I'm playing though the game for the first time today, and I'm getting the feeling Arthur is really a good man at heart. FYI I do know what happens in the late game so spoilers are okay.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is Arthur Morgan a good man? (RDR2) Spoilers
- Thread starter kylecoley182
- Start date
No, he isn't. He's ruined countless lives as a muscle for the Van Der Linde gang. Even Charles admits this in the epilogue, but he wanted to do the best for those closest to him in the end and I think that's pretty admirable. Nobody's perfect, after all.
Guys like him and John were manipulated and primed for the outlaw life from a very young age, Arthur came to realize this as he got older and wiser but it's a shame he couldn't truly break free from it in the end. He wanted John to move on and even gave up his life so that he could but John was a naive fool who by exacting revenge on Micah in Arthur's name, doomed both his fate, Abigail's fate and especially Jack's fate who he especially wanted to distance himself from their desperado lifestyle. That's the true tragedy of the Red Dead Redemption games.
"You did your worst. You tried your best. Now it's time to rest"
This best sums up Arthur's character and his arc in my opinion.
Guys like him and John were manipulated and primed for the outlaw life from a very young age, Arthur came to realize this as he got older and wiser but it's a shame he couldn't truly break free from it in the end. He wanted John to move on and even gave up his life so that he could but John was a naive fool who by exacting revenge on Micah in Arthur's name, doomed both his fate, Abigail's fate and especially Jack's fate who he especially wanted to distance himself from their desperado lifestyle. That's the true tragedy of the Red Dead Redemption games.
"You did your worst. You tried your best. Now it's time to rest"
This best sums up Arthur's character and his arc in my opinion.
Last edited:
He is a bad mad who still tries to do good things and is ultimately likable (if you play him a certain way). In this regard he is like Vito Corleone, a mob boss who orders people killed, but you can't help but like him and see that he does try at times to do the right thing for his family.
No, he murders over 1000 innocent people throughout the game. Helping John and the family of that farmer who he killed doesn't excuse his murders. That shit is irredeemable.
He's not. He wants to be, but he's not. And that's kind of the whole point of his character. He knows he's not a good person, he knows he doesn't deserve peace or prosperity but he still tries anyway.
He's a deeply flawed individual who still has something of a moral compass.
Overall I'd argue he's a better man than Marston.
Overall I'd argue he's a better man than Marston.
No. He's reflective on what he's done, especially near the end, but he is absolutely a bad person. It doesn't matter if you do low or high honor either, he has an engrained history running with the crew and has done terrible things to people.
No, not even remotely. He might have some morals and rules he follows that mean he doesn't just murder anyone without thought or out of pleasure like some other's in the gang, but he still robs, cheats and kills people constantly for his and his gang's benefit.
He could easily not do the things he does, but he still prefers an "easier" life taking from others rather than earning his own way in an honest life. It's made all the worse by the fact that he knows all this and is aware that he's not a good person but tries to sooth his conscience by acts of contrition and kindness to try and make up for it, not that it ever will.
He could easily not do the things he does, but he still prefers an "easier" life taking from others rather than earning his own way in an honest life. It's made all the worse by the fact that he knows all this and is aware that he's not a good person but tries to sooth his conscience by acts of contrition and kindness to try and make up for it, not that it ever will.
You can play him as virtuous as you want, and he still kills and ruins people. No, he is not a good man - as much as he may wish he were.
Hell, he even knows it. He knows that his getting tuberculosis was a direct consequence of the terrible things he did in the name of the group. If he hadn't tried to shake down that man he wouldn't have been infected with the disease.
The conversation he has with the nun near the end of his route makes it pretty clear that the story is less about whether Arthur is a good man or not (he isn't) and more about what he chooses to do with the time allotted to him. It's about whether he attempts to leave the world in a better state than it was before he got there, or if he chooses to pursue his own self-interest to the bitter end and allow himself to be consumed by his fears of the person he thinks he is.
This is great! Most people have this idea on Arthur based on what he said at the end, and what he says relate to how you played the game...
Fascinating! I ended up with High Honor and I loved the last scene, when he said to Dutch "I tried to be a good man" and dies on the mountain top!
Fascinating! I ended up with High Honor and I loved the last scene, when he said to Dutch "I tried to be a good man" and dies on the mountain top!
What makes me lean to yes he is a good man is how he turned on leopold in the end. He saw the stupidity of it all, leopold loaned money to people he knew could not pay and then sent arthur to collect on desperate destitute people. Its what killed arthur in the end and he threw leopold out because of it.
For most of his other actions, playing him honorably or not, hes a bad man wanting to atone.
For most of his other actions, playing him honorably or not, hes a bad man wanting to atone.
Only if you grade on a very generous scale.
For me, while he clearly yearned to be a better person deep down throughout the game he still couldn't ever quite make the changes necessary to actually be better, except in comparison to a few even worse companions. He did make some small meaningful changes by the end but that was clearly a result of his illness and he only get's partial credit for that from me.
So I'd say on the whole he was a bad man who did terrible things, but he was a product of his environment and, at least, tried to be better and made some modest steps in that direction by the end of his life.
For me, while he clearly yearned to be a better person deep down throughout the game he still couldn't ever quite make the changes necessary to actually be better, except in comparison to a few even worse companions. He did make some small meaningful changes by the end but that was clearly a result of his illness and he only get's partial credit for that from me.
So I'd say on the whole he was a bad man who did terrible things, but he was a product of his environment and, at least, tried to be better and made some modest steps in that direction by the end of his life.
He's a fully flawed man who just wants the best for his gang. Of course, his actions cannot be justified, even though he does a lot of bad things just to survive. But the game's able to humanize him, showing his soft and vulnerable side, and how he desperately tries to redeem himself.
This scene always crushes me. It portrays his character and story perfectly.
This scene always crushes me. It portrays his character and story perfectly.
No he isn't. Though he certainly wants to be and there are moments where you see him try to do better.
No. Which is why he's compelling. Albeit I don't think he's as good as people on the board will attest him being, he's a good person who took the wrong path, which makes him interesting.
I've seen a lot of people in other topics about other games talk about people being "bad" or "assholes" or "problematic" as if that's not a good thing to make a player or viewer think about their motives or what they're doing. I think Arthur Morgan works opposite as Dutch so well because he realizes "how bad he is" while Dutch always thinks he's right. It's a super interesting narrative.
I've seen a lot of people in other topics about other games talk about people being "bad" or "assholes" or "problematic" as if that's not a good thing to make a player or viewer think about their motives or what they're doing. I think Arthur Morgan works opposite as Dutch so well because he realizes "how bad he is" while Dutch always thinks he's right. It's a super interesting narrative.
Not really, and he very much acknowledges this a lot throughout the game.
I played him high honor so he absolutely does try to make an effort to redeem himself in some fashion. Granted, a lot of it was spurred by his sickness, but the fact he used what little time he had left to help people speaks to his character.
So he was a bad dude, but certainly not beyond redemption imo.
I played him high honor so he absolutely does try to make an effort to redeem himself in some fashion. Granted, a lot of it was spurred by his sickness, but the fact he used what little time he had left to help people speaks to his character.
So he was a bad dude, but certainly not beyond redemption imo.
If you play him good: yes, although his way of living is definitely wrong and corrupt, he sees good in people, both his gang but strangers as well, tries to empathize and help whoever he can, and ultimately tries to save as many people as possible from a life of misery and death they were all led into
If you play him bad: yes and no, he is a man that does bad things and was raised to do bad things, has a moral combass (albeit one with lower standards than us) and tries to do all of this for the sake of the people who he cares about, still tries to break free in the end
I would say he's definitely more good than bad (unless you play him as a psycho lol), one who lived in a vicious circle of murder from which he is unable to exit. Now wether his actions are justifiable or not, wether he was deserving of redemption or not, that is up to the player.
If you play him bad: yes and no, he is a man that does bad things and was raised to do bad things, has a moral combass (albeit one with lower standards than us) and tries to do all of this for the sake of the people who he cares about, still tries to break free in the end
I would say he's definitely more good than bad (unless you play him as a psycho lol), one who lived in a vicious circle of murder from which he is unable to exit. Now wether his actions are justifiable or not, wether he was deserving of redemption or not, that is up to the player.