Lets be real even high honor Arthui is a scumbag terrible person

[Frostythakid1017 1]

Even high honor arthur was a really bad guy. He killed tons of innocent people. Like all those cops in the town of strawberry who probably had families. all to free micah. or on all the robbery shoot outs police officers with kids died all because he wanted a little bit of money. some of the gang was far worse but arthur deserved a much worse fate than what he got

[Boozey St John 1,668]

I ain't gonna rise to it. Got too much dignity.

[FreeMaxB585 167]

I see your point but I disagree. He was stuck in a situation with people he loved and did whatever he felt he had to for them to survive. Even if didnt like Micah he was very loyal to dutch and loved him and would honor anything he asked. Arthur didnt want to do black water which led to all of this. And when it came to killing policemen he looked at it as either I kill them or they kill us

[Mirror Park Resident 6,688]

Don't compare Arthur with you or the people you know, compare him with the other major characters of the game. 

 

#OldTrick

[HeyThereFriend 207]

I mean you aren't wrong but at the same time, I liked him, I think he was a great man.

 

He had so many redeemable qualities that it massively outweighs the bad qualities.

 

Ultimately as Arthur said "It wasn't us who changed" it was the word itself. Why should they change how they live their lives all of a sudden because a bunch of people in suits say to?

 

He did what he had to. He did what was right in the end. He's obviously had regrets but in the end, he's most certainly a good guy.

[Oldsport 685]

well he is a outlaw sooooo...theyre usually sh*tty people

[Slonitram 7,181]

God, I hate Arthui. Arthui is such a jackass.

 

Arthur is a cool dude. Yeah, he's killed a lot of people, but so did many other video game characters that are liked. Nathan Drake? Killed many mercenaries just for some treasures. Those mercs also had families and children, but you know why it isn't mentioned? Because it's a piece of fiction. Those families are never rendered or mentioned, so why care? We've killed so many people and creatures through out so many video games that we have become jaded to the possible aftermath of their closed ones.

 

Though, keep this in mind. At the end of the game, Arthur redeems himself, as this is a story about an outlaw slowly realizing he needs to achieve his own redemption from the lifestyle he's chosen. Does he get that redemption at the end? Yes and very deservedly, in my opinion. 

[jje1000 806]

That's why the game's alignment system is a honor-based one, not a morality-based one.

 

Arthur's lifestyle (and he recognizes this) is far from fundamentally good, but he can choose how to carry himself in regards to this.

[Kemasus 87]

16 hours ago, Frostythakid1017 said:

Even high honor arthur was a really bad guy. He killed tons of innocent people. Like all those cops in the town of strawberry who probably had families. all to free micah. or on all the robbery shoot outs police officers with kids died all because he wanted a little bit of money. some of the gang was far worse but arthur deserved a much worse fate than what he got

 

Arthur is a conflicted person. We can tell by listening to him that he is tired of the unnecessary killing. He complained about it to Micah, complains about it to Dutch.

Maybe prior to Blackwater the gang was more conservative ? Now ....they are out of control.

 

Arthur wants out but loyalty keeps him locked into a life he loathes more and more with each "plan" they fail at !

[Tonesta 811]

8 hours ago, HeyThereFriend said:

Ultimately as Arthur said "It wasn't us who changed" it was the world itself. Why should they change how they live their lives all of a sudden because a bunch of people in suits say to?

 

He did what he had to. He did what was right in the end. He's obviously had regrets but in the end, he's most certainly a good guy.

Well, their lives were built on robbing, stealing and a little bit of money lending. They undoubtedly destroyed countless innocent lives in their pursuit of riches.

 

If the Van der Linde gang wasn't harming innocent people, then you'd have a point. But from viewing their antics in the early chapters, they quite clearly were. 

 

What changed is that the world got law, and the innocent got protection.

Sure, some of the lawmen abused that.....but that still doesn't make what the gang were doing right, or even the most noble amongst them, Arthur, a good person.

 

And what's more - he knows this. And says it repeatedly over the course of the game!

[Rusty James 111]

Of course he is not a good person, Arthur himself says he is far from a good person. He was ashamed of his life, but you cant change the past, you can only chose how you are going to live for the rest of your life. In the end, he made his life whole by a resolute act of will and and chose to die in his own terms.

Edited February 3 by Rusty James

[Fidzy 436]

He was doing what he had to do to protect his family. It's literally the same as some enlisting in the army to protect their beliefs, even if war has different political reasons and I won't get into it for everyone's sanity.

 

Obviously it's different to us because the majority of the first world is more or less civilised and the average Joe won't take someone else's life.

Edited February 3 by Fidzy

[Mac- 162]

18 hours ago, Frostythakid1017 said:

Even high honor arthur was a really bad guy. He killed tons of innocent people. Like all those cops in the town of strawberry who probably had families. all to free micah. or on all the robbery shoot outs police officers with kids died all because he wanted a little bit of money. some of the gang was far worse but arthur deserved a much worse fate than what he got

 

I don't think you could have had a more unpleasant fate than the one Arthur got. To be honest Arthur rescuing Micah in Strawberry was totally out of character in my opinion, he really didn't like Micah and for good reason.

[Daniel Oprea 4]

I think some of the things he has done (i mean us) have a good background. And to be honest, sometimes in real life it happens the same, you intend to do something good but t turns out bad.

[FreeMaxB585 167]

1 hour ago, Mac- said:

 

I don't think you could have had a more unpleasant fate than the one Arthur got. To be honest Arthur rescuing Micah in Strawberry was totally out of character in my opinion, he really didn't like Micah and for good reason.

 

He only did it because he was loyal to dutch and the gang had this whole "no man left behind" type thing. which is why arthur hated dutch even more when he left arthur to die twice, left john to die and was going to leave abigale in prison leaving jack with no parents

[HeyThereFriend 207]

3 hours ago, Tonesta said:

Well, their lives were built on robbing, stealing and a little bit of money lending. They undoubtedly destroyed countless innocent lives in their pursuit of riches.

 

If the Van der Linde gang wasn't harming innocent people, then you'd have a point. But from viewing their antics in the early chapters, they quite clearly were. 

 

What changed is that the world got law, and the innocent got protection.

Sure, some of the lawmen abused that.....but that still doesn't make what the gang were doing right, or even the most noble amongst them, Arthur, a good person.

 

And what's more - he knows this. And says it repeatedly over the course of the game!

Arthur doesn't consider himself a good person and for good reason. However I do. His compassion for those he hurt and tried to make it right, him caring for his family, putting them first.

 

He's an outlaw which of course means he's a bad dude, at the same time he's got honor and overall a good person. He does the best he can for the people that matter to him and that's all he can do.

[Cutter De Blanc 13,826]

If you judge Arthur by how others see him he is a good man

 

If you judge Arthur by how he sees himself he is a bad man

[Tonesta 811]

7 hours ago, HeyThereFriend said:

Arthur doesn't consider himself a good person and for good reason. However I do. His compassion for those he hurt and tried to make it right, him caring for his family, putting them first.

 

He's an outlaw which of course means he's a bad dude, at the same time he's got honor and overall a good person. He does the best he can for the people that matter to him and that's all he can do.

 

Except it's not all he can do. He can walk away from the life, and go become a rancher or hunter or any one of a thousand professions that don't involve systematically hurting people. But he doesn't even consider it - until Chapter 6, the only lives he gives a damn about are his own, and the twenty or so people in his gang.

 

It's only once he contracts TB that he starts to open his eyes and look at himself, come to terms with what a scumbag he really is, and try to change and make what little amends he can with the time he has left. 

 

I think one of the most telling scenes is the final one with Mrs Downes and her son. He won't accept her thanks, won't ask for or even discuss forgiveness - because he knows that even with this selfless act of generosity, the ledger of his life is still hopelessly in the red. A little kindness at the end does not make up for a lifetime of causing mayhem and grief.

 

I think there's enough evidence to say that he does have some good instincts all the way through. But it's not enough to just have good instincts, you have to actually act on them if you're going to claim to be a good person. And, for whatever reason - misplaced loyalty, force of habit, fear? - he doesn't do so until Chapter 6 rolls around, and his life is nearly at an end.

[SonOfLiberty 44,545]

He really just reminds me of Niko in many ways. Not really a good man in the traditional sense that most people are that live normal lives, but deep down in his core he still has humanity left in his fibre. I can imagine this game being pretty boring if we didn't kill cops for a matter of survival or spent 60 hours raising money for charity or something.

 

Lets be real. Just like Niko he's not out to try and be an innocent saint because he can't change his past, but only make the right steps for the present and future. He tried so hard to guide John down the right path (which just makes it sadder when we consider John's eventual fate). He's an Outlaw by nature, but that doesn't make him a rotten to the core piece of garbage.

 

 

[HeyThereFriend 207]

2 hours ago, Tonesta said:

 

Except it's not all he can do. He can walk away from the life, and go become a rancher or hunter or any one of a thousand professions that don't involve systematically hurting people. But he doesn't even consider it - until Chapter 6, the only lives he gives a damn about are his own, and the twenty or so people in his gang.

 

It's only once he contracts TB that he starts to open his eyes and look at himself, come to terms with what a scumbag he really is, and try to change and make what little amends he can with the time he has left. 

 

I think one of the most telling scenes is the final one with Mrs Downes and her son. He won't accept her thanks, won't ask for or even discuss forgiveness - because he knows that even with this selfless act of generosity, the ledger of his life is still hopelessly in the red. A little kindness at the end does not make up for a lifetime of causing mayhem and grief.

 

I think there's enough evidence to say that he does have some good instincts all the way through. But it's not enough to just have good instincts, you have to actually act on them if you're going to claim to be a good person. And, for whatever reason - misplaced loyalty, force of habit, fear? - he doesn't do so until Chapter 6 rolls around, and his life is nearly at an end.

Well I think the ending of RDR1 proves he could not just leave and be a rancher.

 

Yes he only cares about who's in his gang, his family up until Chapter 6 but that's all he needs to do. Those are the people that matter to him and those are the only ones that he really needs to look out for. Nothing wrong with him only caring for his family.

 

I know he believes he isn't a good man and I can see why he'd feel that way. I disagree with him on that. He is a good man, not just in Chapter 6, the entire game he is a good man. He cares and provides for his family and helps out others along the way. Someone bit by a snake, he gives medicine every time. Someone's horse died and needs a ride back to town, he gives them a ride any time.

 

In Chapter 6 he simply becomes a better person than he already was.

Edited February 4 by HeyThereFriend

[Guest Guest176525326]

4 hours ago, American Venom said:

He really just reminds me of Niko in many ways. Not really a good man in the traditional sense that most people are that live normal lives, but deep down in his core he still has humanity left in his fibre. I can imagine this game being pretty boring if we didn't kill cops for a matter of survival or spent 60 hours raising money for charity or something.

 

Lets be real. Just like Niko he's not out to try and be an innocent saint because he can't change his past, but only make the right steps for the present and future. He tried so hard to guide John down the right path (which just makes it sadder when we consider John's eventual fate). He's an Outlaw by nature, but that doesn't make him a rotten to the core piece of garbage.

 

 

IMO, Niko is on another level when compared to Arthur, Niko would have single handedly killed all of the Van Der Linde gang members except from John Marston. 

[0223998743 3,175]

3 hours ago, O.Z said:

IMO, Niko is on another level when compared to Arthur, Niko would have single handedly killed all of the Van Der Linde gang members except from John Marston. 

Niko always faced the reality, he was not a blind man. He had a goal, he did everything that was needed, and he eventually reached it.

 

Arthur followed blindly Dutch & Co thus making him an idiot.

So tired of these redemption story, would have loved playing a straight cold blooded killer, like a young William Munny; "I've killed women and children. I've killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another."

And this whole thing of woman, kids, mixed races etc taking care of everyone, that was ridiculous and unrealistic, what a f*cking fantasy.

 

Edited February 4 by anthony

[Guest Guest176525326]

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

Niko always faced the reality, he was not a blind man. He had a goal, he did everything that was needed, and he eventually reached it.

 

Arthur followed blindly Dutch & Co thus making him an idiot.

So tired of these redemption story, would have loved playing a straight cold blooded killer, like a young William Munny; "I've killed women and children. I've killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another."

And this whole thing of woman, kids, mixed races etc taking care of everyone, that was ridiculous and unrealistic, what a f*cking fantasy.

 

I couldn’t agree with you more. Very well said mister!!!

[Tonesta 811]

10 hours ago, HeyThereFriend said:

 

Yes he only cares about who's in his gang, his family up until Chapter 6 but that's all he needs to do. Those are the people that matter to him and those are the only ones that he really needs to look out for. Nothing wrong with him only caring for his family.

 

I know he believes he isn't a good man and I can see why he'd feel that way. I disagree with him on that. He is a good man, not just in Chapter 6, the entire game he is a good man. He cares and provides for his family and helps out others along the way. Someone bit by a snake, he gives medicine every time. Someone's horse died and needs a ride back to town, he gives them a ride any time.

Nothing wrong with him only caring for his family. There is something wrong with him killing, maiming and robbing innocent people in order to care for his family.

 

And if all he and the Van der Linde gang was doing was rob and kill bad people - the likes of the O'Driscolls and Leviticus Cornwall - then you might have a point.

 

But they don't.....they very clearly go out and rob innocent people (Pouring Forth Oil & Sodom? Back to Gomorrah being the clearest examples during this story - but it's heavily implied that this is what they do everywhere they go), and kill anyone who stands in their way without discriminating or asking questions.

 

You can't do such bad things with such regularity and then lay claim to being a good person.

[Tonesta 811]

12 hours ago, American Venom said:

He really just reminds me of Niko in many ways. Not really a good man in the traditional sense that most people are that live normal lives, but deep down in his core he still has humanity left in his fibre. I can imagine this game being pretty boring if we didn't kill cops for a matter of survival or spent 60 hours raising money for charity or something.

 

As an aside, Niko was much, much worse than Arthur. He regularly murdered people for money without asking questions, and was generally motivated not by a duty of care but purely by revenge (in fact, he put the people he supposedly cared about - Roman in particular - in harm's way regularly in pursuit of that goal). If Arthur is a good man struggling to emerge from out of a bad guy (or wrestling with a giant, as Mary would say).....the good man in Niko is so jaded and broken by what he's seen, that he's given up that struggle before GTAIV even starts.

 

For me, the closest that Rockstar have ever got to a genuinely good character is RDR1's John Marston. If I remember rightly, he rarely if ever kills or robs the innocent and is driven purely by a direct need to save the ones he loves.

[SonOfLiberty 44,545]

16 hours ago, Tonesta said:

As an aside, Niko was much, much worse than Arthur. He regularly murdered people for money without asking questions, and was generally motivated not by a duty of care but purely by revenge (in fact, he put the people he supposedly cared about - Roman in particular - in harm's way regularly in pursuit of that goal). If Arthur is a good man struggling to emerge from out of a bad guy (or wrestling with a giant, as Mary would say).....the good man in Niko is so jaded and broken by what he's seen, that he's given up that struggle before GTAIV even starts.

Disagreed. He doesn't always kill without asking questions (Just look at the way he reacts when PBX asks him to kill Dwayne. He even flat out says he doesn't want to do it). There's a distinction when he's asked to kill some random thugs and someone like Dwayne who he can see a potential friendship with.

 

He does what he can to survive and lets remember Roman lied to him before he arrived in the city. He wasn't straight with the debts/trouble he was in so Niko's pretty much on the back foot as soon as the game starts. He spends the majority trying to clean up Roman's sh*t so any hope of him reaching his end goal is put on hold to deal with everything Roman causes for him. 

 

[Mach1bud 60,022]

It's pretty much the stereotype of a R* protagonist is it not? Bad guy with a heart of gold?

 

They might be badass, murdering, robbing people, but at least I don't feel like it's all for no reason 

[Nutduster 12,728]

11 hours ago, anthony said:

Niko always faced the reality, he was not a blind man. He had a goal, he did everything that was needed, and he eventually reached it.

 

Arthur followed blindly Dutch & Co thus making him an idiot.

So tired of these redemption story, would have loved playing a straight cold blooded killer, like a young William Munny; "I've killed women and children. I've killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another."

 

 

LOL. You missed the multiple points that movie was making by a f*cking mile. Also really enjoy your little Trumpian rant there about the fantasy of women and mixed race gangs. Newsflash, pardner: westerns have always been full-on fantasies of one kind or another. So was Unforgiven, even though it's one of my favorite movies of all time (and hilarious that you don't even mention that Munny's riding partner was black, and in a mixed-race marriage!). Merciless killers and civilian bounty hunter/gunslinger/macho men were so rare, and so inflated in books and movies, as to be essentially a myth. No duels at high noon, no Mexican standoffs. It's an utter fantasy, only a little more realistic than goddamn Star Wars.

Edited February 5 by Nutduster

[IG_ 1,630]

Most protagonists in games made by Rockstar are bad people if you take a step back look at the situation objectively.

 

They're not necessarily evil and they do have some sort of moral code, but they're really not the type of people you want to associate yourself with in real life.

A person like Arthur who does what he does for his gang (his moral code): Kills people for his fellow gang, robs people for his gang.

 

An actually good person: Doesn't rob innocent people, doesn't kill people for money.

Edited February 5 by IG_

[3Prcntr 174]

Things were different back then. Hard to put yourself in a situation where it's your life or theirs, but I know what I would do. Nobody is "good" in this game by today's standards.

I will agree that doing ANYTHING for micah was pointless and if it was me, I would have bailed on dutch long ago, but he was doing what he thought was right for the rest of the group and when someone like Dutch pretty much raises you and you know nothing else, it would be a little hard to say no without Dutch turning on you eventually. I think it all played into the story, and that is as deep as I care to look at it. Acting like these video games characters are scum or should have done this or that is just stupid and a waste of effort. Play the damn game.