[Speculation Topic] Why Arthur is not mentioned in RDR1?

[ThroatSlasher2 2,247]

Because John Was Only After The Ones Who Went Crazy And Left Him For Dead. My speculation is that when John Is shot, Arthur Tried to save him but he couldn't somehow. Then he left the gang because of how Dutch and Others Went Crazy And Uncontrollable.

John was after the ones that were stupid enough to not stay hidden. He was only after Williamson at the beginning but once the trails of Escuella and Dutch got considerably warmer, that's when he was tasked with eliminating them. If Arthur is still alive by RDR1, the only reason he's not being hunted down is because he's done a good job remaining hidden, because I'm pretty sure Marston would not hesitate a second to gun him down if it meant saving his family.

[Cutter De Blanc 13,866]

I dunno, I think it just comes down to the really obvious answer of "because John, Bill, Javier, Edgar and Dutch didn't mention him."

and

"Because he hadn't been created yet"

[pjw 1,148]

Said it in General but I'll post it again here-

 

Well John does vaguely allude to other gang members in RDR. While talking to Ross, he says something like: "First it was Bill, then Javier, now Dutch. Then who?" Or something like that. To me that says that other gang members are still alive, but not a priority (or not as well known to the public) for John to track them down. Keep in mind that Bill, Javier, and Dutch were all in a close proximity to each other. Ross only cared about wiping out the members that could effect Nate Johns candidacy, so he would not send John off to track down some low level gang member who might have fled to the other side of the country. Not all the new gang members need to die in RDR II[/size]

By far the best theory I have seen. Rockstar probably deliberately left the history of Dutchs gang and the fate of its members ambiguous, knowing full well there was potential for a prequel. Given that they supposedly started working on RDR2 - in some capacity - immediately after RDR was released, they probably had plans for a prequel a long time ago. Edited May 22, 2018 by pjw

[Spitta_Vercetti 1,387]

More than half the characters in RDR 2 wasnt mentioned in the first one so I wouldnt read too deep into that narrative....

[LeonVegaSuarez 1,504]

You guys are overanalyzing this sh*t so much......

 

The simple answer is that when RDR1 came out the developers had not even thought once about Arthurt Morgan. They wrote the prequel story later.

[IAmArthur 0]

I do not think they created Arthur after Rdr since the game was developed 8 years ago, in 2010 the same date that Rdr came out, Rockstar already had the idea to continue with this saga

[Spitta_Vercetti 1,387]

You guys are overanalyzing this sh*t so much......

 

The simple answer is that when RDR1 came out the developers had not even thought once about Arthurt Morgan. They wrote the prequel story later.

I think its more about people trying to over analyze the possible ending to Arthurs story.....

[Synthetic_Soul 1,905]

It's not over analyzing at all.

 

It's just fun trying to come up with theories as to why John never mentions Arthur.

 

Of course we all know it's because he probably hadn't been created yet.

 

It's more of an imagination exercise to come up with possible lore and backstory as to why, seeing as how they were close friends in cannon regardless.

 

It's fun to think of "well why didn't John ever mention Arthur to ANYONE in passing?" That doesn't have to do with him dying. Even in death you sometimes mention friends in passing conversations.

[Dick Justice 2,464]

John was clandestine about his past throughout the entire game. During the entire first act, he only ever talks about Bill Williamson when probed by Bonnie or the Marshall. He doesnt mention Javier at all until he realizes that Bill had run off to Mexico. Whenever he talks about Dutch, he doesnt mention him by name, only referring to him as Our Leader, until much later on when Dutch is a part of the story.

 

These examples were all characters that feature prominently in Red Dead Redemption. So, with that knowledge, why would John talk about Arthur - alive or dead - when he barely even talks about the men hes actually chasing? Obviously Arthur hadnt been written yet, but John also had no reason to talk about him regardless of this.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Dick Justice

[1898 1,949]

​You guys are overanalyzing this sh*t so much......

 

The simple answer is that when RDR1 came out the developers had not even thought once about Arthurt Morgan. They wrote the prequel story later.

 

That's pretty much it right there.

 

He's now part of the RDR storyline but he didn't exist 10 years ago.

 

Mystery solved.

 

Edit: Utterly worthless post for failing to study the entire thread.

 

Ignore.

Edited May 23, 2018 by 1898

[Gray-Hand 1,085]

The OP acknowledged in the very first post in the thread that the reason that Arthur wasnt mentioned in RDR1 was because he hadnt been created when RDR1 was written. The whole point of the thread is just a mental exercise.

[Synthair 0]

On 5/9/2018 at 12:17 PM, TheWetPartoftheArm said:

Right before Morgan's death at the end, choking and sputtering in Marston's arms, he'll say to John with his final words: "Promise me, John... don't mention me, don't think about me, don't even acknowledge my previous existence at any point in time. You gotta run and don't look back. This is over."

Jesus, man. Nice one

[Negan009 8,687]

John even says in RDR2 he didn't talk about him much, but I think the obvious reason is that RDR2 was not planned. But it doesn't really matter, both games stand on their own and you can interpret each game any way you want. RDR was a mission to take down Dutch and the rest of the gang members, I don't think Arthur needed to be mentioned as I think American Venom covered that in a very satisfying way.

[gonnaenodaethat 1,037]

The portal guy in the cabin, the Strange Man, Donald Trump's Grandad and that loopy burd in the shunkie and that's all I'm saying. 

 

[Mysterious hero 200]

John does somewhat mention Arthur in RDR1, in the mission "Political Realities in Armadillo".

 

"Ya know, I hear you speak and suddenly I'm reminded of how, some of the people I respected most in my life had a problem with authority".

Edited June 10 by Mysterious hero

[Guest Guest176525326]

12 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

John does somewhat mention Arthur in RDR1, in the mission "Political Realities in Armadillo".

 

"Ya know, I hear you speak and suddenly I'm reminded of how, some of the people I respected most in my life had a problem with authority".

Problem with authority? lol, Arthur Morgan was a blind follower and that’s one of the reasons why he is dead. 

[Mysterious hero 200]

10 hours ago, O.Z said:

Problem with authority? lol, Arthur Morgan was a blind follower and that’s one of the reasons why he is dead. 

John was referring to authority, as in, the law enforcement, not the leadership type of authority.

[Smokewood 2,148]

Because he didn't exist....

[Gtaman_92 850]

Because he was dead and forgotten by than.

[Cutter De Blanc 13,866]

17 hours ago, Smokewood said:

Because he didn't exist....

Hot take: RDR 2 is a quasi-fictional book written by Jack Marston, Arthur is a made up character in this book

Edited June 12 by Cutter De Blanc

[JC_HUMBLE 951]

That really makes sense! After the huge success of the first book, Jack didn't had much material to work on the second so he invented like 80% of the story...

[burger_mike 3,233]

Sensitive subject that john didnt know how or want to express what happened

 

 

There was one cutscene with the marshall where you can assume that john is talking about arthur

Edited June 12 by Equatecurl

[cp1dell 2,240]

I think Rockstar expected people to wonder this same thing, and their answer to that is John’s reunion with Mary Beth at the train station in Valentine: “Arthur. He saved my life before he passed. I don’t talk about him much, but I think about him.”

 

This is sort of emphasized by the fact that throughout the whole epilogue John really doesn’t talk about Arthur unless someone else brings him up.

 

In RDR1 you have John getting dicked around by snake oil salesmen, drunks, grave digging loonies, and hypocritical rebels full of themselves. Arthur and the impact he had on him and his family isn’t a subject I could see him bringing up with these strangers, just how Arthur doesn’t talk about his son to anybody other than to Rains Fall or Sister Calderon. And the shirt brief times John has to talk with Bill, Javier, and Dutch, was just that—short. And if they did talk, it was about the very present they were in.

 

I think that the epilogue itself as well as the conversation with Mary Beth does a good job with giving you an explanation about Arthur is never brought up in RDR1. They did the best they could.

[Gray-Hand 1,085]

How often does a guy in his late 30’s talk about a person he was friends with in university and hasn’t seen in 15 years?

 

What would he have to say about Arthur all those years later?  And to whom?

[IG_ 1,630]

2 hours ago, Gray-Hand said:

How often does a guy in his late 30’s talk about a person he was friends with in university and hasn’t seen in 15 years?

 

What would he have to say about Arthur all those years later?  And to whom?

This is probably the true answer as far as retro-canons.

It's the simplest and makes the most sense.

[cp1dell 2,240]

7 hours ago, Gray-Hand said:

How often does a guy in his late 30’s talk about a person he was friends with in university and hasn’t seen in 15 years?

 

What would he have to say about Arthur all those years later?  And to whom?

I think you’re comparing apples to oranges here.

[UnexpectedParole 117]

3 hours ago, cp1dell said:

I think you’re comparing apples to oranges here.

 

I'm going to agree here.

 

Arthur and John did not have a "friends at university" relationship.

 

They were brothers. Sons of Dutch who suffered from a sibling rivalry where they weren't sure they liked each other and had to grow into a relationship where one would eventually sacrifice himself for the other.

 

But as for talking about Arthur in RDR1 . What would John say to people though? The relationship was seriously complicated.  Not to mention the need to avoid talking about anything that would be considered incriminating.

With people who knew both Arthur and John, there is nothing really so say past what was said in the epilogues to people like Catherine, Hamish, Mickey and Mary Beth. -It would be especially hard for John to talk to Abigail about Arthur I suspect, given that complicated triangle.

 

People who don't know both are probably best left in the dark about John's past exploits.

 

[RedDeadGuy69 0]

oh you sad sacks of ignorance, i thought that after a year y'all find y'alls answer, john said in rdr 2 epilogue that he won't talk about arthur because of how hurt he is over his passing, it's here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4cT3rF5PHY

8 minutes ago, RedDeadGuy69 said:

oh you sad sacks of ignorance, i thought that after a year y'all find y'alls answer, john said in rdr 2 epilogue that he won't talk about arthur because of how hurt he is over his passing, it's here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4cT3rF5PHY

Posted June 11

Because he didn't exist....

 

[Mysterious hero 200]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 7:03 PM, cp1dell said:

I think Rockstar expected people to wonder this same thing, and their answer to that is John’s reunion with Mary Beth at the train station in Valentine: “Arthur. He saved my life before he passed. I don’t talk about him much, but I think about him.”

 

This is sort of emphasized by the fact that throughout the whole epilogue John really doesn’t talk about Arthur unless someone else brings him up.

 

In RDR1 you have John getting dicked around by snake oil salesmen, drunks, grave digging loonies, and hypocritical rebels full of themselves. Arthur and the impact he had on him and his family isn’t a subject I could see him bringing up with these strangers, just how Arthur doesn’t talk about his son to anybody other than to Rains Fall or Sister Calderon. And the shirt brief times John has to talk with Bill, Javier, and Dutch, was just that—short. And if they did talk, it was about the very present they were in.

 

I think that the epilogue itself as well as the conversation with Mary Beth does a good job with giving you an explanation about Arthur is never brought up in RDR1. They did the best they could.

I agree that John not mentioning Arthur (John only alludes to him once) makes sense because he died over a decade ago. Arthur only mentions his dead son three times. John only mentions his dead daughter twice. They're dead, no reason to talk about them on a regular basis.

 

Despite this, I feel like there are times that Arthur would have most definitely been mentions have the games been made the other way around:

 

-The first confrontation will Bill. He probably would have said something like "No more Dutch, no more Hosea, no more Arthur and no more you". Remember, Arthur and Hosea were the co-leaders of the gang, the right hand men to Dutch.

-When Abigail and John are riding back from the Macfarlane Ranch, they discuss how John got out the gang and that he knew the truth about Dutch while others didn't. Arthur would have definitely been mentioned here.

-I think Jack would have brought up Arthur often. He's very obsessed with his fathers past as a gunslinger and definitely would have asked more questions about him.

 

The lack of mentions of Arthur is mostly compensated by people quoting him, such as John saying "don't look back" and Dutch saying "our time has passed". Jack also seems to deliberately style himself after Arthur.

 

To all the people that keep saying "because he didn't exist back then".... well your absolutely correct, the reason is because they didn't create him yet. But the thread is meant to be an In-Universe explanation for why Arthur isn't mentioned.

 

Edited June 21 by Mysterious hero

[TheOriginalGunslinger 6,693]

I mean we know he didn’t exist in Red Dead Redemption but going back playing that game now I can just imagine John not talking about him but remembering him in his thoughts the way I’m using my imagination on the subject.

 

 

Every time I watch the introduction now in Red Dead Redemption I’m just going to imagine John thinking of Arthur and the rest of the gang while reminiscing in his thoughts silently.

 

Edited June 26 by TheOriginalGunslinger