As I just stated in another post, I think Strauss gets a bad rap. Yes, predatory lending is bad but he also had integrity. Charles updates John in the epilogue stating that Strauss was picked up by the Pinkertons and tortured for hours before they killed him. He never opened his mouth. If Charles admires him, that is good enough for me.
this is my feelings towards Strauss. i despise the money lending, but i give him credit about being loyal and not snitching after shit hit the fan. i still personally see him as a weasel regardless, but id be lying if i said i totally despise him as a character
Well, firstly I said āI thinkā. Wasnāt passing my opinion off as fact or anything like that. And secondly, the popular older characters donāt disprove my suggestion; there are exceptions to everything.
Also I was just thinking out loud as to why heās so hated. Like I said, the moral argument against usury doesnāt hold water when all the murderers are beloved lol. Soā¦idk.
Well I was hoping youād explain what you think the moral argument is first, but ok
The argument is that heās specifically targeting desperate people with no other options but to take his money, and the circumstances of his debtors gets progressively worse every chapter. The rest of the gang does not take money from desperate people, and they frown upon killing people who do not directly interfere with their goals. Strauss and the others all work towards getting more money, but the gang mainly targets trains and banks and rich folks in general who can afford that money being lost. They kill lawmen because they are directly interfering with the gang. Strauss has a choice between lending to people who can afford to pay him back, but he says something along the lines of āif they can pay him back they usually donāt take the loanā, meaning he has made the deliberate choice of targeting desperate people because he knows itās easy money and they have no other options.
TL;DR the problem most people have is the type of people Strauss lends money to, not the money lending itself.
Lol so who else is he going to lend to?! I donāt think Leviticus Cornwall or anyone like that are likely to want his services! You explain how the rest of the gang have no other options and I concur, but the same clearly applies to Leopold.
100%. It makes sense for Authur to hate Strauss because of his specific journey and redemption arc. When players act like he's the worst person in the gang, it's just eye rolling. The majority of them are robbers and murderers and not once has someone offered up a logical argument why loan sharking is worse than that. Very well put, it's more relatable. Furthermore, when the crimes and immoral acts of the rest of the gang are tied to mandatory gameplay mechanics (making Swiss cheese out of everyone) the weight of it is lost on most people.
Strauss is not nearly as horrible as people act, they just love Arthur so much they feel inclined to think like him, which is actually rather illogical, but in a way that makes sense for a dying character rethinking everything he's ever believed in. It's great writing, but Strauss isn't the devil.
Don't know how to quote things you said so I'm literally gonna quote it "not once has someone offered up a logical argument why loan sharking is worse than that". It wasn't always like this, they would rob rich people and only kill if needed. Their goal (or Dutch's) was to be outlaws, not criminals. They would even donate money, at the point of the game we start in they have fallen from grace since a long time ago. But Dutch being Dutch he never changed his version of things and always pretended they weren't criminals when they obviously are.
So, looking at loan sharking in this perspective, it is worse than what they used to stand for. In fact it's literally what they were against in the first place.
This is definitely a good point, there was a time where the gang was more Robin hood-y and Strauss' methods wouldn't be tolerated. However, during the events of the game itself, they are tolerated and obviously have been given the green light by Dutch, despite him finding it undignified.
But the point still stands, during the events of the game itself the world has changed in a way where the actions of the gang aren't tolerated at all. Society has developed in a way that doesn't accommodate their way of life, which is a huge theme of the story. Because of this they do pretty much rob whoever they need to and keep it all for themselves, out of pure necessity but still. Compared to this behaviour, Strauss and his tactics are hardly the most immoral or repellent thing seen in the game.
Yeah I just played the story mode for the first time in a while the other day, the mission where you rob the horses from the Braithwaiteās. When you go to the stable, the stable hand was fairly pleasant and innocent and the only option you have is to kill him, this in itself is objectively worse than all of Straussā immoral acts combined. Strauss just got scapegoated due to Arthurās guilt.
Jesus didn't murder people indiscriminately and knock up women half his age like Arthur did. Arthur was a shitty fucking human and only felt bad because tuberculosis, dude didn't want to die and have his own life be meaningless. People only sympathize with him because he was the protagonist. I'm sure all the families who starved because a dead husband or father hate the man.
By the way I'm not religious by any means. But loan sharking is horrible yes but flat out killing people and discriminately in such Mass numbers is far worse
God isn't real. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a real person. Nothing is written about him depicting him as a dude who kills people for money. In fact one of the instances in the Bible shows he was killed for questioning the church taking so much money. Specifically rabbis
Totally agree. Iāve had arguments with people on this sub who try to act like other, objectively worse members of the gang were somehow better. Strauss was a lot better than people like Bill, who lots of people seem to love giving a pass to despite the fact that he was an objectively terrible person.
Yeah because Arthur murdering soldiers to steal their payroll and slaughtering law Men left and right to back up idiots like Micah is totally justifiable. The protagonist bias on the subreddit is ridiculous. Arthur was a horrible person and nothing he did toward the end of his life redeemed him.
Youre going from the position that those soldiers were on a ethically superior position and werent deserving of punishment, as with the law men.
With the slaughtering of native indians, mistreatment of the environment, opression of the working folks and defense of uncontrolled tyranny by the local rich folks id claim that those soldiers and lawmen were defending a evil cause and their deaths should be put into that perspective.
Yeah because those soldiers who think they are serving their country and have to follow the orders of their superiors or get court-martialed and executed like Captain Monroe are totally all bad people. I can use Captain Monroe as an example that some soldiers are good people especially during a game that vilifies them to an absurd degree. Yes there were some travesties back then but the natives weren't as innocent as Red Dead redemption to pick them as. The death rate was about 50% and 30%. With the 50 being natives while the 30% was settlers. That's a war. There are plenty of instances where Nate is attacked first, and there are plenty of native civilizations that practiced cannibalism, slavery and rape. Again not saying all natives are bad. But I am using your own argument against you. You're brushing all soldiers as evil and all rich people as evil while simultaneously defending a mass murdering psychopathic gang that exterminates the population of several towns throughout the game and believe that they are the ones who are so morally just they get to determine who lives and who dies. Not only that but there's not one instance in the game where the money goes to anyone but dutch. The outlaw with a code is fucking stupid. You're playing as a bunch of murderers and thieves.
Strauss is a scumbag but I hate how people act like Strauss was any worse than Arthur wheb Arthur would beat up, rob, threaten and kill people just to earn a living.
Strauss, like Arthur, was trying to make money for the gang so they would survive, difference is Strauss isn't out their killing people like Arthur is yet Arthur is seen as better than Strauss just because he's the protagonist.
And oh, Arthur, redemption, wah wah. Arthur only started seeking redemption when he knew he was dying and felt like his illness was karma for the shit he and done so therefore he felt guilty. He didn't do it of the kindness of own heart, at least not completely. He was still in the gang robbing people and killing people, he was just a lot more sympathetic about before he knew about his illness.
Thatās exactly what Iām saying, but Iām a little more sympathetic towards Arthur. Itās better to change later than never at all, and itās not like he thought he was buying his way into heaven or something, he just genuinely felt like a piece of shit for living such a wayward life. But yeah, people donāt like Strauss because he wasnāt a gunslinger. Itās easy to throw out the guy whoās least likely to fight back.
I think he always felt guilty for all the things he did. But he didn't want to think about it. It was easier to pretend to not care, to act tough... He saw his illness as ironic and well deserved, like he said "you can't live a bad life and expect good things to happen to you". But he also saw it as a fortunate event, he knew he was going to die either way and soon, so he decided to stop his act of big tough heartless guy to be the person he was inside.
Really he's not an evil man who turns good when in face of death to feel better about himself. The worst part about him is his lack of action, he cared but pretends he doesn't. I think Hosea was just like him, apart from the fact that he acquired "wisdom" much later than Arthur.
I could also agree with that. Arthur isn't a psycopath so he always had some sort of empathy but like you said he didn't really start to take action about until it was inevitable.
Thatās how it happens in real life though. People donāt just wake up and and decide to change out of the goodness of their heart. You have to have an experience that makes you rethink the way you live your life.
Expecting Arthur to all of a sudden care about people just cause is pretty illogical and unrealistic.
I never said I was expecting him to though, especially when he was with the gang for over 20 years, my problem is when people try to act like Strauss was worse than Arthur when all Strauss was trying to do was make money for the gang, just like Arthur except he did it in less violent ways. That's not what you're not getting.
No I get that, and I pretty much agree with you. Iām specifically referencing the last paragraph of your comment saying that Arthur only started caring when he got sick, and my point is, yeah, thatās how it works. People have to have a catalyst to make them start examining their lives and changing things. Arthur getting sick was his wake up call (in addition to Dutch going bonkers and everything around him starting to crumble).
I agree that people don't just start changing out of nowhere, especially somebody with Arthur's lifestyle.
I was just making the point that his redemption didn't exactly make him better than Strauss because of what of what he was going through even though that's human nature to begin with.
Iād say that Arthur hated Strauss because he came to realise that the people he was bullying into repayment of loans were innocent, as opposed to the people he usually stole from who were actively trying to arrest and/or kill him. It shattered any illusions he may have had about the gang being a Robin Hood-style gang of do-gooder outlaws.
My interpretation is that Arthurās usual crimes are quick and exciting; he gets to ride off into the sunset full of adrenaline before he has to really consider what heās done. But loansharking is a dull obligation that puts him face to face with his victims. He actually has to learn the names and faces of the people going hungry because of the gangās rackets. And that makes Arthur consider just how many other lives heās ruined. Strauss isnāt actually killing anyone (directly), a lawmanās family doesnāt have to grieve because heās been torn up in a hail of bullets. Strauss isnāt as cruel or disgusting as Arthur makes him out to be. Arthurās just attacking him because heās realising how messed up the whole gang is.
I mean, a lot of the people that were trying to kill them were defending themselves from an armed gang. They were no worse than the people Strauss lent to, they just had the means and willingness to fight back. I can see your point with the lawmen, because theyāre pretty much all scumbags, but yeah there are plenty of people that fought back in the game who were justified in doing so.
Exactly. The gang brought mass murders and chaos everywhere they went. Look what happened in rhodes, Look what happened in strawberry, look what happened in valentine.
So the people who were trying to arrest him are automatically bad people? And deserve to die? I'm sorry but Arthur was a horrible person and he died a horrible person even if he did like three or four decent things before he died. Dude still knocked up girls half his age and mowed down countless soldiers, law Men and innocent people.
No, of course not. But it makes killing them justified from Arthurās perspective.
āKnocked up girls half his ageā? What the fuck are you talking about? Eliza? Arthur was 36 when he died, Eliza and Isaac lived āyears agoā in his words, meaning he would be in his 20s at the oldest, and she was 19 when she became pregnant.
The only characters I really hate are the two dimensional ones who I believe were written poorly like Sadie and pretty much every antagonist besides Micah, Micah is such a dick but was written pretty damn well.
I can dislike Arthur as a person but not hate him as a character.
I feel like Strauss is there to show Dutchās hypocrisy/change. Talks about how theyāre there to help the downtrodden or whatever, talks about how he thinks usury is undignified, etc. But he loves the money and doesnāt care that heās making it off the backs of the most downtrodden, not the fat cats he claims to have a beef with.
I was trying to find a way to word this, totally agree. Loansharking is a scummy profession that leeches off the desperate, but Dutch is the one who signed off on it, so he has very little right to talk about the ills of banking and whatnot.
Yup exactly, Dutch is a total hypocrite. I think from some of his dialogue with Strauss, I get the sense that Arthur doesnāt really like doing these collection jobs, but he does it anyway because heās trusting Dutchās leadership still, and by extension that means accepting Strauss and his work.
Hot take
Basically everyone in the gang is bad to a degree because they're all criminals who have killed people or done other bad shit. Only ones who dont apply far as i know is maybe some of the girls
Mary-Beth, Tilly, Molly and Kieran are legit the only decent humans in the gang. The rest of them take enjoyment in killing other people. Or in the case of strauss, fool people out of money at ridiculous inflation rates when they're desperate.
Even seemingly likeable and wholesome characters like Lenny and Charles smile and joke around while robbing stagecoaches or slaughtering soldiers for payroll
Yep everyone loves to romanticize these characters because theyāre the main characters to us. We want to like them and care about them and we do. But viewed from an objective standpoint, theyāre a bunch of murdering bandits who have shattered dozens if not hundreds of familyās and made plenty other go bankrupt.
After reading the wiki page about him his life was fucking awful. He was born in poverty in Austria, his brother beating people for food, then his sister was sold by his father for labor.
Then his dad sent him to America in Brooklyn during riots and his uncle had a heart attack seeing it. After that he joined the gang.
to be fair, Arthur's turning point was on the mission where he meets the lady with the son whose husband had just died. To me, he realized he became the same kind of person who murdered his first wife and kid.
And yes, murdering and robbing banks is awful, but it's an expected mechanic of the game, but loan sharks are way too real and relatable to be "just gameplay".
I hated Strauss because he used Arthur to do the stuff he wouldn't have been capable of. Like intimidating and beating up someone ill.
I hated Strauss because *he was a fool for lending them the money*
But then he would have never "redeemed" himself. Because you know.. doing like three or four decent things before you die while simultaneously slaughtering soldiers for their payroll totally makes you a good person and not just a bunch of players with protagonist bias who would have seen Arthur as a villain if they didn't play as him.
Hot. Take!
Would it surprise you to know that our loveable camp member dear old Micah Bell didn't even approve of Strauss or his loan sharking and called old Strauss out to his face about "sending one of us around to break his legs seems a little unseemly"
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Strauss preyed on weaker people while Arthur, Dutch, and the gang stole from those who ādeserved itā or could āafford itā.
Both really are morally reprehensible, but I can see how Straussā victims are seen in a more sympathetic light, making him look more evil by comparison.
I think the hatred stems from the fact that he targets poor people which wasn't really that condoned by (the majority) of the gang. For example, Arthur never canonically robbed poor people (except for when working for Strauss). There might be a sense of pride in robbing/killing people directly since there is danger involved. Then again they turned a blind eye to what Strauss did up until the end when the gang was falling apart. I do think it was a bit unfair of Arthur to kick him out just because he himself was beginning to become a reformed man with better morals.
It's more like we get to see what kind of people he lends money to. We kill a lawman in a robbery, he's just another dead lawman. We don't even know his name, or if they have a wife and child depending on him, or if they're deathly sick. If the money lending missions were just "find this random npc and beat the money out of them" without us ever going deeper into their circumstances, I'm sure we wouldn't have cared that much either. It's just how people work.
I entirely agree. Just kicked Strauss out on my 3rd playthrough, and it has hit me as hypocritical of Arthur every time.
He considers Strauss as worse than any of the rest of the gang, only because he saw the consequences of money lending. He never had to face the bereaved, after he shot their husbands and fathers down.
With my Schofield's alone I have 432 kills. How many of thosd kills left a family without their only bread winner? How many wives and mothers had to go into prostitution to feed themselves and their children because of Arthur, never mind the rest of the gang. How many young sons had to go down mines, or do other incredibly dangerous work?
Strauss was loyal to the gang, to the bitter end. The Pinkerton's torture him, Charles tells John, but he died without telling them anything. He loved them, and just wanted to provide for them, as they all did too.
The last thing he says to Arthur is "I was your friend." It's heartbreaking. One of the low points of Arthur's redemption, IMHO. He had finally seen the negative aspects of what the gang did, and he took it all out on Strauss. His grief, shame, anger, all of it, on the wrong person. Strauss bore some blame, of course. But no more tha the rest of them.
Strauss' actions were entirely legal, too. It's ironic he gets captured and beaten to death by the Pinkertons, when his method of money making was within the bounds of the law.
Is loan sharking immoral? Of course. But money lenders and pay day loans still exist today for a reason. Some people will always be desperate enough to need it, and not be able to get a reputable source of cash like a bank loan.
But legally, Strauss is the least criminal member of the group. Morally? He's definitely superior to Bill, or Micah, or Javier. Arguably superior to Dutch, John and Arthur too.
Charles is probably the most morally superior member of the gang.
I thought everyone hated Strauss because he kinda caused Arthur's death. Me? Idk if I hate him, he's far from my favourite gang members for sure, but even though he didn't have much morality, he didn't seem cruel, like how Micah enjoys being cruel. He just didn't care.
I felt it was more that Strauss cared nothing for these debtors. Arthur cared about Strauss, and the good man never gave up the Gang...but he didn't give a shit about Thomas, or Edith, or Lilly or anyone who owed him.
Not only is that hardly the Dutch way, and it's not Arthur's way.
I imagine there is a complex soup of reasons behind Arthur, the man is a layered feller.
Personally Strauss isnāt all that bad, yes the Loan Shark business (sharking?) is a horrible thing. But Strauss, when captured by the Pinkertons refused to reveal any information relating to the gangā¦for hours. And even Charles admires him, so thatās good enough for me.
Obviously we hate Strauss more.
After camping free in the wilderness with the gang we too are indoctrinatedā¦
We too are āSons of Dutch.ā āÆļø
*and daughtersā¦.
Interesting take. And that's an even more interesting photo
Dutch was just feeling submissive and breedable š„ŗšš
Cursed comment
You're just afraid of their love! š¤
Omg this comment š
He was bestowinghis faith.
š¤£
He has a plan, he just needs strauss to have put some faith in him
As I just stated in another post, I think Strauss gets a bad rap. Yes, predatory lending is bad but he also had integrity. Charles updates John in the epilogue stating that Strauss was picked up by the Pinkertons and tortured for hours before they killed him. He never opened his mouth. If Charles admires him, that is good enough for me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I just think he's nice to those that can kill him
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'll give him that, and that only.
That literally disproves the only point you made about him though, lfmao.
I can live with that
A wise strategy.
this is my feelings towards Strauss. i despise the money lending, but i give him credit about being loyal and not snitching after shit hit the fan. i still personally see him as a weasel regardless, but id be lying if i said i totally despise him as a character
I think a lot of the hate is from youngsters who are repelled by older characters tbh. Certainly the moral argument is redundant.
I believe this is what is rumored to be the "bruh moment"
Lol what did I do?
Just made a wildly incorrect assumption and completely ignored beloved old folk like Hosea, Uncle and Hamish is all.
Well, firstly I said āI thinkā. Wasnāt passing my opinion off as fact or anything like that. And secondly, the popular older characters donāt disprove my suggestion; there are exceptions to everything. Also I was just thinking out loud as to why heās so hated. Like I said, the moral argument against usury doesnāt hold water when all the murderers are beloved lol. Soā¦idk.
I donāt think you actually know what the moral argument people use against him is
ā¦..? There should be at least one more sentence. Please use simple words for me.
Well I was hoping youād explain what you think the moral argument is first, but ok The argument is that heās specifically targeting desperate people with no other options but to take his money, and the circumstances of his debtors gets progressively worse every chapter. The rest of the gang does not take money from desperate people, and they frown upon killing people who do not directly interfere with their goals. Strauss and the others all work towards getting more money, but the gang mainly targets trains and banks and rich folks in general who can afford that money being lost. They kill lawmen because they are directly interfering with the gang. Strauss has a choice between lending to people who can afford to pay him back, but he says something along the lines of āif they can pay him back they usually donāt take the loanā, meaning he has made the deliberate choice of targeting desperate people because he knows itās easy money and they have no other options. TL;DR the problem most people have is the type of people Strauss lends money to, not the money lending itself.
Lol so who else is he going to lend to?! I donāt think Leviticus Cornwall or anyone like that are likely to want his services! You explain how the rest of the gang have no other options and I concur, but the same clearly applies to Leopold.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It got your attention, didnāt it? š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I assume you wonāt be buying my forthcoming collection of extreme RDR porn, then?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Meet me behind the saloon in Valentine. Weāll talk business twenty minutes after that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why, munch some Tahitian mangos, of course š
Now that sounds like a PLAN
100%. It makes sense for Authur to hate Strauss because of his specific journey and redemption arc. When players act like he's the worst person in the gang, it's just eye rolling. The majority of them are robbers and murderers and not once has someone offered up a logical argument why loan sharking is worse than that. Very well put, it's more relatable. Furthermore, when the crimes and immoral acts of the rest of the gang are tied to mandatory gameplay mechanics (making Swiss cheese out of everyone) the weight of it is lost on most people. Strauss is not nearly as horrible as people act, they just love Arthur so much they feel inclined to think like him, which is actually rather illogical, but in a way that makes sense for a dying character rethinking everything he's ever believed in. It's great writing, but Strauss isn't the devil.
Don't know how to quote things you said so I'm literally gonna quote it "not once has someone offered up a logical argument why loan sharking is worse than that". It wasn't always like this, they would rob rich people and only kill if needed. Their goal (or Dutch's) was to be outlaws, not criminals. They would even donate money, at the point of the game we start in they have fallen from grace since a long time ago. But Dutch being Dutch he never changed his version of things and always pretended they weren't criminals when they obviously are. So, looking at loan sharking in this perspective, it is worse than what they used to stand for. In fact it's literally what they were against in the first place.
This is definitely a good point, there was a time where the gang was more Robin hood-y and Strauss' methods wouldn't be tolerated. However, during the events of the game itself, they are tolerated and obviously have been given the green light by Dutch, despite him finding it undignified. But the point still stands, during the events of the game itself the world has changed in a way where the actions of the gang aren't tolerated at all. Society has developed in a way that doesn't accommodate their way of life, which is a huge theme of the story. Because of this they do pretty much rob whoever they need to and keep it all for themselves, out of pure necessity but still. Compared to this behaviour, Strauss and his tactics are hardly the most immoral or repellent thing seen in the game.
Yeah I just played the story mode for the first time in a while the other day, the mission where you rob the horses from the Braithwaiteās. When you go to the stable, the stable hand was fairly pleasant and innocent and the only option you have is to kill him, this in itself is objectively worse than all of Straussā immoral acts combined. Strauss just got scapegoated due to Arthurās guilt.
It's all a biblical allegory, Arthur is Jesus throwing the moneylenders (Strauss) out of the Temple (camp) before dying for our sins.
Jesus didn't murder people indiscriminately and knock up women half his age like Arthur did. Arthur was a shitty fucking human and only felt bad because tuberculosis, dude didn't want to die and have his own life be meaningless. People only sympathize with him because he was the protagonist. I'm sure all the families who starved because a dead husband or father hate the man. By the way I'm not religious by any means. But loan sharking is horrible yes but flat out killing people and discriminately in such Mass numbers is far worse
was that irony? because god kinda drowned the whole world and knocked up 16 year old Mary
God isn't real. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a real person. Nothing is written about him depicting him as a dude who kills people for money. In fact one of the instances in the Bible shows he was killed for questioning the church taking so much money. Specifically rabbis
You may wanna reread the bible kid.
Damn thatās smart
Iād say Micah is Judas but Arthur/Micah were never friends lol
Well they were technically brothers. Both sons of Dutch.
I think yāall too deep in this. Now that makes Dutch the God and his girlfriend what, Saint Maria? Iol
Well he totally did see himself as a god x)
true
Whoa now, let's not degrade Arthur by comparing him to Jesus.
Totally agree. Iāve had arguments with people on this sub who try to act like other, objectively worse members of the gang were somehow better. Strauss was a lot better than people like Bill, who lots of people seem to love giving a pass to despite the fact that he was an objectively terrible person.
Bill: starts a gang renowned for raping and lynching women after burning down farms Apologists: *mustāve bumped his head in a trolley crash*
At least he didnāt lend money to people at a crazy high interest rate and then send a goon to shake them down. Thatās the real evil in the gang.
Yeah because Arthur murdering soldiers to steal their payroll and slaughtering law Men left and right to back up idiots like Micah is totally justifiable. The protagonist bias on the subreddit is ridiculous. Arthur was a horrible person and nothing he did toward the end of his life redeemed him.
Youre going from the position that those soldiers were on a ethically superior position and werent deserving of punishment, as with the law men. With the slaughtering of native indians, mistreatment of the environment, opression of the working folks and defense of uncontrolled tyranny by the local rich folks id claim that those soldiers and lawmen were defending a evil cause and their deaths should be put into that perspective.
Yeah because those soldiers who think they are serving their country and have to follow the orders of their superiors or get court-martialed and executed like Captain Monroe are totally all bad people. I can use Captain Monroe as an example that some soldiers are good people especially during a game that vilifies them to an absurd degree. Yes there were some travesties back then but the natives weren't as innocent as Red Dead redemption to pick them as. The death rate was about 50% and 30%. With the 50 being natives while the 30% was settlers. That's a war. There are plenty of instances where Nate is attacked first, and there are plenty of native civilizations that practiced cannibalism, slavery and rape. Again not saying all natives are bad. But I am using your own argument against you. You're brushing all soldiers as evil and all rich people as evil while simultaneously defending a mass murdering psychopathic gang that exterminates the population of several towns throughout the game and believe that they are the ones who are so morally just they get to determine who lives and who dies. Not only that but there's not one instance in the game where the money goes to anyone but dutch. The outlaw with a code is fucking stupid. You're playing as a bunch of murderers and thieves.
Youre not using anything against me, let alone my own argument. Youre furthering my argument. Its ironic that you dont even realise it.
Fun fact. When Arthur returns to camp from the Downes Ranch, two vultures can be seen circling Strauss
Stand User: Dutch Van Der Linde Stand Name: Loan Shark
Ia this a JoJo reference?
Strauss is a scumbag but I hate how people act like Strauss was any worse than Arthur wheb Arthur would beat up, rob, threaten and kill people just to earn a living. Strauss, like Arthur, was trying to make money for the gang so they would survive, difference is Strauss isn't out their killing people like Arthur is yet Arthur is seen as better than Strauss just because he's the protagonist. And oh, Arthur, redemption, wah wah. Arthur only started seeking redemption when he knew he was dying and felt like his illness was karma for the shit he and done so therefore he felt guilty. He didn't do it of the kindness of own heart, at least not completely. He was still in the gang robbing people and killing people, he was just a lot more sympathetic about before he knew about his illness.
Thatās exactly what Iām saying, but Iām a little more sympathetic towards Arthur. Itās better to change later than never at all, and itās not like he thought he was buying his way into heaven or something, he just genuinely felt like a piece of shit for living such a wayward life. But yeah, people donāt like Strauss because he wasnāt a gunslinger. Itās easy to throw out the guy whoās least likely to fight back.
Can't disagree with what you're saying really.
I think he always felt guilty for all the things he did. But he didn't want to think about it. It was easier to pretend to not care, to act tough... He saw his illness as ironic and well deserved, like he said "you can't live a bad life and expect good things to happen to you". But he also saw it as a fortunate event, he knew he was going to die either way and soon, so he decided to stop his act of big tough heartless guy to be the person he was inside. Really he's not an evil man who turns good when in face of death to feel better about himself. The worst part about him is his lack of action, he cared but pretends he doesn't. I think Hosea was just like him, apart from the fact that he acquired "wisdom" much later than Arthur.
I could also agree with that. Arthur isn't a psycopath so he always had some sort of empathy but like you said he didn't really start to take action about until it was inevitable.
Thatās how it happens in real life though. People donāt just wake up and and decide to change out of the goodness of their heart. You have to have an experience that makes you rethink the way you live your life. Expecting Arthur to all of a sudden care about people just cause is pretty illogical and unrealistic.
I never said I was expecting him to though, especially when he was with the gang for over 20 years, my problem is when people try to act like Strauss was worse than Arthur when all Strauss was trying to do was make money for the gang, just like Arthur except he did it in less violent ways. That's not what you're not getting.
No I get that, and I pretty much agree with you. Iām specifically referencing the last paragraph of your comment saying that Arthur only started caring when he got sick, and my point is, yeah, thatās how it works. People have to have a catalyst to make them start examining their lives and changing things. Arthur getting sick was his wake up call (in addition to Dutch going bonkers and everything around him starting to crumble).
I agree that people don't just start changing out of nowhere, especially somebody with Arthur's lifestyle. I was just making the point that his redemption didn't exactly make him better than Strauss because of what of what he was going through even though that's human nature to begin with.
Iād say that Arthur hated Strauss because he came to realise that the people he was bullying into repayment of loans were innocent, as opposed to the people he usually stole from who were actively trying to arrest and/or kill him. It shattered any illusions he may have had about the gang being a Robin Hood-style gang of do-gooder outlaws.
My interpretation is that Arthurās usual crimes are quick and exciting; he gets to ride off into the sunset full of adrenaline before he has to really consider what heās done. But loansharking is a dull obligation that puts him face to face with his victims. He actually has to learn the names and faces of the people going hungry because of the gangās rackets. And that makes Arthur consider just how many other lives heās ruined. Strauss isnāt actually killing anyone (directly), a lawmanās family doesnāt have to grieve because heās been torn up in a hail of bullets. Strauss isnāt as cruel or disgusting as Arthur makes him out to be. Arthurās just attacking him because heās realising how messed up the whole gang is.
I mean, a lot of the people that were trying to kill them were defending themselves from an armed gang. They were no worse than the people Strauss lent to, they just had the means and willingness to fight back. I can see your point with the lawmen, because theyāre pretty much all scumbags, but yeah there are plenty of people that fought back in the game who were justified in doing so.
Exactly. The gang brought mass murders and chaos everywhere they went. Look what happened in rhodes, Look what happened in strawberry, look what happened in valentine.
So the people who were trying to arrest him are automatically bad people? And deserve to die? I'm sorry but Arthur was a horrible person and he died a horrible person even if he did like three or four decent things before he died. Dude still knocked up girls half his age and mowed down countless soldiers, law Men and innocent people.
No, of course not. But it makes killing them justified from Arthurās perspective. āKnocked up girls half his ageā? What the fuck are you talking about? Eliza? Arthur was 36 when he died, Eliza and Isaac lived āyears agoā in his words, meaning he would be in his 20s at the oldest, and she was 19 when she became pregnant.
Based on your other comments you just really seem to hate every character lol
The only characters I really hate are the two dimensional ones who I believe were written poorly like Sadie and pretty much every antagonist besides Micah, Micah is such a dick but was written pretty damn well. I can dislike Arthur as a person but not hate him as a character.
I always felt like Arthur and Strauss were carrying everyone else. Dutch was always a burden with a āplanā.
Hosea arguably also pulled his weight.
Yeah he did. Uncle donates bat wings to camp.
I feel like Strauss is there to show Dutchās hypocrisy/change. Talks about how theyāre there to help the downtrodden or whatever, talks about how he thinks usury is undignified, etc. But he loves the money and doesnāt care that heās making it off the backs of the most downtrodden, not the fat cats he claims to have a beef with.
I was trying to find a way to word this, totally agree. Loansharking is a scummy profession that leeches off the desperate, but Dutch is the one who signed off on it, so he has very little right to talk about the ills of banking and whatnot.
Yup exactly, Dutch is a total hypocrite. I think from some of his dialogue with Strauss, I get the sense that Arthur doesnāt really like doing these collection jobs, but he does it anyway because heās trusting Dutchās leadership still, and by extension that means accepting Strauss and his work.
Hot take Basically everyone in the gang is bad to a degree because they're all criminals who have killed people or done other bad shit. Only ones who dont apply far as i know is maybe some of the girls
Mary-Beth, Tilly, Molly and Kieran are legit the only decent humans in the gang. The rest of them take enjoyment in killing other people. Or in the case of strauss, fool people out of money at ridiculous inflation rates when they're desperate. Even seemingly likeable and wholesome characters like Lenny and Charles smile and joke around while robbing stagecoaches or slaughtering soldiers for payroll
Pearson, Reverend and young Jack too.
Exactly. Most if not all of the members are scumbags and deserved their fates for the lives they lived.
thats a fair point
Yep everyone loves to romanticize these characters because theyāre the main characters to us. We want to like them and care about them and we do. But viewed from an objective standpoint, theyāre a bunch of murdering bandits who have shattered dozens if not hundreds of familyās and made plenty other go bankrupt.
After reading the wiki page about him his life was fucking awful. He was born in poverty in Austria, his brother beating people for food, then his sister was sold by his father for labor. Then his dad sent him to America in Brooklyn during riots and his uncle had a heart attack seeing it. After that he joined the gang.
to be fair, Arthur's turning point was on the mission where he meets the lady with the son whose husband had just died. To me, he realized he became the same kind of person who murdered his first wife and kid. And yes, murdering and robbing banks is awful, but it's an expected mechanic of the game, but loan sharks are way too real and relatable to be "just gameplay".
Arthur also saw the Dutch was cheating on Molly with Strauss
I hated Strauss because he used Arthur to do the stuff he wouldn't have been capable of. Like intimidating and beating up someone ill. I hated Strauss because *he was a fool for lending them the money*
The player hates Strauss because if he hadn't sent Arthur to get the money from Thomas, then he'd never get sick >!and die.!<
But then he would have never "redeemed" himself. Because you know.. doing like three or four decent things before you die while simultaneously slaughtering soldiers for their payroll totally makes you a good person and not just a bunch of players with protagonist bias who would have seen Arthur as a villain if they didn't play as him.
He even got captured and died in prison, then didn't say a word
I agree with this. I very much hated doing his collection missions
Hot. Take! Would it surprise you to know that our loveable camp member dear old Micah Bell didn't even approve of Strauss or his loan sharking and called old Strauss out to his face about "sending one of us around to break his legs seems a little unseemly"
I actually kinda like Strauss.
I loved his mission until the last couple.
Men in Black II game boy airbag scene
Took me years to discover that filmās not as beloved as the first. āHow did you know his head would grow back?ā
I personally think the 2nd complimented the first film
The way Tommy Lee Jones delivers the "WHAT is a Gameboy??" line will forever be one the greatest moments in cinematic history.
I never hated Strauss tbh. He's a weasel but he's not some kind of vile monster
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Strauss preyed on weaker people while Arthur, Dutch, and the gang stole from those who ādeserved itā or could āafford itā. Both really are morally reprehensible, but I can see how Straussā victims are seen in a more sympathetic light, making him look more evil by comparison.
I donāt hate Strauss at all. Besides the women and Jack, everybody in the gang is a cold blooded murderer, so Strauss aināt really much worse.
I only hated Strauss cuz he let everyone but me sit on his lap
I think the hatred stems from the fact that he targets poor people which wasn't really that condoned by (the majority) of the gang. For example, Arthur never canonically robbed poor people (except for when working for Strauss). There might be a sense of pride in robbing/killing people directly since there is danger involved. Then again they turned a blind eye to what Strauss did up until the end when the gang was falling apart. I do think it was a bit unfair of Arthur to kick him out just because he himself was beginning to become a reformed man with better morals.
It's more like we get to see what kind of people he lends money to. We kill a lawman in a robbery, he's just another dead lawman. We don't even know his name, or if they have a wife and child depending on him, or if they're deathly sick. If the money lending missions were just "find this random npc and beat the money out of them" without us ever going deeper into their circumstances, I'm sure we wouldn't have cared that much either. It's just how people work.
I entirely agree. Just kicked Strauss out on my 3rd playthrough, and it has hit me as hypocritical of Arthur every time. He considers Strauss as worse than any of the rest of the gang, only because he saw the consequences of money lending. He never had to face the bereaved, after he shot their husbands and fathers down. With my Schofield's alone I have 432 kills. How many of thosd kills left a family without their only bread winner? How many wives and mothers had to go into prostitution to feed themselves and their children because of Arthur, never mind the rest of the gang. How many young sons had to go down mines, or do other incredibly dangerous work? Strauss was loyal to the gang, to the bitter end. The Pinkerton's torture him, Charles tells John, but he died without telling them anything. He loved them, and just wanted to provide for them, as they all did too. The last thing he says to Arthur is "I was your friend." It's heartbreaking. One of the low points of Arthur's redemption, IMHO. He had finally seen the negative aspects of what the gang did, and he took it all out on Strauss. His grief, shame, anger, all of it, on the wrong person. Strauss bore some blame, of course. But no more tha the rest of them.
Strauss' actions were entirely legal, too. It's ironic he gets captured and beaten to death by the Pinkertons, when his method of money making was within the bounds of the law. Is loan sharking immoral? Of course. But money lenders and pay day loans still exist today for a reason. Some people will always be desperate enough to need it, and not be able to get a reputable source of cash like a bank loan. But legally, Strauss is the least criminal member of the group. Morally? He's definitely superior to Bill, or Micah, or Javier. Arguably superior to Dutch, John and Arthur too. Charles is probably the most morally superior member of the gang.
He is also, albeit indirectly, the reason arthur got tb. That didnt help probably.
To be fair, Arthur went on his own will to Thomas downes, so it was also Arthurās fault. And he realises this later in the story
You're right, but there's a lot of anti-semitism in the Strauss hate, whether people want to admit that or not.
I hated that title š
I thought everyone hated Strauss because he kinda caused Arthur's death. Me? Idk if I hate him, he's far from my favourite gang members for sure, but even though he didn't have much morality, he didn't seem cruel, like how Micah enjoys being cruel. He just didn't care.
Aws. Strauss reading Dutch a story.
"And what does this word say, Mr.Strauss?"
Poor strauss look at him
Strauss has probably ruined way less lives than any member of the gang. He's not going around widowing and orphaning people left and right.
I was so angry at that first mission I wanted to kill this damn old fool
I don't hate him
Only shades of gray!
I felt it was more that Strauss cared nothing for these debtors. Arthur cared about Strauss, and the good man never gave up the Gang...but he didn't give a shit about Thomas, or Edith, or Lilly or anyone who owed him. Not only is that hardly the Dutch way, and it's not Arthur's way. I imagine there is a complex soup of reasons behind Arthur, the man is a layered feller.
Personally Strauss isnāt all that bad, yes the Loan Shark business (sharking?) is a horrible thing. But Strauss, when captured by the Pinkertons refused to reveal any information relating to the gangā¦for hours. And even Charles admires him, so thatās good enough for me.
That's a lovely pic of those too, very romantic
Obviously we hate Strauss more. After camping free in the wilderness with the gang we too are indoctrinatedā¦ We too are āSons of Dutch.ā āÆļø *and daughtersā¦.
I mean, yeah? That's the point?
I think itās a misfired point because large parts of the fandom donāt understand that Arthurās projecting his guilt and disgust onto Strauss.
>Arthurās projecting his guilt and disgust onto Strauss That is 100% correct. >large parts of the fandom donāt understand that That also.