This game has taught me a large portion of the population completely just buys the narrative presented and ignores all the actual facts. They love the main character of the movie regardless of anything.
Case and point people hate Strauss even though he is arguably the most moral in the gang in terms of his deeds. His grift is semi legal and the victims are voluntary and know all the stipulations.
Meanwhile Arthur admits to killing women and children in his past and we see the whole gang murder lots of people and steal.
I mean the part that people hate Straus most for (roughing up desperate people who don't pay his shark loans back) is literally done by Arthur himself. So how does Arthur not get some or most of the blame for that? It's not like Arthur is lower in the gang ranks or can't just tell Straus he won't do it. Arthur willingly does it.
But because Arthur is the main character and we see his regret and so on suddenly people are like "omg I love Arthur he is a good person."
Mfer killed kids!
Also Straus and other characters might have regrets too but we don't see them. Sort of like real life we don't know other people's personal life or internal feelings. That doesn't mean we assume the worst. Judge them then by their actions and such. With Straus his actions are of a slimy loan shark. So yeah you shouldn't like him but compared to the rest of the gang he is a Saint.
It is implied that they are some pretty bad marauders out west but when is it actually confirmed he killed woman and children. It reminds me of Unforgiven
“He said that you were William Munny, the same William Munny who dynamited the rock island and pacific railroad, killing women and children, and Ned said you did a lot worse than that, and if he keeps hurting Ned, you would come and kill him, like you shot that US Marshall in ‘70.”
Ngl. A lot of Arthur's part of the game reminds me of unforgiven, especially that one side quests with the writer and the gunslingers. Not that that's a bad thing tho
Regarding Arthur doing the dirty work of roughing people up for Strauss (who “only” gives out loans), I think that has similar undertones of soldiers and police “just following orders” when the orders are clearly unlawful and vile.
Yes, the responsibility and blame is of those who follow orders — they should’ve known better, but even worse are those who put them in such situation: politicians, generals, and so on.
In this case, the role of authority giving out orders is Strauss, so I’d say he is “more guilty” regarding this particular scenario.
(Also I know that is an analogy brought to the extreme, and direct comparison would not do justice to either of cases. Just a thought that seemed remotely comparable to me.)
But yes, Arthur has a whole lot of non-Strauss-related bad deeds piled on top, and is clearly not a good person (well, he acknowledges that himself, and also the game literally has the word redemption in its title; there could be no redemption for a person who is already good).
When is it ever stated they killed women and children?
The fact that Dutch shot a civilian woman is treated as a very big deal and a sign of how bad things have gotten.
Also, Strauss is far from the most moral. All of the gang sucks but he's specifically preying on poor and desperate people. It being legal or voluntary has zero to do with morality.
agreed I still want to turn Dutch in is there a mod because I don't want the man there I want a tournament to whoever I have to I'll go live off of the hot chick and take John with me
173
u/Thief009988 Jun 26 '23
Yep! Let Charles and John and Sadie work on their Farm! The law would have finished off Dutch and everybody else!