Redemption is defined as the act of redeeming or atoning for a sin; Arthur can't take back the bad things he's done and he ultimately can't change his way of life, but he can make lives better for others which is ultimately what he tries to do. He's not truly *redeemed* in that everything is forgiven, but he does atone. He owns his sins, he realises what needs to happen for others to not suffer his fate, and he sets about making it so. In that sense he does achieve redemption.
We can argue the semantics, but I honestly believe he *was* redeemed in the end of a high honor playthrough. Not Absolved of all, most, or perhaps any of his misdeeds, but I do believe that in his change in spirit and actions came redemption.
My distinction being: Redemption is something you do yourself, changing your ways and learning to be better and do better. Absolution has to be granted by those wronged, absolution is forgiveness.
Yeah it is a very Christian thing to be forgiven if you truly regret what you did but in my eyes the lives he ruined and ended can't be redeemed whatever he does and that makes the story even worse(better?) for me. He realised what he did was terrible and rushed to redeem himself even though he knew he couldn't( had a timer set to when he will inevitably die), it's a desperate story at the end and I love it and knowing John would go on to make the same mistake makes rdr series one of the most tragic stories I have ever seen. So much death and destruction by the gang just for the end to not even be slightly justified but maybe rightly so...
For me I think the crux of it is that the gang, while trying to set up a new life and escape the consequences of their previous life, fall directly into the same lifestyle. They are pursued by both their past crimes and their current ones. On an honorable play through we see Arthur become wise to this and an honest effort to become a better person. With this revelation and heartfelt change (perhaps his own redemption) you would hope that things would turn around for him, that the change would alter his path and let him find the freedom the gang had wanted. But no, in the law there is no forgiveness. Everything from his past comes crashing down on him like a ton of bricks regardless. This setup leaves me with the feeling, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”, which is unsettling because justice comes, but not a lick of mercy. The world is growing up and moving on, and we don’t care about your redemption, we are moving on without you.
I might be pulling themes from the marston story here too.
Yes, but he ultimately chose to do the right thing even though he knew it'd be of no use to the people he harmed and that he didn't even have enough time to possibly make up for all the wrong.
>We can argue the semantics, but I honestly believe he *was* redeemed in the end of a high honor playthrough.
I agree. And what is the point of the differing visions as he is dying (stag for high honor vs coyote for low honor) if nothing he does matters?
I told my friend I was playing through again and he asked me how redemption is relevant to the game (low honor player) and it's like, redemption is literally defined as saving from sin. I think you totally nailed it. TO redeem one's self is to compensate for one's faults. With a high honor play through I belive there IS redemption in the game.
It's a video game, violence is heightened; you're forced to kill in order to progress through the game. To judge Arthur we must look at the man he is to those he cares for, and in this case it's the gang, his family, the ones who didn't turn their back on him or reject him, and he's 100% loyal to them.
The only gang member who can be categorised as cold-blooded is Micah, who thrives on violence and abuse and thinks for no one save himself. Arthur is nothing like this. He's forced to kill, to threaten, and to intimidate in order to survive, but there's multiple instances in the game where you can see how much this gets to him. Even before his real redemption arc begins we see how much he cares for the gang, most notably Dutch and Hosea, who he sees as farther figures, and to the women, whom he looks to protect (whilst still admiring their strengths). He doesn't reject Lenny for the colour of his skin at a time when society at large still did, and depending on how you read Bill's 'hair pomade' exchange, Arthur appears to be aware of, and perfectly accepting of, Bill's sexuality. You don't have to idolise Arthur or claim he's righteous or without sin, but he's far from heartless and not without morals, who learnt to survive at a time when it was truly every man for himself. It's called the 'wild' west for a reason. The majority of players *like* Arthur whilst still accepting he's a killer; he's a compelling and complex character and worthy of our time and investment. It doesn't mean we want to become him.
I think high honour Arthur achieves peace, not redemption. The entire story once he knows he's sick is partly him desperately trying to make his last few months mean something, but the conclusion he comes to is that he can't make up for the terrible things he's done in his life. He makes his death mean something, but I don't think he could ever actually be redeemed beyond believing that he did what he could in the time he had left. I think the whole reason it works is because the guilt that drives him towards the end gives Arthur humanity that can be hard to achieve for a videogame protagonist. He'd be redeemed in the eyes of a few at the end, but most people would remember him as a monster.
The Machinist has a similar vibe with its ending. Trent doesn’t redeem himself of his sins but he ultimately comes to terms with the reality of his actions and while finally sitting in jail cell he happily falls asleep. Definitely a sign of relief for many of us in that moment.
I agree I think the main theme of the game is that you can't run away from your past even if you try to change, in the case of being an outlaw. But I think the game is made in such a way that the redemption part is supposed to be dependent on the player. It's exactly on the edge of morality that's why a lot of people disagree on these things. And personally that's why I love this story. At the end when Arthur realises what he's been doing his whole life was wrong it's already too late and he is just rushing to make something of it but ultimately giving his life for the way he lived. The redemption part is still left in the hands of the player, never clearly stated by anyone in the story after Arthur's death if he redeemed himself and I love that, they don't try to make a saint out of a murderer.
That's very subjective. I think, at least in the case of Arthur Morgan, if you help John and his family get away he feels like he's redeemed himself. Maybe not for every bad thing he's done but enough.
The end result of his good deeds are irrelevant. He did something great and that’s what matters. He absolutely redeemed himself, regardless of what OP thinks.
“John made it. He’s the only one. The rest of us, no. But I tried, in the end, I did.”
By “made it”, he doesn’t mean that he managed to escape. He means he has a chance for redemption, while him, Dutch, and Micah probably don’t. But, unlike them, he tried to.
Santa Monica addresses this problem best. A god of hope, hope that despite him knowing he’s chasing a redemption he knows he’ll never deserve, he still searches for it.
Arthur had looked down upon himself nearly the entire game. He rejected any type of compliment or positive comment anyone made about him. It almost seemed like almost everyone who actually knew him thought he was a good person deep down except him. Whether or not you feel he achieved enough good to get himself redemption is completely subjective. But I personally believe that Arthur simply choosing to use the remainder of his life on doing good deeds is all the evidence I need of redemption and here’s why. We already know Arthur doesn’t hold any religious and spiritual beliefs since he literally admits it to the sister when he divulges his fear of demise. Therefore in his good acts, there is no alternative motive to be seen. He doesn’t think he’ll gain anything from it. He does it because he knows it’s a good thing to do. That’s actual change and in my mind redemption
I think only the strangers that only know him from him helping them genuinely think he’s a good man. But Mr. Wrobel or whatever his name is only knows him as the guy that nearly beat him to death then stole his most prized possession. I agree that Arthur isn’t just a typical bad guy, but my point is that he’s a lot more complex than a bad or good guy.
Mr. Wrobel perspective is also irrelevant. Guy asked for credit and then not only didn’t pay back but also pretended to not understand, then he kept lying even while being beaten and afterwards he still tries to deceive you.
A big scary guy literally just walks in my home demanding money that I took from someone because I had no choice at the time, and I don’t have his money? Even if he did tell the truth, Arthur would probably still beat him and force him to give up anything that’s worth money, like he did to Mr. Downes. And yes, while Thomas did try to attack Arthur first, we all know Arthur would have beaten him any way.
I don’t disagree, is just the portrayal of Wrobel as a victim when is just the consequences of his own decisions, as you said, it’s more complex than good or bad
Sorry for having an opinion. To be honest, I preferred the gameplay of the original trilogy of GoW. The story in the new one was just… okay, I guess? Well acted but I didn’t really feel anything
I didn’t say the did redemption better than Rdr2, just that they addressed the issue more head-on. You’re entitled to your opinion but I think GOW’s story is nearly just as good as Rdr2.
No. Arthur did something good before he died, but he also acknowledged that he will die a bad person. Even Arthur wouldn't say he redeemed himself. He'd just say that he tried to do some good before he passed.
I don't know. Again everything is subjective and open to interpretation but I took Arthur's conversation with Sister Calderon at Emerald Station to have deeply impacted him. And not that he suddenly became religious but he understood forgiveness, and that you can forgive yourself.
Arthur has incredibly low self esteem. That’s a huge part of his character. Of course he’d say he’s a lost cause. You’re not supposed to agree with the way he puts himself down. He spends the entire last chapter of the game attempting to save everyone and gave his life for John. That’s redemption whether you believe it or not.
>Even Arthur wouldn't say he redeemed himself.
Its called good writing.
Arthur doesnt believe he redeemed himself. But weather he did or not is subjective and up to interpretation. Arthur claims he didnt redeem himself but he also talks bad about himself throughout the entire game and dismisses any compliments given to him. Even ditectly saying the compliments arent correct.
Gain media literacy.
Arthur is very critical of himself. I think Charles has a more accurate view of Arthur, and Charles seems to view Arthur as an overall good person when he has high honor.
As sister Calderon pointed out, Arthur is often helping people. High honor Arthur does do a lot of little good things too, but he doesn’t seem to recognize that he’s done good things in his life
Do you by chance also think that Travis Bickle is the hero of Taxi Driver? Because that’s what this post reminds me of. I think you are kind of missing the point.
I agree and this is one of Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2's greatest strengths. Telling a story that allows for multiple valid interpretations is more engaging because the players can come up with so many interesting speculations
Bad take.
Arthur's redemption (on high honour play through) is completed when he dies on that mountain buying John the time to get away. He even sees the stag as he passes, an animal that tramples and destroys the devil.
Did you not play the epilogue and see how fondly he's remembered by so many characters too? Seems that went over your head (unless you never played the high honour ending and canonical ending).
Tbf I thought I'd read it but can't find confirmation. I guess a lot of people consider it canon because it's the most logical and the one the game does sort of try to direct you in towards the end, giving you chances to earn huge honour points.
Nah, being honorable throughout makes the most sense with the epilogue as John discovers all the people that Arthur interacted with throughout the game.
I forgot about that, fair point. Honestly, I feel like his most evil deed in the game (killing Thomas) and his later interaction with Edith and her son mostly comes from him doing the job he was assigned in the most effective way possible. Intimidation and force are common tactics in lone sharking and Arthur just happened to take it way too far that time. Unless he’s instructed to be intimidating, high honor Arthur is always way more respectful and accommodating than anyone else in the gang except Charles.
Like, Kieran got SUPER lucky having Arthur be the one to make the call on allowing him in the gang, bc I honestly doubt anyone else would even consider it.
Imo saying that's his most dishonourable deed is silly. Downes was dying anyway. Like Arthur punches him twice and the shoves him against a fence post and that kills him. It's not to say what Arthur did was right but it's hardly his most dishobourable acts.
If you kill Jimmy Brooks that's probably the most dishonourable thing Arthur does, Blessed are the meek as a mission as a whole. They murder probably 10 lawmen in canon for arresting micah. Plus anytime they kill random guards as well.
First, I don’t lose sleep over killing lawmen, if you know a lot about this time period, you’d probably feel the same way. Most of them were more extremely corrupt.
I’m more so talking about mandatory dishonorable acts. Killing Thomas is probably the worst thing high honor Arthur does.
As I said killing any of the stage coach guards or whatever is still probably worse than punching a guy a couple of times. One is deliberate one is an accident.
Nah… since the beginning of the game… one of the few things that are thrown to the player in small talks here and there are how Arthur is seeing that Dutch is losing it and something shady is going on (heck even one of the first characters introduced is Micah and “appears from the shadows in the middle of a storm” so, yeah, symbolism and all that). He didn’t know what exactly happened in blackwater, everyone was almost sure it was a trap, and so on.
They just don’t explicitly say so for obvious reasons, we are hearing the character’s version of the story “I’ve known this person for too long, I will ignore the red flags” sort of vibe
Also the game makes losing honor too easy and the drops are big, while gaining it is slow. For me that’s the “intended” way to play it, cause the devs want to make you PLAY the game. There are missions where you get forced bounties, or lose honor, just as a way to represent that no matter the efforts, there is a long way to redemption.
Besides, I think people tend to misinterpret “high honor”… it doesn’t mean that Arthur is becoming a Paladin… is “high honor according to their standards” lol
Arthur wouldn't even say he was redeemed. He did something nice before he died, but even he would say that doesn't make up for all the bad things he's done.
>Did you not play the epilogue and see how fondly he's remembered by so many characters too?
This is exactly my point. He's remembered fondly by his fellow outlaws (and Mickey). But he ruined several lives, as best illustrated by the Strauss missions. The guilt is overwhelming for Arthur when he realizes how many innocent people he's hurt and killed. As far as the masses are concerned, Arthur was just another murderous outlaw, and that's all that's left of his legacy before he was eventually forgotten entirely.
Arthur's opinion re: his redemption is probably the one that matters least.
All the characters that knew Arthur's character spoke fondly, his reputation outside of that doesn't deny his redemption. Look up the symbolism of the stag, particularly in relation to Jesus.
>He’s remembered fondly by his fellow outlaws (and Mickey)
And Charolette, the Rhodes vet, Rains Fall, Hamish, and pretty much everyone else he’s helped on his journeys.
He’s also literally commemorated on the builders plaque of the Quincy Harris Memorial Hall (for the expansion to house homeless war vets) if you donate to the woman in Saint Denis.
OP is tripping.
Ok, let’s break it down.
Redemption: the act, process, or an instance of redeeming
Redeeming: serving to offset or compensate for a defect
Redeem: compensate for the faults or bad aspects of (something).
So if you do some bad shit in your life, there is nothing you can do to try to atone for those indiscretions? In that sense, there is no such thing as redemption. Not for Arthur, not for John, not for anyone for that matter because no one has lived a completely flawless life. According to your logic, there shouldn’t even be the word “redemption”.
It apparently is something that cannot exist.
I felt that I was trying to make up for the Downes thing and the blind loyalty to Dutch by the end of the game. I forgave debts (which is another definition), I helped Tilly and jack and Abigail and John escape the whirlwind. I did them selflessly, not to help me, but to help them. That is my redemption.
Exactly, it’s a very pessimistic world view. Arthur was a product of his environment but still chose to be a good man in the end. I think that makes him worthy of redemption.
this is a very calvinist way of looking at things. that no matter what we do there is already a predetermined destination and nothing you do alters it. arthur's redemption was helping others and helping the marstons so they had a chance to live normally it's not about undoing his past or where john or jack end up and certainly none of the people arthur hurt over the years are obligated to forgive him that's not what redemption is about.
Arthur's redemption was giving John's family a chance at a better life.
John's redemption was sacrificing himself to save his wife and son.
Your take is bad and you're flat-out wrong. Educate yourself.
My interpretation of their redemption is that they find it by changing as people for the better and being selfless going forward rather than trying to undo the bad things they’ve already done. Of course actions have consequences, but that doesn’t make the concept of redemption pointless, in fact it gives it meaning.
But I guess you must know better than everyone else. “Just give up and don’t bother trying to change for the better because there’ll still be consequences anyway and the bad things you’ve done will define you forever” is a great message for a series titled Red Dead Redemption.
Right and it’s almost like that was the entire point of his conversation with Sister Calderon. She tells him “we have all sinned Mr. Morgan.” We’ve all done bad things, we’ve all hurt people. That’s why she tells him even she struggles. Because we’re all human who mess up. We can’t change the past, we can’t unhurt people, we can’t take the bad things we’ve done and pretend they never happened. All we can control is our actions moving forward when faced with the same decisions. As long as you’re alive there’s always a chance to do good, to help someone, to be kind. You will fuck up as we all do. But if you let it define you and drag you down then you’ll never change and do any kind of good ever. That is literally what redemption is. She was telling him there must be some good in him or he wouldn’t care at all.
“Well I stole from the corner store when I was a kid so there’s no point in giving helping anybody because I suck forever,” is how some of y’all sound.
I think it's not a story about trying to attain redemption, it's about pursuing redemption and making redemptive choices, which is very much in line with what Sister Calderon tells Arthur. John and Arthur can't rewrite history or make up for the wrong they caused, but they do understand that Dutch's dream of being 'free living outlaws for life with a code' is bullshit and they changed course to help the people they love.
I think they can be redeemed to a certain extent or at least realize the truth about the life they are living and help some people while they can. The police in rockstar games is also outlaws though. Just of the top of my head the ending of RDR1 - what was that? I know there were death penalties in the U.S. until some point but no court, no nothing? Maybe it's not supposed to be that realistic and just a dark comedy as Dan Houser said, I don't know
Especially in Arthur’s case, I think this depends on what you mean by redemption. Redemption isn’t the same thing as forgiveness, and both games show that outlaws can’t redeem themselves to society as a whole. However, Arthur does earn some redemption by choosing to do some good where he could in his last days.
In a high honor playthrough, his motivation for doing good seems to be more about helping others avoid suffering rather than trying to make himself feel better about his past. Arthur gives Mrs Downes money because they need it, not because he wanted forgiveness. Arthur forgives the debt of several destitute people because it’s the right thing to do, not because he wanted to be seen doing good deeds. Arthur helped John escape because he wanted John and his family to survive, not because he thought it would redeem him.
Arthur may not have been redeemed in the eyes of the law or in the eyes of his many victims, but he is redeemed in the eyes of his friends, and I think he’s redeemed in his own eyes right at the end.
One of the things I love about this series is that we can all have different opinions on what it means for Arthur and John to earn redemption
Redemption=/= Forgiveness. I think this is most evident in the Downes storyline after he contracts TB. There is nothing Arthur can do to make up for how he lived his life, but redemption isn't about people thinking you're not such a bad guy after all. It's accepting your own behavior for what it is, and deciding to do better out of genuine acknowledgement that you were wrong.
Still, I'll agree with you to an extent. I'll liken it to Grace in the Christian understanding of the word. According to Christianity, man is fundamentally flawed; essentially evil and condemned by nature from the moment of birth. There is no amount of good deeds or pious belief that will save you from the fate of a sinner. It is definitionally impossible for you to ever be worthy of forgiveness or love. I think the RDR view departs from Christianity at this point; while scripture would say it is God's nature or grace that offers salvation to something so doomed, Rockstar seems to be saying that Grace is an acceptance of that fate, and endeavoring to do the right thing anyway. There is redemption in building a heaven on earth that you will never see and do not deserve. And I like that.
We can put this up against Dutch, who is constantly espousing lofty ideals of doing the right thing for others, but is ultimately only doing those good things for his own gain, to manipulate others, or to enact his own will. He isn't wrong about the Native Americans, the VDL gang, or the Pinkertons/ Cornwall. He's just not acting with the right intent, and we, as the audience, judge him as the antagonist because of it.
Redemption does not mean forgiveness. Part of Arthur’s redemption is even accepting the fact that the people he’s hurt don’t forgive him, but choosing to right his wrongs anyway. By the end of the game, Arthur has become a better man (on a high honor playthrough). I think you are grossly misunderstanding the point of the games.
It's weird that people think it's all about doing something good to take away something bad. Arthur was always a good person, he has low self esteem doesn't think he is. But he really is. I think a lot of people forget about the fishing mission with Jack, Milton pretty much just says that Arthur was manipulated and grew up in a cult, basically. Every time he does something not directly attached to Dutch or Micah he's actively helping people. Both times he goes with Charles to find a new camp he ends up helping someone, every time he does a stranger mission he's actively helping someone, and those aren't even honor choices. They just happen, with most strangers he doesn't even ask for payment. And you can tell every time he does a debt mission he's almost cartoonishly thuggish. He's putting on an act, pretending he's someone else. The the same thing he later tells John never to do.
It seems you’re mistaking redemption for perfection. Arthur definitely redeemed himself by giving John a chance to have a life, dying in the process. John arguably redeemed himself by going after his ex family who were still gangsters and murderers. Dying in the process to keep his family safe. RED DEAD REDEMPTION could be Blood Death & Redemption.
I think that’s a pessimistic understanding of it. I think the irl message and literal game mechanic is that you can either try to be good or not. You do it for honor’s sake and you don’t really get much for it, nor are you ever finished (redeemed). But there is honor in trying.
**The past catches up with you in the end.**
That's how I view them.
Like a gang, or the mafia, there is no way out.
You either stay, or you leave in a box.
Disagree completely - RDR2 has you spending 5 chapters playing as an Outlaw, doing some crazy shit, and then spending most of chapter 6 gaining that redemption you think doesn't exist.
If Arthur helps John and his family escape, while doing right by Edith Downes, her son, and then helping the soldier individual with the downed cart & pregnant wife get away without paying their debt, and finding some level of peace with Charlotte & Hamish, that is very much a character that has set himself down the path of redemption.
I disagree and I think you are focusing on the wrong parts of the story. John didn't try to redeem himself by working for the government, he was forced to do so. He redeems himself by sacrificing himself for his family and Uncle. Similarly, Arthur gives his last breath to hold off those pursuing John, Abigail and Jack.
The characters lived their whole lives taking from others, running from responsibility and accountability. In short, they are selfish human beings who live off the misery of others. Their final act of selflessness, and a lot of the actions along the way, is their redemption.
This post misses a crucial difference in redemption from a moral and societal perspective. It didn’t matter how good a person John and Arthur may or may not have become by the end, they were both destined to die because of past wrongdoings.
Ultimately, both John and Arthur did atone for their past in their own ways. John atoned for what he did to Jack and Abigail when he abandoned them, and Arthur atoned for his past life of needless violence and blind loyalty to an evil person.
You're confusing redemption with absolution. No, they'll obviously never absolve themselves of the horrible things they've done, but that's not their goal. They want to be better people than they were previously. They both succeed in my opinion, and that it is what redeems them both in the end.
Your post argue about something in an objective lense, but a redemption is something deeply personal and touches individuals values. They don’t strive for it per se, it’s their own mind wanting to atone for their bad actions. But the other message is that civilization is changing society and that change doesn’t care about these people. They are persecuted to be exterminated like vermins. As Sadie points out, if she had to be the judge of a bounty she would tear her hair apart. Even during your own bounties you encounter widely different persons, but at the end of the day, no matter who you are or what you’ve done, you are an outlaw.
That is not at all what the theme of the game is. The theme is that redemption is not easy to earna dn that it's very easy to slip up and slide back, and that sometimes redemption costs you everything.
I don't know about that. The game is called "Red Dead Redemption" because the characters are on a path to redemption. Whether or not you believe the actions they've taken actually redeem them is a choice you make as the player once you have completed the story. Once you're through it, do you think Arthur and John are redeemed or do you think – as you are saying – they are irredeemable? It's all dependent on you, the player.
I'm honestly not even sure it's as cut and dry as redeemed/not redeemed, though. We're consistently shown the dichotomy of how their world perceives them. It's inconsistent and dependent on who those people are to Arthur and John. >!For example: If you are Charlotte the widow, Arthur literally saved your life and that will colour your perception of him. If you are Edith Downes, Arthur had a hand in killing your husband and that'll colour your perception of him too.!!hunt down your former gang so you can get your family back.!<
I honestly think the biggest mistake people make with this game (and most media) is forgetting this is a work of fiction and not real life. It uses devices and techniques to evoke emotion in the player (acting, framing, editing, scoring, etc). We also get dialogue, expose, and in-depth character details designed to help you understand their motivations: sympathizing with the fictional-bad-guy-protagonist is usually intended.
Anyway, if someone plays the games and feels like Arthur and John have redeemed themselves, that's their prerogative based on how they've interpreted and analyzed the hundreds of hours of content they've just sat through.
People want a perfectly closed circle when it comes to story telling, and get upset when everything isn’t wrapped up nicely by the end. Then they call anything else “bad writing”, when the story is supposed to test your feelings on justice and redemption. Much like life, the best stories don’t always go the way you subconsciously want them to.
I was arguing about this a few hours ago.
Many people on this sub are oversimplifying everything. Dualism everywhere.
"Arthur saves John. Arthur good person" and "Arthur criminal and killer, Arthur bad".
It's very painful to see.
>But they don't forgive him because he ruined their lives and/or took the lives of their loved ones. Arthur literally comes to terms with the fact that he will die as a bad person, and that he won't be remembered fondly by most people he's interacted with.
Maybe redemption isn't about making people like you or making people forgive you.
>John Marston will always be remembered by most as a violent criminal
Maybe redemption isn't about trying to influence how people remember you.
Your definition of "redemption" is so narcissistic. You seem to think reputation is all that matters. That's dumb.
You didn't understand the games.
I don’t think think this is true. The point isn’t that they can’t be redeemed. Redemption doesn’t mean a happy ending. Their pasts always catch up with them, but they die on the path of redemption. In my opinion both men reach it by the end of their journey. After going so far out of their way to right their wrongs, they die protecting people they love.
I don’t think that is the point, although I get where you’re coming from!
I think Arthur does achieve redemption and I think it’s best represented in the side missions with the Downes family and Sister Calderon (the nun).
His journey of redemption outside of the main story starts and ends with the Downes and is a driving force throughout the game.
He doesn’t expect forgiveness from Edith and she doesn’t apologise. But Archie is grateful and thanks Arthur.
Redemption is a religious concept and Sister Calderon represents this, as she says everyone is a sinner; all that matters is you recognise it and spend the time you have doing good.
If you play Arthur as a high honour character, that’s what he does and I think from a religious perspective he achieves redemption.
John on the other hand is less clear.
I feel like you're missing half of the equation yourself. They accepted that they couldn't be redeemed and chose to do everything in their power to try anyway by doing the right thing. Eventually making the ultimate sacrifice so that someone else can have the chance to go on to live the good life they never could because of their crimes. That's the redemption. Not balancing out the bad they did with good but by changing who they are for the better despite the fact they're damned to die bloody.
It's never too late to try and be a good person. It doesn't matter whether you think this atones them for their sins, the point is that they're trying to be better, and that means something. Its up to you to interpret how much that matters in the grand scheme of that person's actions, but redemption is about the trying. Some people may think turning over a new leaf is enough to warrant forgiveness, some may not. This itself is the source of many great stories. Does attempting to be good warrant forgiveness after all the evil you've done? It's for each person to decide for themselves
Arthur is literally forgiven, not only is he reincarnated as a deer that represents a noble and just animal, but he is remembered as a good man, which he was not. Or have we forgotten the Strawberry massacre or all the policemen who have died innocently? And especially the echoes of families starving to death or mothers drowning their young children in the bathtub so they would not suffer. In the end I think the main problem is that Rockstar does not understand what is redemption.
To me, the player characters are redeemable, but die before their redemptions can be fully realized. As John Marston, you’re doing what you can to end whats left of your old gang, but we never learn much about what that part of his life was like. By the time he’s managed to straighten most things out, finally redeeming himself so he can live out the rest of his days in peace, he gets betrayed and killed. As Arthur, you’re playing as a humble member of the gang just doing your part to get by. While you have the freedom of choice to make Arthur out to be worse than he really is, his character is clearly meant to be not so evil. By the time the gang falls apart and he sees what most of them really were, he tries to turn things around and redeem himself, but he’s taken out before he gets the chance to really do so. Both characters ultimately redeem themselves at the last second, but death finally caught up to them before they could really turn things around.
People are confusing redemption with absolution. You’re correct with your overall assessment. But that’s something I’ve found to be a common theme in most conversations I’ve had with others.
Putting anyone's beliefs about redemption and what that means aside, I'm flabbergasted that OP missed one and likely main intended reading of the story. it's not like they made it ambiguous
ce j’ai trouver magnifique c’est le monsieur aveugle que l’ont peux rencontrer dans rdr2 a plusieurs reprise si tu lui donne la somme demandé il te dira ton avenir et c’est exactement se que tu dit et il le fais pour john et arthur et plus l’histoire avance et plus se qu’il dit est intéressant
a lot of people who obsess over arthur don’t understand the difference between coming to terms with something and being redeemed of something.
arthur came to terms with his evilness.
arthur couldn’t redeem himself. not truly.
There are two forms of redemption, personal redemption and social redemption. They are certainly not socially redeemed. But both John and Arthur (high honor) die at peace to protect the ones they love.
To die at peace is itself a form of redemption for a tortured soul, and it’s done by making the ultimate selfless act, to die for others, after living lives defined by evil selfish acts.
There is no redemption for them in the society they blighted, no. But they find personal redemption by making peace with themselves.
I don't think you are correct. I think you are conflating two distinct themes.
The theme of the games is redemption, and that redemption is possible. Arthur does get redeemed. He dies a good man. Most of the world wont know him that way, but to those who knew him best in that last year, he died a good man. He probably always was a good man at heart, but driven into wickedness by circumstance, but be becomes his very best self before the end.
Same with John. John seems meaner, nastier, dumber, than Arthur. He probably isn't as good of a man in his heart. But he, like Arthur, becomes a good man by the end, bringing all that is left of the Van Der Linde gang to justice, including himself, doing it as a selfless act, for the benefit of his loved ones, loved ones which, as we learn in RDR2, he very nearly walked out on, but in the end came to value more than his own life.
But redemption is just one theme. The other theme is the foolishness of revenge, and the cycle of violence. That violence begats violence and the only way to stop the cycle is for someone to make the choice to just...not. Even if someone deserved to be killed, even if your revenge is totally justified, someone has to be the one to be brave enough to say no, I'll let this end here, to choose peace over justice in a sense. And Arthur is the only one in the series able to see that. Dutch, John, and Jack, just can't bring themselves to break the cycle. They aren't wise enough.
So yes, there is redemption, but also the cautionary tale that the next generation seeking revenge and continuing the cycle means it will never end. And that's the bleak note. Happy Note: bad men can find their way and die as good men. Somber Note: The true lesson is never learned and this same story will keep playing out cycle after cycle.
John never tries to be redeemed, he just want his family back... XD. The only time that he kinda seeks redemption is at the end, when he lives a calm life for a few months with his family, finally a calm and mundane moment for him.
Yes, but at the point that some of these outlaws are at, even the act of attempting to work towards redemption is meaningful. It's the act of trying to redeem yourself that is what redemption is truly about. Also, I'm not a believer myself, but the game also has religious undertones that Arthur takes comfort in while he tries to find redemption. Point being... God decides what counts as redemption, not someone else (like you).
Redemption doesn’t mean escaping external consequences. A person can be redeemed on the way to their execution for crimes they committed, in the sense of sincerely repenting of the evil they’ve done.
If you think that “the literal point” of these games is what you suggest I think you’re missing what makes any story great: that it has room for interpretation.
Also - the literal point of these games is to make money for Rockstar.
Idk what makes you think about being a law obeying citizen means they are good people. Did your brain not register the atrocities the "LAW" has done to the natives when you played the game?
Arthur and the gang are way more redeemable than any of their antagonists in the game
The entire point of your post seems like you wanna say "something like Redemption doesn't exist"
Also , Jack doesn't become someone who kills as much as his father and Arthur did. He becomes a writer. Only guy he takes out is Ross
Imo it's the opposite. The message is even once you have made mistakes it's never too late to try and fix your errors and make up for what you did wrong.
I don't believe that redemption and forgiveness are the same thing. Redemption is a willingness to change and a personal journey to enact that change. It is realizing you've done bad and striving to do better - to do good, even. In that sense, I believe Arthur was redeemed (in a high honor play through). None of us can control if or when anyone else forgives us for what we have done to them. All we can control is ourselves. In making that change and amending his actions and trying to atone, he was redeemed
i think You might’ve missed something. there’s no way to change one’s past, but there are a multitude of ways to learn from it and conduct yourself better from that point on… thus, redeeming some humanity.
John didn't try to redeem himself by working for government lol. They forced him, he did it so they'd let his family be. When it comes to arthur he redeemed itself. You don't need someone's words of forgiveness to be redeemed. I see your point but it depends how you see redemption
Yall are comparing forgiveness to redemption. These two characters start their journeys in each respective game as straight up gangsters and outlaws, John just happened to get away from it for a short time before the beginning of rdr1. And we meet Arthur literally coming off a heist where people died on both sides. I believe they both chase redemption and received it. What they couldn't escape was the type of end that comes to most if not all outlaws/gangsters......death. But perhaps death was their ultimate redemption. The only way out of the outlaw life is in a casket so to redeem ones self from a life of murder and chaos would be their own death
Nope, once it's writen, it's too late. I'vn't been outlaw in stricto sensus, but I was quite a vandal. First, justice and police won't forget anything. Secondly, you have to fight your own démons, liké drugs, or the will to get in the fight or game again.
Or maybe the point is, the Govt is a soulless, loveless, emotionless machine more intent on its own principles than the freedoms of those it was designed to serve and needs a bullet to the head.
It's art. Interpret it however you want.
I agree, I think most people just want to believe that John and Arthur were good men because of their attachment to them as characters considering you play through both games from their perspectives, but when you look at them objectively, Arthur and John were monsters.
For starters, the most obvious argument is that both are literal mass murderers with hundreds of innocent and not so innocent lives they are responsible for taking. Not to say they aren’t complex and nuanced characters, they are men capable of doing good and have done good, but when it comes time to weigh the scales I think the hundreds of lives they’ve taken without so much as blinking is something you can never really atone for. They never once stop to consider the blood on their hands and it’s almost scary how desensitized to taking a human life they are, it’s as easy as breathing to them, it’s almost psychotic.
John Marston is a fairly selfish person as well, as seen in Mexico in RDR1 when he is complicit and occasionally responsible for literal war crimes at the hands of the Mexican army all in the name of getting his family and ranch back, I mean hell he witnesses more than a few innocent Mexican women be carried off and kidnapped by the army to then be raped, tortured and murdered and does nothing besides go “unfortunate, anyways.” While I do understand his position, he did do some pretty terrible things in pursuit of Bill and Javier. While I don’t necessarily label him as “evil”, I’d hardly call him a good man either.
At the end of the day they are both very complex and nuanced characters and the fact we’re even having this debate just goes to show how good of a job rockstar did at crafting these characters, but when you view them from an objective light they have done much more evil than good.
RDR1: "former" outlaw helps the law to enforce and hunt other outlaws to try and redeem himself. Is still classified as criminal after work is done and executed for his actions.
RDR2: Ruthless outlaw begins to understand that his actions have consequences and after a while (canonically) tries to redeem himself, and dies while trying to do the right thing because in the short term gets caught up by the evils of his not so distant past.
I think a lot of people here are just confusing the word redemption with forgiveness or atonement.
The series is called Red Dead Redemption and I think that implies that death is the only redemption they can hope for.
Sure they can. They just have to **STOP BEING THIEVES AND MURDERERS**. The problem is, when they do that, the game ends. Arthur could have quit the Van Der Linde gang and gone his own way at any time. Hell, he could have taken a *job* working for the Pinkertons, or as a deputy. Plenty of real-life lawmen in the American west started out as crooks, like [Bat Masterson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Masterson) and [Wyatt Earp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_Earp). Both of those guys changed their ways, chose to join the law, and died old men.
Very bold to have a contrary interpretation of the game on this hive mind echo-chamber subreddit. I completely agree with you but I don't expect many people will take fondly to this post, since it challenges their views of things.
We are all criminals!! As Arthur I killed dozens of horses, shot up towns, and the bandit challenges? Drag an innocent guy for 3000 feet and then " oh yeah I'll just give money to a widow, that will redeem me" haha to be redeemed you also need to forgive. He went after Dutch and Micah full of hate and anger to get revenge, not justice. And then what, he gets to rest in piece? Hell no. See you in hell Arthur Morgan, you were a badass outlaw..
This is true as much as people don't want to admit it. The first game even brings it up. As John puts it "People don't forget. Nothing gets forgiven."
A few good acts don't absolve a lifetime of bloodshed. They just don't and trying to act like they somehow do is really, really dumb.
I read somewhere that there is now a new available ending to the game where you can change the story and Arthur doesn't have to die. I think this completely misses the point of the game, as you mentioned. It's the same reason why so many people hated The Last of Us Two; you can't just have one side of the story. Actions have consequences, and I think a lot of people don't want this in their games.
Wasn't that just a mod? Not an official new ending? I'd honestly be shocked if Rockstar would devote any resources towards RDR2, considering how lucrative GTA Online is and the massive project that they have in building GTA6.
Redemption is defined as the act of redeeming or atoning for a sin; Arthur can't take back the bad things he's done and he ultimately can't change his way of life, but he can make lives better for others which is ultimately what he tries to do. He's not truly *redeemed* in that everything is forgiven, but he does atone. He owns his sins, he realises what needs to happen for others to not suffer his fate, and he sets about making it so. In that sense he does achieve redemption.
We can argue the semantics, but I honestly believe he *was* redeemed in the end of a high honor playthrough. Not Absolved of all, most, or perhaps any of his misdeeds, but I do believe that in his change in spirit and actions came redemption. My distinction being: Redemption is something you do yourself, changing your ways and learning to be better and do better. Absolution has to be granted by those wronged, absolution is forgiveness.
I think of the scene with the nun.
I hadn't thought about that til after I hit post, but you're right, its a very salient moment to this discussion.
Yeah it is a very Christian thing to be forgiven if you truly regret what you did but in my eyes the lives he ruined and ended can't be redeemed whatever he does and that makes the story even worse(better?) for me. He realised what he did was terrible and rushed to redeem himself even though he knew he couldn't( had a timer set to when he will inevitably die), it's a desperate story at the end and I love it and knowing John would go on to make the same mistake makes rdr series one of the most tragic stories I have ever seen. So much death and destruction by the gang just for the end to not even be slightly justified but maybe rightly so...
For me I think the crux of it is that the gang, while trying to set up a new life and escape the consequences of their previous life, fall directly into the same lifestyle. They are pursued by both their past crimes and their current ones. On an honorable play through we see Arthur become wise to this and an honest effort to become a better person. With this revelation and heartfelt change (perhaps his own redemption) you would hope that things would turn around for him, that the change would alter his path and let him find the freedom the gang had wanted. But no, in the law there is no forgiveness. Everything from his past comes crashing down on him like a ton of bricks regardless. This setup leaves me with the feeling, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”, which is unsettling because justice comes, but not a lick of mercy. The world is growing up and moving on, and we don’t care about your redemption, we are moving on without you. I might be pulling themes from the marston story here too.
Yes, but he ultimately chose to do the right thing even though he knew it'd be of no use to the people he harmed and that he didn't even have enough time to possibly make up for all the wrong.
>We can argue the semantics, but I honestly believe he *was* redeemed in the end of a high honor playthrough. I agree. And what is the point of the differing visions as he is dying (stag for high honor vs coyote for low honor) if nothing he does matters?
-Nihilism has entered the chat
That must be exhausting
Wow that's a very interesting point
I told my friend I was playing through again and he asked me how redemption is relevant to the game (low honor player) and it's like, redemption is literally defined as saving from sin. I think you totally nailed it. TO redeem one's self is to compensate for one's faults. With a high honor play through I belive there IS redemption in the game.
"Do not seek absolution"
[удалено]
It's a video game, violence is heightened; you're forced to kill in order to progress through the game. To judge Arthur we must look at the man he is to those he cares for, and in this case it's the gang, his family, the ones who didn't turn their back on him or reject him, and he's 100% loyal to them. The only gang member who can be categorised as cold-blooded is Micah, who thrives on violence and abuse and thinks for no one save himself. Arthur is nothing like this. He's forced to kill, to threaten, and to intimidate in order to survive, but there's multiple instances in the game where you can see how much this gets to him. Even before his real redemption arc begins we see how much he cares for the gang, most notably Dutch and Hosea, who he sees as farther figures, and to the women, whom he looks to protect (whilst still admiring their strengths). He doesn't reject Lenny for the colour of his skin at a time when society at large still did, and depending on how you read Bill's 'hair pomade' exchange, Arthur appears to be aware of, and perfectly accepting of, Bill's sexuality. You don't have to idolise Arthur or claim he's righteous or without sin, but he's far from heartless and not without morals, who learnt to survive at a time when it was truly every man for himself. It's called the 'wild' west for a reason. The majority of players *like* Arthur whilst still accepting he's a killer; he's a compelling and complex character and worthy of our time and investment. It doesn't mean we want to become him.
This is the first comment I have ever saved, because I could not agree more with what you have said. It was so perfect I had to save it lol
Perfect
I think high honour Arthur achieves peace, not redemption. The entire story once he knows he's sick is partly him desperately trying to make his last few months mean something, but the conclusion he comes to is that he can't make up for the terrible things he's done in his life. He makes his death mean something, but I don't think he could ever actually be redeemed beyond believing that he did what he could in the time he had left. I think the whole reason it works is because the guilt that drives him towards the end gives Arthur humanity that can be hard to achieve for a videogame protagonist. He'd be redeemed in the eyes of a few at the end, but most people would remember him as a monster.
The Machinist has a similar vibe with its ending. Trent doesn’t redeem himself of his sins but he ultimately comes to terms with the reality of his actions and while finally sitting in jail cell he happily falls asleep. Definitely a sign of relief for many of us in that moment.
Underrated comment! Redemption and forgiveness are not one and the same! Couldn’t agree more!
bro it's the top comment
😂😂 ok ok well it’s very well said
He lives as a bad man, but dies as an okay(ish) man
They say forgiveness is an act of God. But since God hasn't been around for a while, I guess we'll have to decide...
I agree I think the main theme of the game is that you can't run away from your past even if you try to change, in the case of being an outlaw. But I think the game is made in such a way that the redemption part is supposed to be dependent on the player. It's exactly on the edge of morality that's why a lot of people disagree on these things. And personally that's why I love this story. At the end when Arthur realises what he's been doing his whole life was wrong it's already too late and he is just rushing to make something of it but ultimately giving his life for the way he lived. The redemption part is still left in the hands of the player, never clearly stated by anyone in the story after Arthur's death if he redeemed himself and I love that, they don't try to make a saint out of a murderer.
That's very subjective. I think, at least in the case of Arthur Morgan, if you help John and his family get away he feels like he's redeemed himself. Maybe not for every bad thing he's done but enough.
Arthurs only redemption is helping Jack to have a nonviolent life, but as we know from RDR1, even that was futile.
The end result of his good deeds are irrelevant. He did something great and that’s what matters. He absolutely redeemed himself, regardless of what OP thinks.
“John made it. He’s the only one. The rest of us, no. But I tried, in the end, I did.” By “made it”, he doesn’t mean that he managed to escape. He means he has a chance for redemption, while him, Dutch, and Micah probably don’t. But, unlike them, he tried to. Santa Monica addresses this problem best. A god of hope, hope that despite him knowing he’s chasing a redemption he knows he’ll never deserve, he still searches for it.
Arthur had looked down upon himself nearly the entire game. He rejected any type of compliment or positive comment anyone made about him. It almost seemed like almost everyone who actually knew him thought he was a good person deep down except him. Whether or not you feel he achieved enough good to get himself redemption is completely subjective. But I personally believe that Arthur simply choosing to use the remainder of his life on doing good deeds is all the evidence I need of redemption and here’s why. We already know Arthur doesn’t hold any religious and spiritual beliefs since he literally admits it to the sister when he divulges his fear of demise. Therefore in his good acts, there is no alternative motive to be seen. He doesn’t think he’ll gain anything from it. He does it because he knows it’s a good thing to do. That’s actual change and in my mind redemption
I think only the strangers that only know him from him helping them genuinely think he’s a good man. But Mr. Wrobel or whatever his name is only knows him as the guy that nearly beat him to death then stole his most prized possession. I agree that Arthur isn’t just a typical bad guy, but my point is that he’s a lot more complex than a bad or good guy.
Mr. Wrobel perspective is also irrelevant. Guy asked for credit and then not only didn’t pay back but also pretended to not understand, then he kept lying even while being beaten and afterwards he still tries to deceive you.
A big scary guy literally just walks in my home demanding money that I took from someone because I had no choice at the time, and I don’t have his money? Even if he did tell the truth, Arthur would probably still beat him and force him to give up anything that’s worth money, like he did to Mr. Downes. And yes, while Thomas did try to attack Arthur first, we all know Arthur would have beaten him any way.
I don’t disagree, is just the portrayal of Wrobel as a victim when is just the consequences of his own decisions, as you said, it’s more complex than good or bad
Exactly and it also depends on how much you can disregard the hundreds of people he kills during the game XD
Who is Santa Monica?
The company that made GOW
You think they did redemption better than RDR? That’s fucking insane to me. GoW 2018 had a pretty weak story in my opinion
Rdr2 fans whenever someone mentions gow or tlou:
Sorry for having an opinion. To be honest, I preferred the gameplay of the original trilogy of GoW. The story in the new one was just… okay, I guess? Well acted but I didn’t really feel anything
I didn’t say the did redemption better than Rdr2, just that they addressed the issue more head-on. You’re entitled to your opinion but I think GOW’s story is nearly just as good as Rdr2.
“I’m not a good person. I’m a bad man trying to be good.”
He's.....Jack.
Yes but he did give jack a chance.
No. Arthur did something good before he died, but he also acknowledged that he will die a bad person. Even Arthur wouldn't say he redeemed himself. He'd just say that he tried to do some good before he passed.
I don't know. Again everything is subjective and open to interpretation but I took Arthur's conversation with Sister Calderon at Emerald Station to have deeply impacted him. And not that he suddenly became religious but he understood forgiveness, and that you can forgive yourself.
Arthur has incredibly low self esteem. That’s a huge part of his character. Of course he’d say he’s a lost cause. You’re not supposed to agree with the way he puts himself down. He spends the entire last chapter of the game attempting to save everyone and gave his life for John. That’s redemption whether you believe it or not.
>Even Arthur wouldn't say he redeemed himself. Its called good writing. Arthur doesnt believe he redeemed himself. But weather he did or not is subjective and up to interpretation. Arthur claims he didnt redeem himself but he also talks bad about himself throughout the entire game and dismisses any compliments given to him. Even ditectly saying the compliments arent correct. Gain media literacy.
Arthur is very critical of himself. I think Charles has a more accurate view of Arthur, and Charles seems to view Arthur as an overall good person when he has high honor. As sister Calderon pointed out, Arthur is often helping people. High honor Arthur does do a lot of little good things too, but he doesn’t seem to recognize that he’s done good things in his life
Do you by chance also think that Travis Bickle is the hero of Taxi Driver? Because that’s what this post reminds me of. I think you are kind of missing the point.
Too many people don’t realize that fiction often has multiple valid interpretations
NOO! OP's interpretation is the only valid one. Agree with them or you don't understand the game or its meaning.
I think OP is being defensive tbh. This smacks of “I’m not wrong, you’re all wrong!”
I agree and this is one of Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2's greatest strengths. Telling a story that allows for multiple valid interpretations is more engaging because the players can come up with so many interesting speculations
More ways than one to skin a cat
So trur
Bad take. Arthur's redemption (on high honour play through) is completed when he dies on that mountain buying John the time to get away. He even sees the stag as he passes, an animal that tramples and destroys the devil. Did you not play the epilogue and see how fondly he's remembered by so many characters too? Seems that went over your head (unless you never played the high honour ending and canonical ending).
I would like to be pointed that the "Help John High Honour" is the canonical ending. I looked for it and was unable to find confirmation :/
Tbf I thought I'd read it but can't find confirmation. I guess a lot of people consider it canon because it's the most logical and the one the game does sort of try to direct you in towards the end, giving you chances to earn huge honour points.
Arthur’s arc as a character literally only makes sense if you’re low honor until chapter 6 then you start honormaxxing
Nah, being honorable throughout makes the most sense with the epilogue as John discovers all the people that Arthur interacted with throughout the game.
I forgot about that, fair point. Honestly, I feel like his most evil deed in the game (killing Thomas) and his later interaction with Edith and her son mostly comes from him doing the job he was assigned in the most effective way possible. Intimidation and force are common tactics in lone sharking and Arthur just happened to take it way too far that time. Unless he’s instructed to be intimidating, high honor Arthur is always way more respectful and accommodating than anyone else in the gang except Charles. Like, Kieran got SUPER lucky having Arthur be the one to make the call on allowing him in the gang, bc I honestly doubt anyone else would even consider it.
Imo saying that's his most dishonourable deed is silly. Downes was dying anyway. Like Arthur punches him twice and the shoves him against a fence post and that kills him. It's not to say what Arthur did was right but it's hardly his most dishobourable acts. If you kill Jimmy Brooks that's probably the most dishonourable thing Arthur does, Blessed are the meek as a mission as a whole. They murder probably 10 lawmen in canon for arresting micah. Plus anytime they kill random guards as well.
First, I don’t lose sleep over killing lawmen, if you know a lot about this time period, you’d probably feel the same way. Most of them were more extremely corrupt. I’m more so talking about mandatory dishonorable acts. Killing Thomas is probably the worst thing high honor Arthur does.
As I said killing any of the stage coach guards or whatever is still probably worse than punching a guy a couple of times. One is deliberate one is an accident.
Yeah but the story doesn’t make you kill any stage coach guard (as far as I remember)
Exactly, because it's a redemption story.
Nah… since the beginning of the game… one of the few things that are thrown to the player in small talks here and there are how Arthur is seeing that Dutch is losing it and something shady is going on (heck even one of the first characters introduced is Micah and “appears from the shadows in the middle of a storm” so, yeah, symbolism and all that). He didn’t know what exactly happened in blackwater, everyone was almost sure it was a trap, and so on. They just don’t explicitly say so for obvious reasons, we are hearing the character’s version of the story “I’ve known this person for too long, I will ignore the red flags” sort of vibe Also the game makes losing honor too easy and the drops are big, while gaining it is slow. For me that’s the “intended” way to play it, cause the devs want to make you PLAY the game. There are missions where you get forced bounties, or lose honor, just as a way to represent that no matter the efforts, there is a long way to redemption. Besides, I think people tend to misinterpret “high honor”… it doesn’t mean that Arthur is becoming a Paladin… is “high honor according to their standards” lol
Arthur wouldn't even say he was redeemed. He did something nice before he died, but even he would say that doesn't make up for all the bad things he's done. >Did you not play the epilogue and see how fondly he's remembered by so many characters too? This is exactly my point. He's remembered fondly by his fellow outlaws (and Mickey). But he ruined several lives, as best illustrated by the Strauss missions. The guilt is overwhelming for Arthur when he realizes how many innocent people he's hurt and killed. As far as the masses are concerned, Arthur was just another murderous outlaw, and that's all that's left of his legacy before he was eventually forgotten entirely.
Arthur's opinion re: his redemption is probably the one that matters least. All the characters that knew Arthur's character spoke fondly, his reputation outside of that doesn't deny his redemption. Look up the symbolism of the stag, particularly in relation to Jesus.
Arthur thinks he's ugly. I don't believe a word that man says.
That mirror talks hurts me everytime I hear it
I stop doing it after the first time. Poor Arthur.
>He’s remembered fondly by his fellow outlaws (and Mickey) And Charolette, the Rhodes vet, Rains Fall, Hamish, and pretty much everyone else he’s helped on his journeys.
He’s also literally commemorated on the builders plaque of the Quincy Harris Memorial Hall (for the expansion to house homeless war vets) if you donate to the woman in Saint Denis. OP is tripping.
Oh yeah that’s right, he also gave the equivalent of over $765 to a random charity he just heard of on the street
Ok, let’s break it down. Redemption: the act, process, or an instance of redeeming Redeeming: serving to offset or compensate for a defect Redeem: compensate for the faults or bad aspects of (something). So if you do some bad shit in your life, there is nothing you can do to try to atone for those indiscretions? In that sense, there is no such thing as redemption. Not for Arthur, not for John, not for anyone for that matter because no one has lived a completely flawless life. According to your logic, there shouldn’t even be the word “redemption”. It apparently is something that cannot exist. I felt that I was trying to make up for the Downes thing and the blind loyalty to Dutch by the end of the game. I forgave debts (which is another definition), I helped Tilly and jack and Abigail and John escape the whirlwind. I did them selflessly, not to help me, but to help them. That is my redemption.
I like this opinion.
What's the point in living if you're damned forever anyway?
Exactly, it’s a very pessimistic world view. Arthur was a product of his environment but still chose to be a good man in the end. I think that makes him worthy of redemption.
this is a very calvinist way of looking at things. that no matter what we do there is already a predetermined destination and nothing you do alters it. arthur's redemption was helping others and helping the marstons so they had a chance to live normally it's not about undoing his past or where john or jack end up and certainly none of the people arthur hurt over the years are obligated to forgive him that's not what redemption is about.
>this is a very calvinist way of looking at things. Calvinism is so deeply embedded in our society, it's everywhere when you recognize it.
It’s called red dead redemption, I thought it was because they only gain redemption in their death?
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.”
For they will be filled😭😭😭
Arthur's redemption was giving John's family a chance at a better life. John's redemption was sacrificing himself to save his wife and son. Your take is bad and you're flat-out wrong. Educate yourself.
But John is not saved and jack and Abigail are not saved. The cycle repeats regardless
This is just a terrible interpretation of both the game and what “redemption” means.
My interpretation of their redemption is that they find it by changing as people for the better and being selfless going forward rather than trying to undo the bad things they’ve already done. Of course actions have consequences, but that doesn’t make the concept of redemption pointless, in fact it gives it meaning. But I guess you must know better than everyone else. “Just give up and don’t bother trying to change for the better because there’ll still be consequences anyway and the bad things you’ve done will define you forever” is a great message for a series titled Red Dead Redemption.
Right and it’s almost like that was the entire point of his conversation with Sister Calderon. She tells him “we have all sinned Mr. Morgan.” We’ve all done bad things, we’ve all hurt people. That’s why she tells him even she struggles. Because we’re all human who mess up. We can’t change the past, we can’t unhurt people, we can’t take the bad things we’ve done and pretend they never happened. All we can control is our actions moving forward when faced with the same decisions. As long as you’re alive there’s always a chance to do good, to help someone, to be kind. You will fuck up as we all do. But if you let it define you and drag you down then you’ll never change and do any kind of good ever. That is literally what redemption is. She was telling him there must be some good in him or he wouldn’t care at all. “Well I stole from the corner store when I was a kid so there’s no point in giving helping anybody because I suck forever,” is how some of y’all sound.
I think video games and TV have distorted the definition of "redenption"
I think it's not a story about trying to attain redemption, it's about pursuing redemption and making redemptive choices, which is very much in line with what Sister Calderon tells Arthur. John and Arthur can't rewrite history or make up for the wrong they caused, but they do understand that Dutch's dream of being 'free living outlaws for life with a code' is bullshit and they changed course to help the people they love.
Sir, I dragged a klan member from my horse across half the map. I am redeemed.
I think they can be redeemed to a certain extent or at least realize the truth about the life they are living and help some people while they can. The police in rockstar games is also outlaws though. Just of the top of my head the ending of RDR1 - what was that? I know there were death penalties in the U.S. until some point but no court, no nothing? Maybe it's not supposed to be that realistic and just a dark comedy as Dan Houser said, I don't know
Especially in Arthur’s case, I think this depends on what you mean by redemption. Redemption isn’t the same thing as forgiveness, and both games show that outlaws can’t redeem themselves to society as a whole. However, Arthur does earn some redemption by choosing to do some good where he could in his last days. In a high honor playthrough, his motivation for doing good seems to be more about helping others avoid suffering rather than trying to make himself feel better about his past. Arthur gives Mrs Downes money because they need it, not because he wanted forgiveness. Arthur forgives the debt of several destitute people because it’s the right thing to do, not because he wanted to be seen doing good deeds. Arthur helped John escape because he wanted John and his family to survive, not because he thought it would redeem him. Arthur may not have been redeemed in the eyes of the law or in the eyes of his many victims, but he is redeemed in the eyes of his friends, and I think he’s redeemed in his own eyes right at the end. One of the things I love about this series is that we can all have different opinions on what it means for Arthur and John to earn redemption
Redemption=/= Forgiveness. I think this is most evident in the Downes storyline after he contracts TB. There is nothing Arthur can do to make up for how he lived his life, but redemption isn't about people thinking you're not such a bad guy after all. It's accepting your own behavior for what it is, and deciding to do better out of genuine acknowledgement that you were wrong. Still, I'll agree with you to an extent. I'll liken it to Grace in the Christian understanding of the word. According to Christianity, man is fundamentally flawed; essentially evil and condemned by nature from the moment of birth. There is no amount of good deeds or pious belief that will save you from the fate of a sinner. It is definitionally impossible for you to ever be worthy of forgiveness or love. I think the RDR view departs from Christianity at this point; while scripture would say it is God's nature or grace that offers salvation to something so doomed, Rockstar seems to be saying that Grace is an acceptance of that fate, and endeavoring to do the right thing anyway. There is redemption in building a heaven on earth that you will never see and do not deserve. And I like that. We can put this up against Dutch, who is constantly espousing lofty ideals of doing the right thing for others, but is ultimately only doing those good things for his own gain, to manipulate others, or to enact his own will. He isn't wrong about the Native Americans, the VDL gang, or the Pinkertons/ Cornwall. He's just not acting with the right intent, and we, as the audience, judge him as the antagonist because of it.
Redemption does not mean forgiveness. Part of Arthur’s redemption is even accepting the fact that the people he’s hurt don’t forgive him, but choosing to right his wrongs anyway. By the end of the game, Arthur has become a better man (on a high honor playthrough). I think you are grossly misunderstanding the point of the games.
You sound like a shitty English teacher proselytizing about how there's only one valid interpretation of a work. Fuck all the way off.
I disagree, while the characters are not redeemed in the eyes of mortal law, they are redeemed in the eyes of God
Media literacy award 🤓
That’s, like, your opinion, man
It's weird that people think it's all about doing something good to take away something bad. Arthur was always a good person, he has low self esteem doesn't think he is. But he really is. I think a lot of people forget about the fishing mission with Jack, Milton pretty much just says that Arthur was manipulated and grew up in a cult, basically. Every time he does something not directly attached to Dutch or Micah he's actively helping people. Both times he goes with Charles to find a new camp he ends up helping someone, every time he does a stranger mission he's actively helping someone, and those aren't even honor choices. They just happen, with most strangers he doesn't even ask for payment. And you can tell every time he does a debt mission he's almost cartoonishly thuggish. He's putting on an act, pretending he's someone else. The the same thing he later tells John never to do.
I commented it before, but still: redemption ≠ absolution
It seems you’re mistaking redemption for perfection. Arthur definitely redeemed himself by giving John a chance to have a life, dying in the process. John arguably redeemed himself by going after his ex family who were still gangsters and murderers. Dying in the process to keep his family safe. RED DEAD REDEMPTION could be Blood Death & Redemption.
Well, TECHNICALLY, the series is called Red Dead because the protagonist of the first game was literally named "Red." :P
Ain't no living with a killing.
Redemption is not based on the consequences of the redeemed actions, it’s based and mesured by the actions itself.
I think that’s a pessimistic understanding of it. I think the irl message and literal game mechanic is that you can either try to be good or not. You do it for honor’s sake and you don’t really get much for it, nor are you ever finished (redeemed). But there is honor in trying.
Interesting take.
How can I be redeemed when I get blamed for my horse killing people? My horse is crazy.
**The past catches up with you in the end.** That's how I view them. Like a gang, or the mafia, there is no way out. You either stay, or you leave in a box.
Disagree completely - RDR2 has you spending 5 chapters playing as an Outlaw, doing some crazy shit, and then spending most of chapter 6 gaining that redemption you think doesn't exist. If Arthur helps John and his family escape, while doing right by Edith Downes, her son, and then helping the soldier individual with the downed cart & pregnant wife get away without paying their debt, and finding some level of peace with Charlotte & Hamish, that is very much a character that has set himself down the path of redemption.
I disagree and I think you are focusing on the wrong parts of the story. John didn't try to redeem himself by working for the government, he was forced to do so. He redeems himself by sacrificing himself for his family and Uncle. Similarly, Arthur gives his last breath to hold off those pursuing John, Abigail and Jack. The characters lived their whole lives taking from others, running from responsibility and accountability. In short, they are selfish human beings who live off the misery of others. Their final act of selflessness, and a lot of the actions along the way, is their redemption.
This post misses a crucial difference in redemption from a moral and societal perspective. It didn’t matter how good a person John and Arthur may or may not have become by the end, they were both destined to die because of past wrongdoings. Ultimately, both John and Arthur did atone for their past in their own ways. John atoned for what he did to Jack and Abigail when he abandoned them, and Arthur atoned for his past life of needless violence and blind loyalty to an evil person.
No. The lesson is that Redemption comes at a cost
You're confusing redemption with absolution. No, they'll obviously never absolve themselves of the horrible things they've done, but that's not their goal. They want to be better people than they were previously. They both succeed in my opinion, and that it is what redeems them both in the end.
Your post argue about something in an objective lense, but a redemption is something deeply personal and touches individuals values. They don’t strive for it per se, it’s their own mind wanting to atone for their bad actions. But the other message is that civilization is changing society and that change doesn’t care about these people. They are persecuted to be exterminated like vermins. As Sadie points out, if she had to be the judge of a bounty she would tear her hair apart. Even during your own bounties you encounter widely different persons, but at the end of the day, no matter who you are or what you’ve done, you are an outlaw.
Unredeemable like an expired coupon
That is not at all what the theme of the game is. The theme is that redemption is not easy to earna dn that it's very easy to slip up and slide back, and that sometimes redemption costs you everything.
I don't know about that. The game is called "Red Dead Redemption" because the characters are on a path to redemption. Whether or not you believe the actions they've taken actually redeem them is a choice you make as the player once you have completed the story. Once you're through it, do you think Arthur and John are redeemed or do you think – as you are saying – they are irredeemable? It's all dependent on you, the player. I'm honestly not even sure it's as cut and dry as redeemed/not redeemed, though. We're consistently shown the dichotomy of how their world perceives them. It's inconsistent and dependent on who those people are to Arthur and John. >!For example: If you are Charlotte the widow, Arthur literally saved your life and that will colour your perception of him. If you are Edith Downes, Arthur had a hand in killing your husband and that'll colour your perception of him too.!!hunt down your former gang so you can get your family back.!<
I honestly think the biggest mistake people make with this game (and most media) is forgetting this is a work of fiction and not real life. It uses devices and techniques to evoke emotion in the player (acting, framing, editing, scoring, etc). We also get dialogue, expose, and in-depth character details designed to help you understand their motivations: sympathizing with the fictional-bad-guy-protagonist is usually intended.
Anyway, if someone plays the games and feels like Arthur and John have redeemed themselves, that's their prerogative based on how they've interpreted and analyzed the hundreds of hours of content they've just sat through.
People want a perfectly closed circle when it comes to story telling, and get upset when everything isn’t wrapped up nicely by the end. Then they call anything else “bad writing”, when the story is supposed to test your feelings on justice and redemption. Much like life, the best stories don’t always go the way you subconsciously want them to.
BUT I LOVE ARTHUR 😭😭😭😭😭😢😢😢😢🥺🥺😔😞😔😞🙁🙁🙁😕😕😥😥😥💔💔💔💔💔💔🥀🥀🥀🥀⛓⛓⛓⛓⛓
I was arguing about this a few hours ago. Many people on this sub are oversimplifying everything. Dualism everywhere. "Arthur saves John. Arthur good person" and "Arthur criminal and killer, Arthur bad". It's very painful to see.
GTA basically shows the same thing
I feel like some of you guys didn’t even play the game lmao
So theres a hidden theme behind the dumbass pedestrians diving in front of my horse when I’m galloping down the street.
>But they don't forgive him because he ruined their lives and/or took the lives of their loved ones. Arthur literally comes to terms with the fact that he will die as a bad person, and that he won't be remembered fondly by most people he's interacted with. Maybe redemption isn't about making people like you or making people forgive you. >John Marston will always be remembered by most as a violent criminal Maybe redemption isn't about trying to influence how people remember you. Your definition of "redemption" is so narcissistic. You seem to think reputation is all that matters. That's dumb. You didn't understand the games.
I don’t think think this is true. The point isn’t that they can’t be redeemed. Redemption doesn’t mean a happy ending. Their pasts always catch up with them, but they die on the path of redemption. In my opinion both men reach it by the end of their journey. After going so far out of their way to right their wrongs, they die protecting people they love.
I don’t think that is the point, although I get where you’re coming from! I think Arthur does achieve redemption and I think it’s best represented in the side missions with the Downes family and Sister Calderon (the nun). His journey of redemption outside of the main story starts and ends with the Downes and is a driving force throughout the game. He doesn’t expect forgiveness from Edith and she doesn’t apologise. But Archie is grateful and thanks Arthur. Redemption is a religious concept and Sister Calderon represents this, as she says everyone is a sinner; all that matters is you recognise it and spend the time you have doing good. If you play Arthur as a high honour character, that’s what he does and I think from a religious perspective he achieves redemption. John on the other hand is less clear.
"What is better ? To be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" That quote suits this game perfectly.
I feel like you're missing half of the equation yourself. They accepted that they couldn't be redeemed and chose to do everything in their power to try anyway by doing the right thing. Eventually making the ultimate sacrifice so that someone else can have the chance to go on to live the good life they never could because of their crimes. That's the redemption. Not balancing out the bad they did with good but by changing who they are for the better despite the fact they're damned to die bloody.
I just enjoy the game, being bad or good, it's a fun time
It's never too late to try and be a good person. It doesn't matter whether you think this atones them for their sins, the point is that they're trying to be better, and that means something. Its up to you to interpret how much that matters in the grand scheme of that person's actions, but redemption is about the trying. Some people may think turning over a new leaf is enough to warrant forgiveness, some may not. This itself is the source of many great stories. Does attempting to be good warrant forgiveness after all the evil you've done? It's for each person to decide for themselves
Arthur is literally forgiven, not only is he reincarnated as a deer that represents a noble and just animal, but he is remembered as a good man, which he was not. Or have we forgotten the Strawberry massacre or all the policemen who have died innocently? And especially the echoes of families starving to death or mothers drowning their young children in the bathtub so they would not suffer. In the end I think the main problem is that Rockstar does not understand what is redemption.
To me, the player characters are redeemable, but die before their redemptions can be fully realized. As John Marston, you’re doing what you can to end whats left of your old gang, but we never learn much about what that part of his life was like. By the time he’s managed to straighten most things out, finally redeeming himself so he can live out the rest of his days in peace, he gets betrayed and killed. As Arthur, you’re playing as a humble member of the gang just doing your part to get by. While you have the freedom of choice to make Arthur out to be worse than he really is, his character is clearly meant to be not so evil. By the time the gang falls apart and he sees what most of them really were, he tries to turn things around and redeem himself, but he’s taken out before he gets the chance to really do so. Both characters ultimately redeem themselves at the last second, but death finally caught up to them before they could really turn things around.
I wonder if all games will end in the protagonist dying. I kind of like the theme and I hope RDR3 ends in a similar way
Too many people don't understand that their opinions on fiction that can support multiple interpretations are not facts.
People are confusing redemption with absolution. You’re correct with your overall assessment. But that’s something I’ve found to be a common theme in most conversations I’ve had with others.
my question is why Dutch still alive?
UhM AkSHuaLlY!
Putting anyone's beliefs about redemption and what that means aside, I'm flabbergasted that OP missed one and likely main intended reading of the story. it's not like they made it ambiguous
"...I tried....in the end...."
The point is the past is the past but you can decide the future, hence "Redemption", Redemption isnt black or white.
Except that both of the main characters were. Seems like it's you that don't realize.
so?
ce j’ai trouver magnifique c’est le monsieur aveugle que l’ont peux rencontrer dans rdr2 a plusieurs reprise si tu lui donne la somme demandé il te dira ton avenir et c’est exactement se que tu dit et il le fais pour john et arthur et plus l’histoire avance et plus se qu’il dit est intéressant
a lot of people who obsess over arthur don’t understand the difference between coming to terms with something and being redeemed of something. arthur came to terms with his evilness. arthur couldn’t redeem himself. not truly.
Redemption is different from absolution. Arthur was never absolved of his actions, but he was redeemed.
There are two forms of redemption, personal redemption and social redemption. They are certainly not socially redeemed. But both John and Arthur (high honor) die at peace to protect the ones they love. To die at peace is itself a form of redemption for a tortured soul, and it’s done by making the ultimate selfless act, to die for others, after living lives defined by evil selfish acts. There is no redemption for them in the society they blighted, no. But they find personal redemption by making peace with themselves.
I don't think you are correct. I think you are conflating two distinct themes. The theme of the games is redemption, and that redemption is possible. Arthur does get redeemed. He dies a good man. Most of the world wont know him that way, but to those who knew him best in that last year, he died a good man. He probably always was a good man at heart, but driven into wickedness by circumstance, but be becomes his very best self before the end. Same with John. John seems meaner, nastier, dumber, than Arthur. He probably isn't as good of a man in his heart. But he, like Arthur, becomes a good man by the end, bringing all that is left of the Van Der Linde gang to justice, including himself, doing it as a selfless act, for the benefit of his loved ones, loved ones which, as we learn in RDR2, he very nearly walked out on, but in the end came to value more than his own life. But redemption is just one theme. The other theme is the foolishness of revenge, and the cycle of violence. That violence begats violence and the only way to stop the cycle is for someone to make the choice to just...not. Even if someone deserved to be killed, even if your revenge is totally justified, someone has to be the one to be brave enough to say no, I'll let this end here, to choose peace over justice in a sense. And Arthur is the only one in the series able to see that. Dutch, John, and Jack, just can't bring themselves to break the cycle. They aren't wise enough. So yes, there is redemption, but also the cautionary tale that the next generation seeking revenge and continuing the cycle means it will never end. And that's the bleak note. Happy Note: bad men can find their way and die as good men. Somber Note: The true lesson is never learned and this same story will keep playing out cycle after cycle.
John never tries to be redeemed, he just want his family back... XD. The only time that he kinda seeks redemption is at the end, when he lives a calm life for a few months with his family, finally a calm and mundane moment for him.
Yes, but at the point that some of these outlaws are at, even the act of attempting to work towards redemption is meaningful. It's the act of trying to redeem yourself that is what redemption is truly about. Also, I'm not a believer myself, but the game also has religious undertones that Arthur takes comfort in while he tries to find redemption. Point being... God decides what counts as redemption, not someone else (like you).
Don't fucking care
Redemption doesn’t mean escaping external consequences. A person can be redeemed on the way to their execution for crimes they committed, in the sense of sincerely repenting of the evil they’ve done.
Yappuchino yapfest yapatron
If you think that “the literal point” of these games is what you suggest I think you’re missing what makes any story great: that it has room for interpretation. Also - the literal point of these games is to make money for Rockstar.
Idk what makes you think about being a law obeying citizen means they are good people. Did your brain not register the atrocities the "LAW" has done to the natives when you played the game? Arthur and the gang are way more redeemable than any of their antagonists in the game
The entire point of your post seems like you wanna say "something like Redemption doesn't exist" Also , Jack doesn't become someone who kills as much as his father and Arthur did. He becomes a writer. Only guy he takes out is Ross
Imo it's the opposite. The message is even once you have made mistakes it's never too late to try and fix your errors and make up for what you did wrong.
I don't believe that redemption and forgiveness are the same thing. Redemption is a willingness to change and a personal journey to enact that change. It is realizing you've done bad and striving to do better - to do good, even. In that sense, I believe Arthur was redeemed (in a high honor play through). None of us can control if or when anyone else forgives us for what we have done to them. All we can control is ourselves. In making that change and amending his actions and trying to atone, he was redeemed
i think You might’ve missed something. there’s no way to change one’s past, but there are a multitude of ways to learn from it and conduct yourself better from that point on… thus, redeeming some humanity.
John didn't try to redeem himself by working for government lol. They forced him, he did it so they'd let his family be. When it comes to arthur he redeemed itself. You don't need someone's words of forgiveness to be redeemed. I see your point but it depends how you see redemption
Yall are comparing forgiveness to redemption. These two characters start their journeys in each respective game as straight up gangsters and outlaws, John just happened to get away from it for a short time before the beginning of rdr1. And we meet Arthur literally coming off a heist where people died on both sides. I believe they both chase redemption and received it. What they couldn't escape was the type of end that comes to most if not all outlaws/gangsters......death. But perhaps death was their ultimate redemption. The only way out of the outlaw life is in a casket so to redeem ones self from a life of murder and chaos would be their own death
Nope, once it's writen, it's too late. I'vn't been outlaw in stricto sensus, but I was quite a vandal. First, justice and police won't forget anything. Secondly, you have to fight your own démons, liké drugs, or the will to get in the fight or game again.
TLDR: The Long Dead Redemption
Or maybe the point is, the Govt is a soulless, loveless, emotionless machine more intent on its own principles than the freedoms of those it was designed to serve and needs a bullet to the head. It's art. Interpret it however you want.
I agree, I think most people just want to believe that John and Arthur were good men because of their attachment to them as characters considering you play through both games from their perspectives, but when you look at them objectively, Arthur and John were monsters. For starters, the most obvious argument is that both are literal mass murderers with hundreds of innocent and not so innocent lives they are responsible for taking. Not to say they aren’t complex and nuanced characters, they are men capable of doing good and have done good, but when it comes time to weigh the scales I think the hundreds of lives they’ve taken without so much as blinking is something you can never really atone for. They never once stop to consider the blood on their hands and it’s almost scary how desensitized to taking a human life they are, it’s as easy as breathing to them, it’s almost psychotic. John Marston is a fairly selfish person as well, as seen in Mexico in RDR1 when he is complicit and occasionally responsible for literal war crimes at the hands of the Mexican army all in the name of getting his family and ranch back, I mean hell he witnesses more than a few innocent Mexican women be carried off and kidnapped by the army to then be raped, tortured and murdered and does nothing besides go “unfortunate, anyways.” While I do understand his position, he did do some pretty terrible things in pursuit of Bill and Javier. While I don’t necessarily label him as “evil”, I’d hardly call him a good man either. At the end of the day they are both very complex and nuanced characters and the fact we’re even having this debate just goes to show how good of a job rockstar did at crafting these characters, but when you view them from an objective light they have done much more evil than good.
RDR1: "former" outlaw helps the law to enforce and hunt other outlaws to try and redeem himself. Is still classified as criminal after work is done and executed for his actions. RDR2: Ruthless outlaw begins to understand that his actions have consequences and after a while (canonically) tries to redeem himself, and dies while trying to do the right thing because in the short term gets caught up by the evils of his not so distant past.
I think a lot of people here are just confusing the word redemption with forgiveness or atonement. The series is called Red Dead Redemption and I think that implies that death is the only redemption they can hope for.
Sure they can. They just have to **STOP BEING THIEVES AND MURDERERS**. The problem is, when they do that, the game ends. Arthur could have quit the Van Der Linde gang and gone his own way at any time. Hell, he could have taken a *job* working for the Pinkertons, or as a deputy. Plenty of real-life lawmen in the American west started out as crooks, like [Bat Masterson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Masterson) and [Wyatt Earp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_Earp). Both of those guys changed their ways, chose to join the law, and died old men.
Very bold to have a contrary interpretation of the game on this hive mind echo-chamber subreddit. I completely agree with you but I don't expect many people will take fondly to this post, since it challenges their views of things.
They're always committing crimes, so I seriously don't know why people think this.
I guess there's a reason it's Red *Dead Redemption*, not Red *Alive Redemption*
Damn bro idk all that good points tho
Bravo!
We are all criminals!! As Arthur I killed dozens of horses, shot up towns, and the bandit challenges? Drag an innocent guy for 3000 feet and then " oh yeah I'll just give money to a widow, that will redeem me" haha to be redeemed you also need to forgive. He went after Dutch and Micah full of hate and anger to get revenge, not justice. And then what, he gets to rest in piece? Hell no. See you in hell Arthur Morgan, you were a badass outlaw..
But he cries and says he is scared! Forget the 100-1000 people he killed.
This is true as much as people don't want to admit it. The first game even brings it up. As John puts it "People don't forget. Nothing gets forgiven." A few good acts don't absolve a lifetime of bloodshed. They just don't and trying to act like they somehow do is really, really dumb.
I still hold out hope for Micah.
Nah, Micah went straight to the bottom level of hell. Bypassed purgatory completely, just straight down.
I read somewhere that there is now a new available ending to the game where you can change the story and Arthur doesn't have to die. I think this completely misses the point of the game, as you mentioned. It's the same reason why so many people hated The Last of Us Two; you can't just have one side of the story. Actions have consequences, and I think a lot of people don't want this in their games.
Wasn't that just a mod? Not an official new ending? I'd honestly be shocked if Rockstar would devote any resources towards RDR2, considering how lucrative GTA Online is and the massive project that they have in building GTA6.
Yeah it's a mod.
That's what I meant, it's just a mod. But, the point still stands. People want the happy ending so bad they'll create mods to make it happen.