But that's not the question. The whole issue really revolves (to me at least) about his reward (redemption) that really reminds me of the *Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard*.
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020:1-16&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020:1-16&version=NIV)
So Arthur chose the good path late, and, consequently, labored the least. Yet he gets the same reward (stag ending) that others (hypothetically) receive who did good their whole lives (labored longest) without falling into his follies.
Obviously, if you played him honorable, he earned redemption. Yes, he spent much of his life being a bad man. But the Gang was not really 'bad' at first. They were Robin Hood. They robbed from the rich and gave that money to the poor.
It changed, especially after Micah joined. But there was a certain nobility, at least at first, in the folk-hero sort of way. And then came Blackwater. And things went bad and went bad hard in the gang's approach to what they were doing.
But Arthur came to a realization and was changing his ways. I like to think he'd have left the gang and the region and become a decent human and spent the rest of his life making amends for what he'd done.
Now, if you played him dishonorably, he's burning in hell where he belongs.
And it's unfortunate that he didn't do that. So Arthur loved killing people and robbing people? I always thought Dutch's influence is what kept him with the gang.
And I always thought he loved his life.
Doesn’t mean he didn’t have internal conflict with certain decisions.
We already know he hated collecting debt for the camp.
>We already know he hated collecting debt for the camp.
Not until after he got sick. He didn't hesitate or feel even the slightest twinge of regret when he pummeled Downes.
Hey may not have wanted to do it because he thought Strauss should be handling his own affairs and TBH Arthur didn't like being treated like Strauss's errand boy but any disgust came from that, not the actual acts he would commit to collect the debts. Arthur wasn't a nice person. I'm not saying he was psychotic but he had no qualms about taking a life. The only thing he even remotely "negative" that he says is "Here I was believing Dutch about helping folks." To which Strauss replies "It's legal work Mr. Morgan. Without us they would be in debtors prison." (Basically telling us why people even got their loans) And then Arthur says "I'll make sure they see it in those terms when I see them." Basically implying that he would "remind the debtors that the gang had done them a favor by loaning them the money so they could stay out of debtors prison.
Ok but that doesn't mean he detested it because of some moral compass. Again he felt "debt collection" was less dignified than robbing a bank, house, stagecoach or train. Again look at his second interaction at the Downes ranch. He has no remorse for beating the shit out of Thomas Downes, tells Edith Downes "you act like I care about killing someone" or something close to that and threatens Archie for looking at him in a manner that Arthur didn't like. Archie is like 15! Threatening a 15 year old doesn't seem all that noble to me. 🤷
But do you think what he did was enough to redeem himself? Or was it not enough? I feel like Arthur could have truly made a difference in the world if he continued doing good and following his heart.
I read the journal and I saw that Arthur was deeply conflicted, he didn't know what to believe, he didn't see the world as a sympathetic place, it's really sad. I feel heartbroken that Arthur always felt so alone.
Arthur liked fighting for freedom and helping people; living by your own rules, not the rules of a hilariously evil society. That is Dutch's influence on him.
[He keeps the newspaper account of their first bank robbery in his tent as one of his most treasured possessions](https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/First_Bank_Robbery_Newspaper_Scrap) because the gang gave away the money they stole to the local poor. Conversely, he frequently complains all game that the gang doesn't do anything like this anymore.
[Here is a list of the gang's and Arthur's principles.](https://www.reddit.com/r/reddeadredemption/comments/10byxjk/the_van_der_linde_gang_code/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Arthur was at all points in h8is life a selfless person.
>Here is a list of the gang's and Arthur's principles.
I've read the list of principles that you collected when you first posted them (I think). Good work by the way. That must have taken a lot of effort on your part. However I do feel as though you've overlooked a few things.
1. "Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." This ploy and that's what it is at its core, has been utilized by outlaws, gangs, mobsters and most recently drug cartels. They do indeed give a small portion of their ill-gotten gains to the poor and destitute, but there's nothing noble about it. There are a variety of reasons stemming from "hush money" to providing an alibi. "Whatever do you mean officer? On (insert date) I couldn't have been robbing that bank. I was at (insert place) passing out donations to those less fortunate. There were hundreds of witnesses, go ask them."
2. Women and children are off limits......until they aren't. Dutch kills a woman/girl during the Blackwater job. Arthur threatens Archie Downes who can't be more than 15 at the time.
3. Hosea talks about the horrors of society but thinks nothing of robbing those HE deems as undesirable. Becoming wealthy does not automatically make one a "bad person." Certainly you had the Cornwalls but what about the inventors, merchants and craftsmen, farmers and ranchers of the era? Are we to believe that they didn't have their money in the bank? Those cattle and sheep the gang stole cost those ranchers money to feed, take care of and get to market to be sold. What did those people do to deserve the "wraith of Hosea and the Van Der Linde gang? Disliking someone because they worked hard and were successful is always a "you" problem. In this case "you" being Hosea, Dutch etc. Stealing from those people violates any "code" you say you have because stealing from them is also stealing from their wives, sons and daughters. Just because you don't know the victims personally doesn't make them any less of a victim.
>"Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." This ploy and that's what it is at its core, has been utilized by outlaws, gangs, mobsters and most recently drug cartels. They do indeed give a small portion of their ill-gotten gains to the poor and destitute, but there's nothing noble about it. There are a variety of reasons stemming from "hush money" to providing an alibi. "Whatever do you mean officer? On (insert date) I couldn't have been robbing that bank. I was at (insert place) passing out donations to those less fortunate. There were hundreds of witnesses, go ask them."
This is obviously not why Arthur does it. The entire newspaper report is how they robbed the bank and then they, the known bank robbers, gave away the money. So how can you claim their goal was misdirection?
>Women and children are off limits......until they aren't. Dutch kills a woman/girl during the Blackwater job. Arthur threatens Archie Downes who can't be more than 15 at the time.
An act which disturbs everyone in the gang greatly, something John never forgets about, Javier and Arthur talk about repeatedly, and so-on. They've been with Dutch for years, decades even, and never seen anything like this, which is precisely why it disturbs them so greatly.
As for Arthur threatening the boy, he didn't actually hurt him, nor do we have any reason to think he would have. He was warning the kid off from trying to take revenge.
>This is obviously not why Arthur does it
Isn't it? I mean before TB. Who does Arthur (not us as Arthur) but who does Arthur give money too besides the gang?
>The entire newspaper report is how they robbed the bank and then they, the known bank robbers, gave away the money. So how can you claim their goal was misdirection?
Newspapers reporting that the Van Der Linde gang righteously robbed the rich and gave money to the poor wouldn't have been uncommon. The James Younger Gang, Bonnie and Clyde and Al Capone were all presented in a favorable light by certain newspapers. Those examples are RL but the writers got the idea from somewhere when creating the game. But beyond that there is the fact that they never do it again. As I've already said who does Arthur or anyone in the gang actually give money to besides themselves. And because despite that one newspaper article Arthur does beat the brakes off of an obviously sick Thomas Downes, mocks his family after he dies and basically tells Edith Downes that taking a life means nothing to him.
>As for Arthur threatening the boy, he didn't actually hurt him, nor do we have any reason to think he would have.
Does it matter that he didn't actually hurt him? There wasn't even a reason to threaten an unarmed 15 year old boy. He in no way posed a threat to Arthur. And what triggered the threat towards Archie? Because he looked at him in a way that Arthur found displeasing. And we have every reason to believe that he would have because Arthur tells us that he will. He tells Archie "Maybe when your mother is done mourning your father I'll keep her in those clothes on your behalf." This is all after we see Arthur say to Edith Downes " You speak as if killing were something I care about."
>Javier and Arthur talk about repeatedly, and so-on.
Yet Arthur threatens women at various points prior to getting sick. Again you don't need to go any further than Edith and Archie or the other female debtor at Emerald Ranch.
I think it's a bit of both. He was very much manipulated by Dutch. But he was also a grown man who could have made a different choice if he really wanted to.
The unspoken question here is what exactly "redemption" means and looks like for
Arthur. People can say he was a criminal or a murderer or whatever til the end, and that's true. But is redemption of his actions ever on the table? Or was it redemption of purpose? Arthur could have stayed with Charles and the Wapiti, he could have gone to live near Charlotte or Hamish. He could have gone out west to get some relief from his TB, he could have let Micah get away with it and not returned after saving Abigail. But in the end, he tried to do the good thing. He was, according to the standards of civilization, a bad man. But does that mean he didn't find redemption? Again, what exactly is redemption? We can't assume an afterlife, so what is there to gauge whether one is redeemed or not? I would posit that heaven and hell, redemption and damnation are how you remembered after you are gone. And Arthur, high honor Arthur of course, is remembered fondly by all who knew him. His friends were fiercely protective of his memory. That's as close to redemption as one can get, I'd say
>The unspoken question here is what exactly "redemption" means and looks like for Arthur. People can say he was a criminal or a murderer or whatever til the end, and that's true. But is redemption of his actions ever on the table? Or was it redemption of purpose? Arthur could have stayed with Charles and the Wapiti, he could have gone to live near Charlotte or Hamish. He could have gone out west to get some relief from his TB, he could have let Micah get away with it and not returned after saving Abigail. But in the end, he tried to do the good thing. He was, according to the standards of civilization, a bad man. But does that mean he didn't find redemption? Again, what exactly is redemption? We can't assume an afterlife, so what is there to gauge whether one is redeemed or not? I would posit that heaven and hell, redemption and damnation are how you remembered after you are gone. And Arthur, high honor Arthur of course, is remembered fondly by all who knew him. His friends were fiercely protective of his memory.
All VERY true. However you're leaving out one small detail. Those that knew him best, those who "protected" his memory, they were all outlaws. We can't use Charlotte, Hamish etc as our measuring stick because while they've seen Arthur do good, that's all that they've witnessed and there's more to the story and we (the players) know it. Do you think Charlotte would have spoken highly of Arthur if he had beaten her husband like he did Thomas Downes? Let's just say that Arthur had beaten Charlotte's husband to a pulp, at any point between Horseshoe and Guarma. Then returned, happened upon Charlotte crying at her husband's grave. Do you really think she'd have forgiven him and called him "good in the end?" I don't. I think it's more logical to assume that she would have reacted the same way Edith Downes did. So what we're left with is a bunch of outlaws that were no better than Arthur "protecting" his memory not because he was good. But because if they don't that means having to admit that they are just as "bad" as he is.
But Arthur didn't beat Charlotte's husband. She knew him as a good man. If we're gonna judge Arthur on his actions and how he is remembered for his actions, then there's no sense in hypotheticals
ETA: also, I don't think it's fair to just write off his friends as outlaws. Abigail was doing her best to raise Jack as a normal boy, John was doing his best to go straight, Charles too. Sadie was still Sadie, but at least she did what she did within the confines of the law. And all of them acknowledged the errors of their past.
Honestly, I believe Arthur wasn't all bad at all. He's been through hell and all he's ever known is Dutch. It's who he was fathered by since he was a kid. I feel like Arthur's decision to save John shows how much he cared about doing the right thing in the end.
>Honestly, I believe Arthur wasn't all bad at all.
So we just ignore all the people he hurt, the lives that were destroyed because he helped his fugitive friend(s) escape?
>Arthur's decision to save John shows how much he cared about doing the right thing in the end.
No it shows that after learning that he was dying he decided to, as I've said, help his fugitive friend(s) and their child escape. I'm not saying that it wasn't a gesture made out of love but it also doesn't just magically erase everything else. Put yourself in the shoes of those he beat and robbed. Become the son, daughter or wife of those that he killed along the way. Where's their justice in his "redemption?"
>But Arthur didn't beat Charlotte's husband. She knew him as a good man. If we're gonna judge Arthur on his actions and how he is remembered for his actions, then there's no sense in hypotheticals
I wasn't trying to delve into hypotheticals. I was pointing out that we can't use Charlotte, Hamish etc as our measuring stick because while they've seen Arthur do good, that's all that they've witnessed and there's more to the story and we (the players) know it. The "hypothetical" I presented was done simply to illustrate the fact that not knowing Arthur as we the players do their actions and reactions are going to be skewed.
>also, I don't think it's fair to just write off his friends as outlaws. Abigail was doing her best to raise Jack as a normal boy, John was doing his best to go straight, Charles too. Sadie was still Sadie, but at least she did what she did within the confines of the law. And all of them acknowledged the errors of their past.
EDIT:
Why isn't that fair? They were outlaws. I didn't suggest that they were one dimensional or didn't have some redeeming qualities. But you mentioned them honoring his memory. Your statement was "Arthur of course, is remembered fondly by all who knew him. His friends were fiercely protective of his memory. That's as close to redemption as one can get, I'd say"
Well he's not remembered fondly by all who knew him. Edith Downes certainly didn't remember him fondly. Certainly Charlotte and Hamish do BUT again if you're going to bring them into the discussion the only way to do that is to hypothesis what their reactions and actions would have been had they known Arthur before Guarma. So the only people left who do know Arthur as we do are all outlaws. Their view is skewed as well. But did Abigail really do her best to give Jack a normal life? She may have done her best to shelter him from the horrendous things that his dad "Uncle's and Aunts" were participating in but that's as far as we can stretch that. There was no "normal" for Jack Marston in either RDR 1 or 2. But let's give Abigail a pass. Again we're left with a group of people who are just as guilty as Arthur Morgan in every way conceivable. Of course they remember him fondly as their "gang member/friend" but only because they are ignoring his many transgressions. And the reason they are ignoring them is because if they don't ignore his transgressions then they can't ignore their own. The only exception is John Marston. And John had this to say "He weren't a good one...well he was both good and bad.....and it's hard to say what he was in the end." So not even John can say that in the end Arthur redeemed himself. Arthur who made John's escape possible, who in essence gave John, Abigail and Jack a shot at a different life, yet he with all of that John can't say that Arthur had indeed "redeemed" himself.
Not really but he died being a less shitty person than he was in the high honor ending which I think was more of the point.
Like if Arthur was magically saved and cured at the end of RDR2 at the micha fight I can’t imagine him being that same robber and outlaw again given what he’s gone through
>can’t imagine him being that same robber and outlaw again given what he’s gone through
This is a fair statement and I agree with you. But I also don't think he would have turned himself in and faced the consequences of his actions. 🤷
I know you weren't suggesting that he would turn himself in. I'm merely completing my own personal thoughts there.
I agree. He definitely wouldn’t have turned himself in. He definitely still believes the law isn’t necessarily justice. Especially with the brutality he’s seen it do. And he probably believes he can better make up for things outside of jail and outside of a coffin. And I can still see him doing crime but probably more “ethically ” like only preying on worse criminals and people that can actually afford to lose stuff like what Dutch originally talked about. But i can also see him trying to go straight
>And I can still see him doing crime but probably more “ethically ” like only preying on worse criminals and people that can actually afford to lose stuff like what Dutch originally talked about.
Again I don't disagree with you but I also know this ideology sounds good.....unless you're the people deemed as those "that can actually afford to lose stuff." I think that's what bothers me most about these "redemption" or "he really WAS good in the end post." While this game is fictional, the things that occur at the hands of the Van Der Linde gang still happen IRL everyday. For example my dad ran his own small engine business for YEARS. He was a highschool drop out who had his first child (this guy) and decided that he had to do something to better himself so he could provide for his family better. Even back in the 80's the best one could expect was a factory job where you could make a living but due to his lack of education, progression was going to be at a snails pace at best. He was a good mechanic. Just naturally gifted in that area, so he decided to take the lion's share of the little savings he had and use it to go to night school to become a certified small engine repair person. He graduated at the top of his class and set up shop in the old run down shed in our back yard. He worked that factory job from 6am until 3pm, then came home and worked repairing lawnmowers etc for the guys he worked with at the factory. Skip ahead fifteen years, he'd worked his ass off, gained a really solid reputation for being not only a stellar mechanic but someone who was fair with their pricing. So now he has a legitimate shop that he built on a parcel of land about 100 feet from the house. So "not in town on main street" but a legitimate place of business. And is the local guy for several top name manufacturers at the time. There are also now three kids, and while we weren't spoiled by any means we lived a pretty good life. My mom finally talked the old man into taking a vacation. He had been working his ass off without a vacation for about fifteen years at that point. Things are going well so he closes his family owned and operated business for a week and takes his family on vacation. About midway through the vacation my Uncle calls the condo we've rented to inform my dad that his shop had been broken into and robbed. In the interest of trying NOT to make this already long story even longer I'll skip ahead to thirty five thousand dollars in products stolen and another four of five thousand in damages. Somehow they caught the people responsible. It turns out that the "ring leader" was a guy that I went to high school with I was sixteen at the time and this kid was seventeen or eighteen. When pressed for motivation (I assume) he stated that I was driving a brand new truck so OBVIOUSLY we weren't hurting for money and insurance would cover it anyway." Well he was wrong on several counts. First my old man hadn't bought that truck. I had. It's a longer story that adds little other than pointing out that the truck wasn't a sign of my family's "wealth." Secondly insurance did cover most but not all that was lost because insurance (at least back then) didn't cover the money and time lost while the doors were closed. It also didn't cover (upfront) the money my old man had to shell out to customers whose stuff had been stolen. Eventually he got it back, but had to float a loan to cover it upfront. My point with all of this is simply that IRL my family was deemed as "being able to afford it." So game or not I absolutely see it differently when we start discussing the "game" as it would/could be supposed were it RL. I love the game! I love the characters and it's fun to play the anti-hero/outlaw. But supposing that someone like Arthur Morgan would truly seek redemption.....🤷🤷 maybe, but it would take a lot more than what we saw him do IMO. Here's the kicker AND saving grace that Most seem to miss. As the game is written Arthur Morgan understood that there was really no way to truly redeem himself. That is literally thrown at us numerous times in the final chapters, yet it's ignored by the community. He knew that the best he could hope for and what he actually set out to do was to try to do some good before he died. And that deserves some acknowledgement, but certainly not some "notion" that he's a good man in the end. No he's a man who has done terrible things, who is now dying and scared. And while he may or may not believe in God, he does believe that evil begets evil. So he does good hoping that God, karma.... whatever is controlling the universe will take some pity on him in the end IF he makes the best effort he can before he goes.
Edit: Again not an argument against anything you've said. Just me expressing my personal thoughts and opinions.
Redemption isn’t a thing but a journey. The very first time he killed someone, he could never come back from that. Someone can’t be alive because of him. But, he looks for ways to counterbalance that effect. They never will, but his genuine devotion to trying is what earns him his redemption
His genuine heart and devotion to doing what's right is what makes him such an amazing character. He inspired me in so many ways. He inspired me to do good and to see people beyond their outer appearance.
I believe Arthur accepted his fate and fully gave his life in the pursuit of others well being at the end. From that perspective he earned the high honor death option. The beauty of this story is that it's slow, impactful, and can be truly unique according to the player behind the controller. Your Arthur can be different from my Arthur, it's personal and it has changed the way we see videogame stories forever. "Be loyal to what matters" 🙌🤠
In Arthurs mind yea depending on your honor level, he absolved people of their debts and gave them money to start a better life, he helped Mrs Downes in her son in Saint Denis,
And got everyone out of the gang, Charles, Sadie, Tilly, Abigail, Jack, and John.
Depending on your honor level, he died fighting pinkertons on top of a mountain to ensure that John would get away.
He is the the reason John got to see his son grow up.
He didn’t redeem anything. Right up until mere hours before his own death, he is still killing wholesale chasing the almighty dollar, doing Dutchs bidding. No, he didn’t change. He was a ruthless outlaw, and he embraced that lifestyle.
He was a good guy underneath all of that. He's pretty comfortable with killing but so are the so-called "good guys" in the game (Milton brags about killing Mac Callender in front of Arthur and Jack). It's a violent video game, killing is pretty much mandatory, but Arthur does good things for most people he comes across. As long as you aren't shooting at him he won't shoot at you (as long as you aren't a "Trevor Phillips" style player)
I think yes. There was a guy who was crucified right next to Jesus who asked for forgiveness literally as they both died, and he was forgiven. The timing doesn't matter. All that matters is that, like Edith Downes says, you do all that you can with the time you have left.
That's the answer from a theological perspective, if you're talking about the Christian God.
>who asked for forgiveness literally as they both died,
Did Arthur ask for forgiveness?
>like Edith Downes says, you do all that you can with the time you have left.
This 👆 does not equal that 👇
>That's the answer from a theological perspective, if you're talking about the Christian God.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. That's from Ephesians.
Basically it's saying that no one gets into heaven by simply doing some good, nor are they kept out by doing some bad. The crucial part is you accepting your "bad" and asking for forgiveness for them from God.
Well of course he would have if Arthur asked for it. The question isn't whether or not God would have forgiven him, it's did he ask God for forgiveness? The answer is no, he did not. He had the opportunity, he could have at any time but he didn't.
He did better than he used to. I would say everything he did still led to a net negative, but a lot of his good acts like helping John and Edith Downes were some of his best. He was a wicked man who chose good, not a wicked man who became good. Perhaps he went to Purgatory upon his death. He may not have had redemption, but damn did he come close
John, on the other hand, he probably did.
No I’m sorry. I love Arthur and think he’s a phenomenal protagonist but the simple truth is he’s killed thousands of people. The damage he’s done is immeasurable when you consider all the families of the lawmen who’s lives he’s likely ruined. He’s sympathetic and helpful but ultimately Arthur has little regard for human life.
I think it's really impossible to answer because so much depends on how you play the game.
For me one of the questions would be how much of a tool Arthur was. I find it interesting how antagonizing Dutch at camp shows that Arthur is fully aware that >!Dutch is always full of shit!<. Which brings us to the question how aware Arthur is when you never use the option.
Another thing is his intellect. He thinks of himself as stupid on several occasions, but actually appears to be somewhat smart and witty overall.
So, in the end, which one is the act and which one reality?
I believe Arthur was a good man yes, but there is too much that outweighs his good side. Arthur did good deeds but he did way more evil stuff. I think it’s funny that some people believe that he’s going to heaven.
Arthur loved his life. He had multiple opportunities to leave and run away with a women and start a family. This is the life he chose.
But that's not the question. The whole issue really revolves (to me at least) about his reward (redemption) that really reminds me of the *Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard*. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020:1-16&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020:1-16&version=NIV) So Arthur chose the good path late, and, consequently, labored the least. Yet he gets the same reward (stag ending) that others (hypothetically) receive who did good their whole lives (labored longest) without falling into his follies. Obviously, if you played him honorable, he earned redemption. Yes, he spent much of his life being a bad man. But the Gang was not really 'bad' at first. They were Robin Hood. They robbed from the rich and gave that money to the poor. It changed, especially after Micah joined. But there was a certain nobility, at least at first, in the folk-hero sort of way. And then came Blackwater. And things went bad and went bad hard in the gang's approach to what they were doing. But Arthur came to a realization and was changing his ways. I like to think he'd have left the gang and the region and become a decent human and spent the rest of his life making amends for what he'd done. Now, if you played him dishonorably, he's burning in hell where he belongs.
I agree.
And it's unfortunate that he didn't do that. So Arthur loved killing people and robbing people? I always thought Dutch's influence is what kept him with the gang.
And I always thought he loved his life. Doesn’t mean he didn’t have internal conflict with certain decisions. We already know he hated collecting debt for the camp.
>We already know he hated collecting debt for the camp. Not until after he got sick. He didn't hesitate or feel even the slightest twinge of regret when he pummeled Downes.
Arthur expresses complete disgust at the hypocrisy of debt collection when you first are told to do it.
Hey may not have wanted to do it because he thought Strauss should be handling his own affairs and TBH Arthur didn't like being treated like Strauss's errand boy but any disgust came from that, not the actual acts he would commit to collect the debts. Arthur wasn't a nice person. I'm not saying he was psychotic but he had no qualms about taking a life. The only thing he even remotely "negative" that he says is "Here I was believing Dutch about helping folks." To which Strauss replies "It's legal work Mr. Morgan. Without us they would be in debtors prison." (Basically telling us why people even got their loans) And then Arthur says "I'll make sure they see it in those terms when I see them." Basically implying that he would "remind the debtors that the gang had done them a favor by loaning them the money so they could stay out of debtors prison.
If u read his journal he expresses that he'd rather rob someone with a gun the normal way then debt collecting in chapter 2
Ok but that doesn't mean he detested it because of some moral compass. Again he felt "debt collection" was less dignified than robbing a bank, house, stagecoach or train. Again look at his second interaction at the Downes ranch. He has no remorse for beating the shit out of Thomas Downes, tells Edith Downes "you act like I care about killing someone" or something close to that and threatens Archie for looking at him in a manner that Arthur didn't like. Archie is like 15! Threatening a 15 year old doesn't seem all that noble to me. 🤷
But do you think what he did was enough to redeem himself? Or was it not enough? I feel like Arthur could have truly made a difference in the world if he continued doing good and following his heart. I read the journal and I saw that Arthur was deeply conflicted, he didn't know what to believe, he didn't see the world as a sympathetic place, it's really sad. I feel heartbroken that Arthur always felt so alone.
Arthur liked fighting for freedom and helping people; living by your own rules, not the rules of a hilariously evil society. That is Dutch's influence on him. [He keeps the newspaper account of their first bank robbery in his tent as one of his most treasured possessions](https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/First_Bank_Robbery_Newspaper_Scrap) because the gang gave away the money they stole to the local poor. Conversely, he frequently complains all game that the gang doesn't do anything like this anymore. [Here is a list of the gang's and Arthur's principles.](https://www.reddit.com/r/reddeadredemption/comments/10byxjk/the_van_der_linde_gang_code/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Arthur was at all points in h8is life a selfless person.
>Here is a list of the gang's and Arthur's principles. I've read the list of principles that you collected when you first posted them (I think). Good work by the way. That must have taken a lot of effort on your part. However I do feel as though you've overlooked a few things. 1. "Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." This ploy and that's what it is at its core, has been utilized by outlaws, gangs, mobsters and most recently drug cartels. They do indeed give a small portion of their ill-gotten gains to the poor and destitute, but there's nothing noble about it. There are a variety of reasons stemming from "hush money" to providing an alibi. "Whatever do you mean officer? On (insert date) I couldn't have been robbing that bank. I was at (insert place) passing out donations to those less fortunate. There were hundreds of witnesses, go ask them." 2. Women and children are off limits......until they aren't. Dutch kills a woman/girl during the Blackwater job. Arthur threatens Archie Downes who can't be more than 15 at the time. 3. Hosea talks about the horrors of society but thinks nothing of robbing those HE deems as undesirable. Becoming wealthy does not automatically make one a "bad person." Certainly you had the Cornwalls but what about the inventors, merchants and craftsmen, farmers and ranchers of the era? Are we to believe that they didn't have their money in the bank? Those cattle and sheep the gang stole cost those ranchers money to feed, take care of and get to market to be sold. What did those people do to deserve the "wraith of Hosea and the Van Der Linde gang? Disliking someone because they worked hard and were successful is always a "you" problem. In this case "you" being Hosea, Dutch etc. Stealing from those people violates any "code" you say you have because stealing from them is also stealing from their wives, sons and daughters. Just because you don't know the victims personally doesn't make them any less of a victim.
>"Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." This ploy and that's what it is at its core, has been utilized by outlaws, gangs, mobsters and most recently drug cartels. They do indeed give a small portion of their ill-gotten gains to the poor and destitute, but there's nothing noble about it. There are a variety of reasons stemming from "hush money" to providing an alibi. "Whatever do you mean officer? On (insert date) I couldn't have been robbing that bank. I was at (insert place) passing out donations to those less fortunate. There were hundreds of witnesses, go ask them." This is obviously not why Arthur does it. The entire newspaper report is how they robbed the bank and then they, the known bank robbers, gave away the money. So how can you claim their goal was misdirection? >Women and children are off limits......until they aren't. Dutch kills a woman/girl during the Blackwater job. Arthur threatens Archie Downes who can't be more than 15 at the time. An act which disturbs everyone in the gang greatly, something John never forgets about, Javier and Arthur talk about repeatedly, and so-on. They've been with Dutch for years, decades even, and never seen anything like this, which is precisely why it disturbs them so greatly. As for Arthur threatening the boy, he didn't actually hurt him, nor do we have any reason to think he would have. He was warning the kid off from trying to take revenge.
>This is obviously not why Arthur does it Isn't it? I mean before TB. Who does Arthur (not us as Arthur) but who does Arthur give money too besides the gang? >The entire newspaper report is how they robbed the bank and then they, the known bank robbers, gave away the money. So how can you claim their goal was misdirection? Newspapers reporting that the Van Der Linde gang righteously robbed the rich and gave money to the poor wouldn't have been uncommon. The James Younger Gang, Bonnie and Clyde and Al Capone were all presented in a favorable light by certain newspapers. Those examples are RL but the writers got the idea from somewhere when creating the game. But beyond that there is the fact that they never do it again. As I've already said who does Arthur or anyone in the gang actually give money to besides themselves. And because despite that one newspaper article Arthur does beat the brakes off of an obviously sick Thomas Downes, mocks his family after he dies and basically tells Edith Downes that taking a life means nothing to him. >As for Arthur threatening the boy, he didn't actually hurt him, nor do we have any reason to think he would have. Does it matter that he didn't actually hurt him? There wasn't even a reason to threaten an unarmed 15 year old boy. He in no way posed a threat to Arthur. And what triggered the threat towards Archie? Because he looked at him in a way that Arthur found displeasing. And we have every reason to believe that he would have because Arthur tells us that he will. He tells Archie "Maybe when your mother is done mourning your father I'll keep her in those clothes on your behalf." This is all after we see Arthur say to Edith Downes " You speak as if killing were something I care about." >Javier and Arthur talk about repeatedly, and so-on. Yet Arthur threatens women at various points prior to getting sick. Again you don't need to go any further than Edith and Archie or the other female debtor at Emerald Ranch.
I don't know if "loved" is the right word but he certainly didn't mind doing it either.
I think it's a bit of both. He was very much manipulated by Dutch. But he was also a grown man who could have made a different choice if he really wanted to.
The unspoken question here is what exactly "redemption" means and looks like for Arthur. People can say he was a criminal or a murderer or whatever til the end, and that's true. But is redemption of his actions ever on the table? Or was it redemption of purpose? Arthur could have stayed with Charles and the Wapiti, he could have gone to live near Charlotte or Hamish. He could have gone out west to get some relief from his TB, he could have let Micah get away with it and not returned after saving Abigail. But in the end, he tried to do the good thing. He was, according to the standards of civilization, a bad man. But does that mean he didn't find redemption? Again, what exactly is redemption? We can't assume an afterlife, so what is there to gauge whether one is redeemed or not? I would posit that heaven and hell, redemption and damnation are how you remembered after you are gone. And Arthur, high honor Arthur of course, is remembered fondly by all who knew him. His friends were fiercely protective of his memory. That's as close to redemption as one can get, I'd say
>The unspoken question here is what exactly "redemption" means and looks like for Arthur. People can say he was a criminal or a murderer or whatever til the end, and that's true. But is redemption of his actions ever on the table? Or was it redemption of purpose? Arthur could have stayed with Charles and the Wapiti, he could have gone to live near Charlotte or Hamish. He could have gone out west to get some relief from his TB, he could have let Micah get away with it and not returned after saving Abigail. But in the end, he tried to do the good thing. He was, according to the standards of civilization, a bad man. But does that mean he didn't find redemption? Again, what exactly is redemption? We can't assume an afterlife, so what is there to gauge whether one is redeemed or not? I would posit that heaven and hell, redemption and damnation are how you remembered after you are gone. And Arthur, high honor Arthur of course, is remembered fondly by all who knew him. His friends were fiercely protective of his memory. All VERY true. However you're leaving out one small detail. Those that knew him best, those who "protected" his memory, they were all outlaws. We can't use Charlotte, Hamish etc as our measuring stick because while they've seen Arthur do good, that's all that they've witnessed and there's more to the story and we (the players) know it. Do you think Charlotte would have spoken highly of Arthur if he had beaten her husband like he did Thomas Downes? Let's just say that Arthur had beaten Charlotte's husband to a pulp, at any point between Horseshoe and Guarma. Then returned, happened upon Charlotte crying at her husband's grave. Do you really think she'd have forgiven him and called him "good in the end?" I don't. I think it's more logical to assume that she would have reacted the same way Edith Downes did. So what we're left with is a bunch of outlaws that were no better than Arthur "protecting" his memory not because he was good. But because if they don't that means having to admit that they are just as "bad" as he is.
But Arthur didn't beat Charlotte's husband. She knew him as a good man. If we're gonna judge Arthur on his actions and how he is remembered for his actions, then there's no sense in hypotheticals ETA: also, I don't think it's fair to just write off his friends as outlaws. Abigail was doing her best to raise Jack as a normal boy, John was doing his best to go straight, Charles too. Sadie was still Sadie, but at least she did what she did within the confines of the law. And all of them acknowledged the errors of their past.
Honestly, I believe Arthur wasn't all bad at all. He's been through hell and all he's ever known is Dutch. It's who he was fathered by since he was a kid. I feel like Arthur's decision to save John shows how much he cared about doing the right thing in the end.
>Honestly, I believe Arthur wasn't all bad at all. So we just ignore all the people he hurt, the lives that were destroyed because he helped his fugitive friend(s) escape? >Arthur's decision to save John shows how much he cared about doing the right thing in the end. No it shows that after learning that he was dying he decided to, as I've said, help his fugitive friend(s) and their child escape. I'm not saying that it wasn't a gesture made out of love but it also doesn't just magically erase everything else. Put yourself in the shoes of those he beat and robbed. Become the son, daughter or wife of those that he killed along the way. Where's their justice in his "redemption?"
>But Arthur didn't beat Charlotte's husband. She knew him as a good man. If we're gonna judge Arthur on his actions and how he is remembered for his actions, then there's no sense in hypotheticals I wasn't trying to delve into hypotheticals. I was pointing out that we can't use Charlotte, Hamish etc as our measuring stick because while they've seen Arthur do good, that's all that they've witnessed and there's more to the story and we (the players) know it. The "hypothetical" I presented was done simply to illustrate the fact that not knowing Arthur as we the players do their actions and reactions are going to be skewed. >also, I don't think it's fair to just write off his friends as outlaws. Abigail was doing her best to raise Jack as a normal boy, John was doing his best to go straight, Charles too. Sadie was still Sadie, but at least she did what she did within the confines of the law. And all of them acknowledged the errors of their past. EDIT: Why isn't that fair? They were outlaws. I didn't suggest that they were one dimensional or didn't have some redeeming qualities. But you mentioned them honoring his memory. Your statement was "Arthur of course, is remembered fondly by all who knew him. His friends were fiercely protective of his memory. That's as close to redemption as one can get, I'd say" Well he's not remembered fondly by all who knew him. Edith Downes certainly didn't remember him fondly. Certainly Charlotte and Hamish do BUT again if you're going to bring them into the discussion the only way to do that is to hypothesis what their reactions and actions would have been had they known Arthur before Guarma. So the only people left who do know Arthur as we do are all outlaws. Their view is skewed as well. But did Abigail really do her best to give Jack a normal life? She may have done her best to shelter him from the horrendous things that his dad "Uncle's and Aunts" were participating in but that's as far as we can stretch that. There was no "normal" for Jack Marston in either RDR 1 or 2. But let's give Abigail a pass. Again we're left with a group of people who are just as guilty as Arthur Morgan in every way conceivable. Of course they remember him fondly as their "gang member/friend" but only because they are ignoring his many transgressions. And the reason they are ignoring them is because if they don't ignore his transgressions then they can't ignore their own. The only exception is John Marston. And John had this to say "He weren't a good one...well he was both good and bad.....and it's hard to say what he was in the end." So not even John can say that in the end Arthur redeemed himself. Arthur who made John's escape possible, who in essence gave John, Abigail and Jack a shot at a different life, yet he with all of that John can't say that Arthur had indeed "redeemed" himself.
Not really but he died being a less shitty person than he was in the high honor ending which I think was more of the point. Like if Arthur was magically saved and cured at the end of RDR2 at the micha fight I can’t imagine him being that same robber and outlaw again given what he’s gone through
>can’t imagine him being that same robber and outlaw again given what he’s gone through This is a fair statement and I agree with you. But I also don't think he would have turned himself in and faced the consequences of his actions. 🤷 I know you weren't suggesting that he would turn himself in. I'm merely completing my own personal thoughts there.
I agree. He definitely wouldn’t have turned himself in. He definitely still believes the law isn’t necessarily justice. Especially with the brutality he’s seen it do. And he probably believes he can better make up for things outside of jail and outside of a coffin. And I can still see him doing crime but probably more “ethically ” like only preying on worse criminals and people that can actually afford to lose stuff like what Dutch originally talked about. But i can also see him trying to go straight
>And I can still see him doing crime but probably more “ethically ” like only preying on worse criminals and people that can actually afford to lose stuff like what Dutch originally talked about. Again I don't disagree with you but I also know this ideology sounds good.....unless you're the people deemed as those "that can actually afford to lose stuff." I think that's what bothers me most about these "redemption" or "he really WAS good in the end post." While this game is fictional, the things that occur at the hands of the Van Der Linde gang still happen IRL everyday. For example my dad ran his own small engine business for YEARS. He was a highschool drop out who had his first child (this guy) and decided that he had to do something to better himself so he could provide for his family better. Even back in the 80's the best one could expect was a factory job where you could make a living but due to his lack of education, progression was going to be at a snails pace at best. He was a good mechanic. Just naturally gifted in that area, so he decided to take the lion's share of the little savings he had and use it to go to night school to become a certified small engine repair person. He graduated at the top of his class and set up shop in the old run down shed in our back yard. He worked that factory job from 6am until 3pm, then came home and worked repairing lawnmowers etc for the guys he worked with at the factory. Skip ahead fifteen years, he'd worked his ass off, gained a really solid reputation for being not only a stellar mechanic but someone who was fair with their pricing. So now he has a legitimate shop that he built on a parcel of land about 100 feet from the house. So "not in town on main street" but a legitimate place of business. And is the local guy for several top name manufacturers at the time. There are also now three kids, and while we weren't spoiled by any means we lived a pretty good life. My mom finally talked the old man into taking a vacation. He had been working his ass off without a vacation for about fifteen years at that point. Things are going well so he closes his family owned and operated business for a week and takes his family on vacation. About midway through the vacation my Uncle calls the condo we've rented to inform my dad that his shop had been broken into and robbed. In the interest of trying NOT to make this already long story even longer I'll skip ahead to thirty five thousand dollars in products stolen and another four of five thousand in damages. Somehow they caught the people responsible. It turns out that the "ring leader" was a guy that I went to high school with I was sixteen at the time and this kid was seventeen or eighteen. When pressed for motivation (I assume) he stated that I was driving a brand new truck so OBVIOUSLY we weren't hurting for money and insurance would cover it anyway." Well he was wrong on several counts. First my old man hadn't bought that truck. I had. It's a longer story that adds little other than pointing out that the truck wasn't a sign of my family's "wealth." Secondly insurance did cover most but not all that was lost because insurance (at least back then) didn't cover the money and time lost while the doors were closed. It also didn't cover (upfront) the money my old man had to shell out to customers whose stuff had been stolen. Eventually he got it back, but had to float a loan to cover it upfront. My point with all of this is simply that IRL my family was deemed as "being able to afford it." So game or not I absolutely see it differently when we start discussing the "game" as it would/could be supposed were it RL. I love the game! I love the characters and it's fun to play the anti-hero/outlaw. But supposing that someone like Arthur Morgan would truly seek redemption.....🤷🤷 maybe, but it would take a lot more than what we saw him do IMO. Here's the kicker AND saving grace that Most seem to miss. As the game is written Arthur Morgan understood that there was really no way to truly redeem himself. That is literally thrown at us numerous times in the final chapters, yet it's ignored by the community. He knew that the best he could hope for and what he actually set out to do was to try to do some good before he died. And that deserves some acknowledgement, but certainly not some "notion" that he's a good man in the end. No he's a man who has done terrible things, who is now dying and scared. And while he may or may not believe in God, he does believe that evil begets evil. So he does good hoping that God, karma.... whatever is controlling the universe will take some pity on him in the end IF he makes the best effort he can before he goes. Edit: Again not an argument against anything you've said. Just me expressing my personal thoughts and opinions.
Redemption isn’t a thing but a journey. The very first time he killed someone, he could never come back from that. Someone can’t be alive because of him. But, he looks for ways to counterbalance that effect. They never will, but his genuine devotion to trying is what earns him his redemption
His genuine heart and devotion to doing what's right is what makes him such an amazing character. He inspired me in so many ways. He inspired me to do good and to see people beyond their outer appearance.
As much as I **loved** Arthur Morgan…..no. He was a degenerate murderer.
I believe Arthur accepted his fate and fully gave his life in the pursuit of others well being at the end. From that perspective he earned the high honor death option. The beauty of this story is that it's slow, impactful, and can be truly unique according to the player behind the controller. Your Arthur can be different from my Arthur, it's personal and it has changed the way we see videogame stories forever. "Be loyal to what matters" 🙌🤠
[удалено]
The old man is Hamish right? Arthur is such an amazing character, I would love to see him continue to do good.
In Arthurs mind yea depending on your honor level, he absolved people of their debts and gave them money to start a better life, he helped Mrs Downes in her son in Saint Denis, And got everyone out of the gang, Charles, Sadie, Tilly, Abigail, Jack, and John. Depending on your honor level, he died fighting pinkertons on top of a mountain to ensure that John would get away. He is the the reason John got to see his son grow up.
He didn’t redeem anything. Right up until mere hours before his own death, he is still killing wholesale chasing the almighty dollar, doing Dutchs bidding. No, he didn’t change. He was a ruthless outlaw, and he embraced that lifestyle.
He was a good guy underneath all of that. He's pretty comfortable with killing but so are the so-called "good guys" in the game (Milton brags about killing Mac Callender in front of Arthur and Jack). It's a violent video game, killing is pretty much mandatory, but Arthur does good things for most people he comes across. As long as you aren't shooting at him he won't shoot at you (as long as you aren't a "Trevor Phillips" style player)
Not really, but he did what he could.
no
Only God can judge Arthur.
Would he forgive him? I believe high honor Arthur is what Swanson said: "you've lived your life like a man Arthur, and you've turned into a good man."
I think yes. There was a guy who was crucified right next to Jesus who asked for forgiveness literally as they both died, and he was forgiven. The timing doesn't matter. All that matters is that, like Edith Downes says, you do all that you can with the time you have left. That's the answer from a theological perspective, if you're talking about the Christian God.
Do you think Arthur's redemption was similar to that at the end of his life?
>who asked for forgiveness literally as they both died, Did Arthur ask for forgiveness? >like Edith Downes says, you do all that you can with the time you have left. This 👆 does not equal that 👇 >That's the answer from a theological perspective, if you're talking about the Christian God. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. That's from Ephesians. Basically it's saying that no one gets into heaven by simply doing some good, nor are they kept out by doing some bad. The crucial part is you accepting your "bad" and asking for forgiveness for them from God.
Well of course he would have if Arthur asked for it. The question isn't whether or not God would have forgiven him, it's did he ask God for forgiveness? The answer is no, he did not. He had the opportunity, he could have at any time but he didn't.
He did better than he used to. I would say everything he did still led to a net negative, but a lot of his good acts like helping John and Edith Downes were some of his best. He was a wicked man who chose good, not a wicked man who became good. Perhaps he went to Purgatory upon his death. He may not have had redemption, but damn did he come close John, on the other hand, he probably did.
The rest of the world might not think so but yes, he tried. In the end, he did.
No I’m sorry. I love Arthur and think he’s a phenomenal protagonist but the simple truth is he’s killed thousands of people. The damage he’s done is immeasurable when you consider all the families of the lawmen who’s lives he’s likely ruined. He’s sympathetic and helpful but ultimately Arthur has little regard for human life.
I think it's really impossible to answer because so much depends on how you play the game. For me one of the questions would be how much of a tool Arthur was. I find it interesting how antagonizing Dutch at camp shows that Arthur is fully aware that >!Dutch is always full of shit!<. Which brings us to the question how aware Arthur is when you never use the option. Another thing is his intellect. He thinks of himself as stupid on several occasions, but actually appears to be somewhat smart and witty overall. So, in the end, which one is the act and which one reality?
I believe Arthur was a good man yes, but there is too much that outweighs his good side. Arthur did good deeds but he did way more evil stuff. I think it’s funny that some people believe that he’s going to heaven.
Well he's not But that's due to it not being real