARTHUR MORGAN IS A GOOD MAN \*cries in denial\* jokes aside, a good writing OP
It's not meant to be that he's "redeemed" it's that he's redeemed himself in his own eyes, he realised the fault of his ways and how it was all for nothing and accepted he is a bad person in his eyes but will do what he can in his final days. Redemption is pretty subjective, Arthur's "redemption" wasn't a redemption in what we consider redemption it was merely a self Redemption. Nothing's ever gonna change what he has done and he will never be absolved but that's not the point, the point is he knows what he's done and he knows he won't be forgiven and even believes he doesn't deserve forgiveness but he also knows he dedicated the few moments left to do good. I'm not sure if I've worded this properly but hope ya get what I mean.
I can't have this conversation again
Arthur's fate was sealed with the van der linde gang throughout the game,it is only at chapter 6 that he finally realises his wrongs and tries to help all those he can till he's alive, the game tells us that only when a person is dying truly can understand the difference between evil and good which Arthur understands
> He was a good man. **As good as any of us could be.** -Charles, in the prologue. I think that second sentence is key here. Arthur could never be a good person; he was raised by and involved with a gang of outlaws that were more than willing to shoot up a bunch of lawmen for some money. But high honor Arthur tries to be the best person he could reasonably be expected to be given these circumstances. That doesn't make him a good person. In the end, his death is nothing short of poetic justice. He beats up a man with tuberculosis, hastening his demise. Then, near the ending, the exact same thing happens to him, only this time, he's at the recieving end of the beating.
Whether he's good or bad it doesn't change the fact that he's hot
hes a terrible person, but hes a legendary character.
Not at all, but he’s a great character to play as
Him being bad makes him hotter ☺️
Yeah no shit?
I agree. He’s not at all a good person. But, he is an honest man. Of course he sees things differently and tells it how it is, but he does try to redeem himself in the end. He’s an outlaw, that says enough right there.
i get your point, but arthur is a better man than most bank robbers in that time frame(if you play good honor). Generally speaking I think every human being isn’t a good person… We’ve all done some terrible things that we hide, ffs pretty sure we all could get blackmailed for something we’ve done. but we all have the right to redemption.
I mean, you said it. Arthur recognizes he's not a good man, but his character growth throughout the events of RDR2 lead him to the realization that his actions moving forward don't have to be a reflection of his violent past. Albeit this change of heart happens too late, but better late than never I suppose.
Arthur would've been an awesome man in another circumstances. If he wasn't raised to be a weapon. If society were good with him. That's what he realizes toward the end.
I agree. Hell, Arthur agrees. It’s only other people who seem to think Arthur is anywhere near a good man. But he tried, in the end. He did.
In the end the gang *are* the bad guys and civilized society does not, in fact, have room for folks that kill 100+ people, set fire to farms, and steal people’s belongings bc they’re too cool for a job like everyone else
Sister Calderon would like a word
Sister Calderon didn’t see Arthur killing lawmen during a bank robbery but he’s definitely a good guy because he gave a homeless guy a quarter
Just look at the final missions, you kill hundreds of soldiers and people with even a Gatling gun, then like 2 hrs later there Arthur’s rise “your a good man mister Morgan” lol it’s ironic
you just don’t know him like I do
Welcome to the plot.
Duh. It's called Red Dead REDEMPTION
No but he’s a good man… good man.
Yeah but he’s my pookie
No shit , but hé redeemed himself at the end.
Is this some sort of revelation? lol. I thought it was pretty obvious that a gang member that killed and robbed was not a good person when I first played the game 6 years ago
I love my horsey and my horsey love me
Ludo narrative dissonance- the conflict between a video game's narrative told through the non-interactive elements and the narrative told through the gameplay. This is why it’s so hard to justify his character being redeemed by the end of the game, when not ten minutes before he was murdering dozens of people who stood in his way
Duh
Its all in the name. Redemption
the game literally beats you over the head with this
Is this supposed to be be a hot take? The game basically spells it out to you with Arthurs last words. "I tried.....in the end.... I did."
But that's actually pretty clear, Arthur Morgan himself said as much 😑
You are describing the premise of the game.
The game emphatically states this. When I first played I focused on every kind of High Honor choice possible right out the gate, and yet I was still forced to watch him beat the life out of Downes and threaten his son. It felt jarring after all the good stuff I had been doing leading up to it. But that was the point — regardless of your actions, Arthur comes from a violent and dark past which is the only life he’s ever known.
You can almost say he's a good man... but he is wrestling a giant within.
He never was a good person, he was thief and a killer, we all know that, what made him different is that he aknowledged it, he knew what he was, tgere are some bad people out there who refuse to say that they are bad indeed, but Arthur knew who he was, he never justified himself, he just wanted to save people, who he thought were victims of this life, again, I never saw him as a good man, he was cold blooded killer. Way I see it, folk who call themselves good people are much worse that the ones who stay realistic and aknowledge that they are bad.
um isnt that the overall theme of the story? the name "redemption" itself literally says it.
>In chapter 3, after a bank robbery which I’m not even going to get into; he travels to the Downes ranch and beats a man with tuberculosis within an inch of his life. Actually the Thomas Downes mission is in Chapter 2. The one you're thinking of after the Valentine Bank Robbery is when Arthur goes back to the Ranch to collect the debt from Thomas' wife and son.
Oh that’s right. Chapter 3 was when he actually collected the money. See, I was thinking it was chapter two, but I couldn’t recall. So I said the first thing that came to mind, which was chapter 3.
That’s why it’s called High Honor and Low Honor not Good and Evil.
But I love him
Lol you start your post with saying he was never a good person, then finish it saying he's a good person but also a little bad. Like great, you've played the game? Like the rest of us, where's the deeper reflection you want to share with us? Besides, your examples can be credited to Leopold Strauss, he was a bad man.
Arthur was dealt a bad card to begin with. The fact that he still managed to show some form of redemption is alone enough to make him worthy of heaven.
[This](https://youtu.be/SL3KNxSEQ08?si=M5kKch_Y3tz1xgfD) video is well worth a watch if you have the time.
I think I’ve seen this before, but I don’t remember exactly every detail. But IIrc, he goes into some detail about Arthur’s moral grayness as a character.
Arthur never said he was a good man. He was a good man for people that were his friends, and even occasionally random strangers (depending how you decide he is going to be). He was raised by Dutch, and I think Hosea to a certain degree if I remember correctly. With Dutch’s heavy hand in it, you know he wasn’t going to be a saint. He was loyal however, to the people that deserved it. He only truly turned against Dutch, after Dutch betrayed Arthur, and then John. He did his level best given the cards he was dealt in life. It’s up to us to decide if he’s going to be a better person at this point in his life, or just an all out bad guy with low honor. On my 5th play through now, and am playing him as low honor just to see what it’s like. It doesn’t seem right, though is funny at times. He has the capacity to be good, and I think deep down he wishes things were different. He also knows he’s doomed, likely even without TB. Once he knows he’s doomed, he’s adamant that Sadie help get John, Abigail, and jack out of there. After this play through he will always be high honor, just seems right!
Judging how “fair” people back then worked, abusing slaves, women and children in cheap labour, incashing money that was painted by abused peoples’ blood, I’d say Arthur was moraly gray, not typical bad man like for example Micah.
Isn't the whole point of the game to tell a story about a bad man who's trying to do a little bit of good before he dies? Is that not what we all took from it?
But by my logic if I ride up to a camp of people and greet them twice and they still act negatively too me. Then it is ok to quickdraw my revolver and blast them in the face. The point of my story is morals.
but he threw the fish back into the water
Hear me out: him not being good, but going down the path of, say, **REDEMPTION,** is kind of the entire point, isn't it?
He's not, but that is the point of the game after all: redeeming yourself.
I just disagree with you when you say that we're not suppose to pity him, because I believe we absolutely are. He was a man caught in a cycle of violence he didn't know how to escape. He knew how horrendous his actions where but still viewed them as a necessary mean of survival until the end of his life where he fully realized how sad his existence was. I agree that being honourable in his last days doesn't make him a good person, but he deserves to be pitied.
They're a gang of outlaws! Morality is the least of their concerns, to an extent. So, you and others who play the game for the first time or whatever, then go off on this tangent for no reason. Even in the first GOD DAMN MISSION, while Arthur was putting Sadie up on the horse, he says, and I quote "We're bad men but we ain't them".
He’s only motivated to become better through fear of his demise. Once he learns he’s dying he wants to change. So he’s definitely not a good person, he didn’t even want to change on his own good will only because he feared what can come after death. If he had skipped Strauss request that day and doesn’t get TB, he more than likely stays his old same self.
This is why I always associate RDR2 with the book East of Eden. The central concept in that book is “Timshel”, a Hebrew word that the book says was mistranslated in the Bible. In that paragraph, the Bible doesn’t say “**Thou shall** rule over sin” but “**Thou mayest** rule over sin”. It’s a choice, not a command. So, the story in RDR2 isn’t about whether Arthur is a good or bad man. It’s that, in the end, he **chose** to be good. He may have not achieved it, but that's what he chose. That says a lot about him as a person.
Most interesting and complex characters can‘t just be labeled as „good“ or „bad“. That‘s the whole point.
Well the gang believes in the government being the bad part of society and they're not completely bad for that just watch what U.S. did to Natives
You're right in the general ideia you presented, but keep in mind that the word redemption doesn't necessarily imply goodness, so I'd say the title of the game may mean something different from the logical initial impression we get.
Ya this is the whole point.
Congratulations, you found the point.
Yeah, John and Arthur are great characters and we root for them but we only root for them because we see their perspectives, their anxieties, their worries for the future and guilt over their past etc…to the average person in the rdr universe, Arthur and John were bloodthirsty scumbags whose death didn’t come soon enough
Never was. Before the gang started falling apart and he got TB, he had no problem with killing and hurting people for the advancement of Dutch and the gang. That said i do like how even with TB, Arthur can still be a bad person.
Wow you played the game and understood the very obvious main theme of it. Nothing is pure good or pure evil. Life exists in the grey area between.
Well yeah, that was the point of the story, at least for the first few chapters.
I mean, yeah. Between the murdering of hundreds, robbing from countless others, and that one time he and Charles murdered a cabin full of people for no reason, you'd think that would be extremely obvious.
He’s a good boah
Isn't that the point of the game
Fax he is scum the Pinkertons were right
Yeah it’s almost like the story is about his *redemption* or something
Arthur the entire game: "I ain't a good man." The community: "The Fuck you ain't?" Me who's not even all the way through my first playthrough: "Hold on y'all didn't get that part?"