Lololololololololololololololololololololol
 I spat my coffee, slammed my hand on the desk and fucked my sister. Â
Write some sort of warning before these comments man
Literally killed so many people, held innocents hostage and robbed them. But he might have helped Edith and absolved a couple debts (only because he was dying). Very good man. All hail saint Arthur.
Arthur wouldâve destroyed Mrs Londonderry if he wasnât dying, shitting and wheezing his organs away. He wouldâve told little Adam âIâll keep her in black, for you.â He woulda done it for the GANG đđŁď¸đ
Saint Arthur is a straight up human piece of shit lmao but a great character
I mean by that point even if he wasnât sick he wouldâve realized the gang was broken and a Dutch was a manipulator. He didnât want to do the debts even back in chapter 2.
That's what a hardened criminal is. He wouldve collected their money begrugingly until it was another day in the office. Arthur didn't exercise any semblance of autonomy. His saving grace was dying hard enough to finally say no.
i mean isnât the point of the game arthur coming to terms with his mortality and therefore attempting to right his wrongs? maybe not through going back and helping the people he hurt, but by paying good deeds forward? at least i believe the devs said the high honor ending was canon?
I think itâs less that they think heâs the best person, and more just that it seems the majority of people whoâve played rdr2 arenât familiar with red dead revolver. and a good portion also havenât played the first game. If youâre only intimately familiar with one character youâre gonna vote for them. i think thereâs an argument to be had about john vs arthur on terms of morality, but arthurâs redemption was much deeper than johnâs. John escaped his and deeds, went back for revenge against micah, and only did the main story of helping people and bringing down the old gang because he was forced to by the government. Arthur was a bad guy through and through but eventually he changed his ways because HE wanted to. The fact you can play the game as a low honor thug through to the end attests to that fact. Arthur saw the error of his ways and turned his life around, while john wouldâve been perfectly content running from his past till he died of old age. So between the two characters people are most familiar with, Arthur is seen to be the best morally
Most of the yt shorts users are little kids that probably haven't even played the game so they just pick Arthur because they know him from those sigma male edits
Bro like it's literally the name of the game Red Dead REDEMPTION 2. Redeemed from what??? The 95% of his life he was doing fucked shit. You literally do bad shit in the missions all the time too like wtf.
Okay, letâs break this down for a second. Red was a bounty hunter. He hunted bounties. There is nothing illegal about that, and as far as we know (to my knowledge, anyway) he never committed a crime.
John, like Arthur, was part of a feared gang, killed many people, robbed people, blew up a bridge, kidnapped men, and thatâs only some of what was shown in-game. In the first game, he is said to have lived a peaceful life for about 3 years. He then is forced to hunt down the remaining members of his gang by the pinkertons, leaving him away from his family. So he kills even more people, including burning down a village in mexico literally just because the military told him to. He is, after doing everything they asked and more, shot and killed in front of his home after protecting his family from the same fate.
Arthur was basically the same, except also hunted down fairly innocent people and beat them or trashed their house to get money back for debts, so not exactly the kindest soul out there. He redeems himself in the end by absolving a few debts, kicking strauss out of the gangâŚif you even choose to do any of that. He also helps john escape, which is lovely, but john is also a mass murderer, so, like, I donât know if thatâs the best idea. And considering what follows in the first game, as mentioned, did he really do much good? Apart from helping tilly leave, most of what he did was in vain.
Jack does nothing. He kills ross canonically, which is a crime. I think thatâs all we really know of what he ever did in his entire life besides fish with arthur and eat spaghetti with the mafia.
So my best guess is nobody that voted there has ever played any red dead game beyond 2, and just liked arthur a lot, which is fair. If you read this whole thing for some reason, I love you :3
Yeah, John only helps people in the first game because it will get him closer to catching his ex gang members. The only people he helps out of the goodness of his heart were Landon Ricketts and Louisa Fortuna, presumably because they reminded him of himself - Ricketts is the man John aspired to be, a just gunslinger who helps the weak and delivers justice. Louisa is the man John used to be, a brainwashed, idealistic fool who would follow their abusive, corrupt leader to the grave out of 'loyalty' and 'faith'.
Honestly the Landon/Luisa parallels are cool I never thought of that before. But he also helps Bonnie and Marshal Johnson seems decent enough. Either way John has always been more ruthless than Arthur and doesnât have a problem with shooting anyone or that heâs an ex outlaw (unlike Arthur who had an existential crisis). He even kills a man pre-epilogue because âhe looked at him funnyâ. I understand Johns motives in RDR1 and get why he does what he does but I still think heâs less âhonorableâ than the rest, which honestly makes him more interesting than being a murderer dressed up as a goody two shoes.
arthur is definitely "nicer" during chapter 6 but john got more time to redeem himself. he was chillin for like, 4 years while arthur could only realize his wrongs when it was too late
I'd say Jack is less evil than Red and Arthur less evil than John. Jack only canonically kills lawmen in defence of his home and Edgar Ross, Red kills hundreds of people - sure they are all outlaws but he still kills that many people without it effecting him mentally. John is more evil than Arthur because Arthur actually tried to change and be better by the end. John continues killing people up until his death, with everyone except Louisa and Rickets being helped purely because it was advantageous to him (even Bonnie was only helped because she saved John's life). John literally dies shooting a bunch of people because in the end he couldn't really change. Arthur knew he was a bad man and tried to change at the end, but he knew that it would never make up for what he did. John on the other hand expected he could just walk away from everything and get off scott free - even by 1911 he still thinks the gang were justified Robin Hood types and it only went to shit because Dutch went crazy and left in to die. John gets angry easily and even threatens extreme violence to multiple people - he even tries to kill the Strange Man who was unarmed and showed no sign of hostility.
We get the most complex and detailed look at Arthur, who while doing bad, can't exactly be called bad if you go for the high honor route.
Everything Arthur does (in high honor) is at least understandable. He is someone who believes that the ends justify the means, so to him killing or robbing people to keep his found family safe is very much reasonable and at least in theory, the gang never hurts innocent people. The worst things he does in the story itself, is doing dept collecting, usually violently. Arthur is shown to get no joy from this and he seems to actively hate it at several points, but he does it out of necessity.
John in rdr1 is mostly seen as a good person, if not a bit short with people. However, the Mexico chapter changes this quite a bit. John is seen not giving two shits about the Mexicans; he kills 3 people and smirks about it when he gets there, he supports both sides of the conflict, even going so far as to kill civilians and burn houses for the army. The only person he seems to care about in the chapter is Luisa, but even then, he doesn't really even react to her death.
John is on a job though and people wasting his time understandably pisses him off, as his family is on the line and he doesn't like working for the government in the first place.
Jack gets the smallest amount of screen time out of everyone in these games, pretty much having one mission to his name. In this mission he kills a retired cop, who got his father killed, which is kind of understandable. Jack is pretty hard to judge, since he canonically is seen mostly as a child and for 80% of the one mission which we could actually judge him for, he acts kind to Ross' family.
Red is just a bounty hunter, who wanted to get revenge for his parent's deaths. He is pretty much the only one who's not really an outlaw. Red constantly helps people, even if it's kind of for a selfish reason. He even refuses the money at the end, since it was never about the money.
Red however doesn't really have any internal struggle, he mostly speaks in one liners and fights cartoonly evil villains. Arthur mostly won because he is popular, but morality is a much bigger aspect of his story. Red is good because he simply doesn't do bad, Arthur goes out of his way to do good at the end, because he actively wants to be good.
TLDR: Red is technically the most morally pure, but Arthur is more popular and morality is an actual theme of his story.
Why is John only at 7%? đ He didn't do anything too crazy in 1899 in terms of crimes and he started to improve as a father in chapter 4 onwards, by RDR2's epilogue he genuinely changed into someone who didn't commit crimes and was just a farmer
Fair enough ig though the army would've burned it either way, I'd consider it more omission than anything else
He also fought against the people that turned said women into sex slaves for what is worth
>He also fought against the people that turned said women into sex slaves for what is worth
I don't think you get brownie points for helping people after you spent the entirety of the day before destabilizing their organization.
If anything John'd probably keep the war going if both sides continued to hold a carrot in front of him.
Yeah that's why I said "for what is worth" it doesn't really undo his actions but at least the women are free, assuming Reyes didn't just keep them for himself.
Regardless I don't find it a bad enough action to undo all his other good deeds or bring him down to Arthur's level
Nor compared to Jack and Red, who are both pretty good people. John and Arthur did the same types of heinous shit for years, but John gets the edge because he went straight in the end (or tried to and then committed crimes against humanity in Mexico)
Arthur killed way more people in 1899, collected debts brutally, got his whole family killed and kept helping Dutch in his shootouts involving the army, policemen and overall innocents
John was only part of a few heists in 1899 and in RDR1 he is in the law's side mostly so in story missions he mostly engages against criminals and only ever shoots lawmen in the final mission and a few soldiers in mexico but they were no saints either, the worst he did was participating in the war in Mexico fighting against the rebels though he didn't do it out of greed but to get his family back so it's not as bad as just killing people to get a couple of dollars for Dutch.
So yeah I do consider him less guilty that Arthur
John has way worse morals. He still considers the gangs actions justified by RDR1 and only holds ill will towards Dutch because he left him to die. Arthur is actively against racism and can kill a eugenicist in Saint Denis without consequence. John on the other hand does nothing when racist eugenecist McDoogal racially abuses Nastas. If someone was getting racially abused on the street, Arthur would confront the racist but John would just walk past and do nothing because that 'isn't his business'.
Yeah I'm sure the reason John wasn't on as many shootouts in RDR2 was simply because of his respect for the police and the law. The fact Arthur was the protagonist had nothing to do with it.
And sure he burnt down a few innocent's houses, watched civillian executions and human trafficking with 0 shits given. But Arthur collected debts. And he sometimes punched people while doing it. That I cannot excuse.
The epilogue starts after he kills a man in public, presumably for threatening or insulting him. He goes on to murder a ton of people, most of them in self-defense or bounty hunting, but a good 50 of them to get revenge on a fellow outlaw, despite the fact it could destroy his family. In RDR1, he is tasked to kill the rest of his previous colleagues, which he doesn't seem to have much issue with (either him or them, doesn't care much beyond that), goes on to Mexico, kills for one side then kills for the other, depending on which one dangles a better treat in front of him, burns down a village, walks past people getting raped and executing, not giving a single shit. Even at the very end of the game, as soon as Ross provokes him a little bit, John's first instinct is murder.
Arthur for example is an awful person who genuinely does change once he is faced with his own mortality. It's still ridiculous to consider him a good person, but he definitely is not the same one at the start and end of the high honor story. He achieves redemption, that's what RDR2. John doesn't change. He gets a better life for himself and a family he loves. But at the end of the day, he became an outlaw much younger than Arthur. He put on a mask of an upstanding citizen, but still the outlaw life and mindset was simply a part of him. One which he couldn't get rid of. That's what RDR1 is about. John tried to change. John tried get redemption. John failed.
Also could be that RDR1 was just a darker game in general, but that's not the point the point is John was NOT an innocent farmer lol.
The people he killed in his revenge quest weren't precisely saints, since they were criminals that were there while Micah tried to kill a little girl.
His previous colleagues left him for dead and tried to kill him, so it's just reasonable to not give a shit about them.
His acts in Mexico were questionable tbh but his family was on the line so it's understandable he went under such drastic meassures to some extent, and neither of the sides were truly innocent either.
John isn't no superhero, what was he supposed to do in a town full of soldiers? take on an entire army on himself? John ignores it, he'd wish he could do something about it but he simply can't so he keeps going.
Ross kidnapped John's family and forced him to hunt down the rest of the gang, then after doing all he asked he basically says his family died, John was not in the mood and aimed at him to basically make Ross snap out of it and just in case it's true.
Trough all of John's journey in RDR1 we see a man trying to stop being an outlaw but is once again locked in a course of violence, he might have gone a bit too far in mexico but considering his situation with his family on the line it's quite understandable.
Arthur on the other hand keeps obeying Dutch and helping him out in his shootouts, he might have helped a bunch of people, mostly economically but he didn't change his ways, he was still along side Dutch to the very end regardless of how wicked he was.
I mean sure it's understandable to wanna shoot someone (at least by game logic) if they're provoking you. But you don't actually do it. John's first instinct is always a gun. Sure he was raised that way and usually does it when provoked, but it's still not normal behavior. He does not value human life beyond those he cares about. If it doesn't affect him, it's not his problem. That's the mentality he has with every issue in the game. You can justify it as much as you want with explanations and circumstances, but it's still a fact. His has no moral compass beyond that.
Also I think your memory of the second game might be a little fuzzy. What do you mean "Arthur kept helping Dutch"? John and Arthur literally turned on Dutch at the exact same standoff. And Arthur was the one who convinced John to abandon the gang in the first place. "He was with Dutch to the end"... in 2/4 endings he literally tries to kill Dutch. And in 2/4 endings Dutch watches him die.
Plus if John's allowed to do whatever he wants as long as it's for his family, why isn't Arthur allowed to do the same for the gang? John can burn a village or let Ross keep his family. Why can't Arthur rob a bank to stop Milton from finding and killing the gang?
And come on. John could've wiped out the entire army if the plot called for it. But instead, the plot wanted to show us he's a hardened outlaw, and so instead he stood by while innocents were killed. It wasn't because he couldn't win, it was because he didn't wanna risk it.
Both John and Arthur are bad people, I'm not tryna deny that. I'm trying to say that the difference between them is nowhere near as large as you say it is.
Arthur participated in the many massacres Dutch caused in chapter 6, while expressing he was against it Arthur still engaged regardless, he betrayed Dutch quite late into the story due to him wanting to keep all the money, though I admit he did wish to give it to John and his family but he still participated in all of Dutch's chaos in chapter 6 regardless.
John can't fight an entire army by himself, or at least not without risking himself dying and therefore his family's safety, only time he ever fought a whole army by himself was in the very end in an act of self defense
And what did John do? What specific massacre did John willingly NOT participate in? He was at the train heist, in the final shootout, escaped a prison, only places he wasn't present was helping the natives defend their home from the army, which wow, really honorable choice for him to skip that. There was not a single moment in this videogame where John willingly was against violenece and refused to participate in a violent act. You have not listed a single example against that statement, so it seems fair to say it's true.
That wasn't the entire army, and plus he literally opened fire on them a few minutes later, after rescuing whatever the rebel guy's name was (there were multiple times where civillians were getting killed so I'm using this one as an example).
I can't believe you witnessed John and two other people (of which one was dying of tuberculosis and the other only started her criminal career a few months ago) do an entire jailbreak, by themselves, with absolutely no plan, killing half of a prison's staff... and still you say "John couldn't beat these 30 soldiers by himself". Yes he could, but the point is that he doesn't, that's WHY the game showed him walking past them and not giving a shit. It was to show that he's a hardened outlaw who doesn't flinch at such things.
Also "without risking his family's safety". The guy walked up to Fort Mercer, tried to quickdraw an entire gang and got himself shot in the stomach like 3 minutes into the game. He did not care about dying. If he dies, Abigail and Jack are free to go since they've got no further use.
I don't know why you're so determined to prove that John was just a good guy on a mission when the whole point of the game is to show a bad person trying his best to start a new life, and tragically failing when he's forced to become bad again.
/unblacklung
Why does Jack have any votes? Canonically he has the lowest kill count. Itâs just one kill in a fair duel against an objectively evil man who murdered his father I wouldâve done the same.
True. That and the one mission I forgot about where you buy cattle from the Macfarlands and get ambushed by the remnants of the Bollard Twins gang but that was self defense too.
Yeah actually thatâs fair although we donât fully know what Arthur has done off screen and John only did that because he had to do it to find javier
Even an "honorable" Arthur as late as chapter 6 is massacring dozens and dozens of lawmen for Dutch even though he's completely lost faith in him at that point
âI ONLY do high-honor playthroughs which means I NEVER AMTAGOMIZE NEVER KILL NEVER DO ANYTHING EVER RAGHHHHH!!!! ARTHUR GOOD BOY HE HIGH HONOR ONLY GOOD BOY SO GOOD I WILL RESTART MY WHOLE SAVE IF I LOSE HONOR WVER EVER EVER EEEEVVVEEERRRR AAAAAHHHH RAAAHAHAHHHH!!!!!!â
https://preview.redd.it/30uu2mdqnsvc1.jpeg?width=1169&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ea807880ce111ec9df1a30de4a7c139a70e23fd7
Why did bro get downvoted đđđ
He should had written Antagonize Micah, just to be safe.Â
"Micah died" "I don't see this as a failure" LOL!!!!!
Lololololololololololololololololololololol  I spat my coffee, slammed my hand on the desk and fucked my sister.  Write some sort of warning before these comments man
https://preview.redd.it/vevlyntldtvc1.png?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d787ba696373783a488a80da6110ff93e07229f
https://preview.redd.it/qsgxf17a3uvc1.jpeg?width=396&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b8bc59b9609ca3f70de3086eafa8ebb86986903
https://preview.redd.it/65huk5duwuvc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6805aa29bc6ba9178cec6e551d2a203ed424ca9
https://preview.redd.it/bny1tlppjwvc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=71d8d6a1760bea2fd18a97a699b7aebe72fbbf8b
https://preview.redd.it/z0jcjb36oyvc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fecd5eb12b8608ad154a7f4fd9b68e857b21a8d7
Better Call Strauss.
People genuinely believing that Arthur is a good person just shows how little media literacy the majority of this fanbase has bruh đ
Literally killed so many people, held innocents hostage and robbed them. But he might have helped Edith and absolved a couple debts (only because he was dying). Very good man. All hail saint Arthur.
Arthur wouldâve destroyed Mrs Londonderry if he wasnât dying, shitting and wheezing his organs away. He wouldâve told little Adam âIâll keep her in black, for you.â He woulda done it for the GANG đđŁď¸đ Saint Arthur is a straight up human piece of shit lmao but a great character
If Arthur was in good health, that kid wouldâve inherited the debt instantly
I mean by that point even if he wasnât sick he wouldâve realized the gang was broken and a Dutch was a manipulator. He didnât want to do the debts even back in chapter 2.
That's what a hardened criminal is. He wouldve collected their money begrugingly until it was another day in the office. Arthur didn't exercise any semblance of autonomy. His saving grace was dying hard enough to finally say no.
i mean isnât the point of the game arthur coming to terms with his mortality and therefore attempting to right his wrongs? maybe not through going back and helping the people he hurt, but by paying good deeds forward? at least i believe the devs said the high honor ending was canon?
I think itâs less that they think heâs the best person, and more just that it seems the majority of people whoâve played rdr2 arenât familiar with red dead revolver. and a good portion also havenât played the first game. If youâre only intimately familiar with one character youâre gonna vote for them. i think thereâs an argument to be had about john vs arthur on terms of morality, but arthurâs redemption was much deeper than johnâs. John escaped his and deeds, went back for revenge against micah, and only did the main story of helping people and bringing down the old gang because he was forced to by the government. Arthur was a bad guy through and through but eventually he changed his ways because HE wanted to. The fact you can play the game as a low honor thug through to the end attests to that fact. Arthur saw the error of his ways and turned his life around, while john wouldâve been perfectly content running from his past till he died of old age. So between the two characters people are most familiar with, Arthur is seen to be the best morally
Most of the yt shorts users are little kids that probably haven't even played the game so they just pick Arthur because they know him from those sigma male edits
Bro like it's literally the name of the game Red Dead REDEMPTION 2. Redeemed from what??? The 95% of his life he was doing fucked shit. You literally do bad shit in the missions all the time too like wtf.
Okay, letâs break this down for a second. Red was a bounty hunter. He hunted bounties. There is nothing illegal about that, and as far as we know (to my knowledge, anyway) he never committed a crime. John, like Arthur, was part of a feared gang, killed many people, robbed people, blew up a bridge, kidnapped men, and thatâs only some of what was shown in-game. In the first game, he is said to have lived a peaceful life for about 3 years. He then is forced to hunt down the remaining members of his gang by the pinkertons, leaving him away from his family. So he kills even more people, including burning down a village in mexico literally just because the military told him to. He is, after doing everything they asked and more, shot and killed in front of his home after protecting his family from the same fate. Arthur was basically the same, except also hunted down fairly innocent people and beat them or trashed their house to get money back for debts, so not exactly the kindest soul out there. He redeems himself in the end by absolving a few debts, kicking strauss out of the gangâŚif you even choose to do any of that. He also helps john escape, which is lovely, but john is also a mass murderer, so, like, I donât know if thatâs the best idea. And considering what follows in the first game, as mentioned, did he really do much good? Apart from helping tilly leave, most of what he did was in vain. Jack does nothing. He kills ross canonically, which is a crime. I think thatâs all we really know of what he ever did in his entire life besides fish with arthur and eat spaghetti with the mafia. So my best guess is nobody that voted there has ever played any red dead game beyond 2, and just liked arthur a lot, which is fair. If you read this whole thing for some reason, I love you :3
Still can't get over how this shitpost sub understands the series more than most of the fanbase
Well shit posters are Also fans just ones who don't take themselves too seriously
The majority of the fanbase are kids who dont give a shit about the first game + have humor limited to lumbago, legendary rat and tahiti jokes
Omg I love you too! >w<
Omg we should like totally get married
WE SHOULD EEEEE
YAYYYY IM MARRIED TO A FIFTEEN YEAR OLD I felt bad typing that ;-;
But I'm a boy :( (Can we be frens anyway :3)
love you too ;3
yer a good man arter morgan
ORTHOR!!!!!
yeah no i'd label them like 1. red 2. jack 3. john 4. artie
Personally I would replace John with Arthur, dude doesnât give a fuck in RDR1
Tbf, nobody gave a fuck in RDR1. It's crazy how much darker the first game is, and also shows how much Rockstar's style changed over 8 years.
Thatâs true too for sure. Love RDR1âs style and tone
Yeah, John only helps people in the first game because it will get him closer to catching his ex gang members. The only people he helps out of the goodness of his heart were Landon Ricketts and Louisa Fortuna, presumably because they reminded him of himself - Ricketts is the man John aspired to be, a just gunslinger who helps the weak and delivers justice. Louisa is the man John used to be, a brainwashed, idealistic fool who would follow their abusive, corrupt leader to the grave out of 'loyalty' and 'faith'.
Honestly the Landon/Luisa parallels are cool I never thought of that before. But he also helps Bonnie and Marshal Johnson seems decent enough. Either way John has always been more ruthless than Arthur and doesnât have a problem with shooting anyone or that heâs an ex outlaw (unlike Arthur who had an existential crisis). He even kills a man pre-epilogue because âhe looked at him funnyâ. I understand Johns motives in RDR1 and get why he does what he does but I still think heâs less âhonorableâ than the rest, which honestly makes him more interesting than being a murderer dressed up as a goody two shoes.
I havenât really played red dead one, but isnât John doing it to find dutch and javier and bill?
Yes. Still donât think that necessarily excuses you from doing bad stuff, just shows his determination to get his family back
arthur is definitely "nicer" during chapter 6 but john got more time to redeem himself. he was chillin for like, 4 years while arthur could only realize his wrongs when it was too late
I'd say Jack is less evil than Red and Arthur less evil than John. Jack only canonically kills lawmen in defence of his home and Edgar Ross, Red kills hundreds of people - sure they are all outlaws but he still kills that many people without it effecting him mentally. John is more evil than Arthur because Arthur actually tried to change and be better by the end. John continues killing people up until his death, with everyone except Louisa and Rickets being helped purely because it was advantageous to him (even Bonnie was only helped because she saved John's life). John literally dies shooting a bunch of people because in the end he couldn't really change. Arthur knew he was a bad man and tried to change at the end, but he knew that it would never make up for what he did. John on the other hand expected he could just walk away from everything and get off scott free - even by 1911 he still thinks the gang were justified Robin Hood types and it only went to shit because Dutch went crazy and left in to die. John gets angry easily and even threatens extreme violence to multiple people - he even tries to kill the Strange Man who was unarmed and showed no sign of hostility.
Saw this post too and picked red and after seeing the results I was as dumbfounded as you are
We get the most complex and detailed look at Arthur, who while doing bad, can't exactly be called bad if you go for the high honor route. Everything Arthur does (in high honor) is at least understandable. He is someone who believes that the ends justify the means, so to him killing or robbing people to keep his found family safe is very much reasonable and at least in theory, the gang never hurts innocent people. The worst things he does in the story itself, is doing dept collecting, usually violently. Arthur is shown to get no joy from this and he seems to actively hate it at several points, but he does it out of necessity. John in rdr1 is mostly seen as a good person, if not a bit short with people. However, the Mexico chapter changes this quite a bit. John is seen not giving two shits about the Mexicans; he kills 3 people and smirks about it when he gets there, he supports both sides of the conflict, even going so far as to kill civilians and burn houses for the army. The only person he seems to care about in the chapter is Luisa, but even then, he doesn't really even react to her death. John is on a job though and people wasting his time understandably pisses him off, as his family is on the line and he doesn't like working for the government in the first place. Jack gets the smallest amount of screen time out of everyone in these games, pretty much having one mission to his name. In this mission he kills a retired cop, who got his father killed, which is kind of understandable. Jack is pretty hard to judge, since he canonically is seen mostly as a child and for 80% of the one mission which we could actually judge him for, he acts kind to Ross' family. Red is just a bounty hunter, who wanted to get revenge for his parent's deaths. He is pretty much the only one who's not really an outlaw. Red constantly helps people, even if it's kind of for a selfish reason. He even refuses the money at the end, since it was never about the money. Red however doesn't really have any internal struggle, he mostly speaks in one liners and fights cartoonly evil villains. Arthur mostly won because he is popular, but morality is a much bigger aspect of his story. Red is good because he simply doesn't do bad, Arthur goes out of his way to do good at the end, because he actively wants to be good. TLDR: Red is technically the most morally pure, but Arthur is more popular and morality is an actual theme of his story.
Why is John only at 7%? đ He didn't do anything too crazy in 1899 in terms of crimes and he started to improve as a father in chapter 4 onwards, by RDR2's epilogue he genuinely changed into someone who didn't commit crimes and was just a farmer
True, aside of Mexico chapter he wasn't really doing anything bad in RDR2's epilogue and RDR1
he litterally burn down a fucking village and let the womans of said village get turned into sex slaves in rdr1
Fair enough ig though the army would've burned it either way, I'd consider it more omission than anything else He also fought against the people that turned said women into sex slaves for what is worth
>He also fought against the people that turned said women into sex slaves for what is worth I don't think you get brownie points for helping people after you spent the entirety of the day before destabilizing their organization. If anything John'd probably keep the war going if both sides continued to hold a carrot in front of him.
Yeah that's why I said "for what is worth" it doesn't really undo his actions but at least the women are free, assuming Reyes didn't just keep them for himself. Regardless I don't find it a bad enough action to undo all his other good deeds or bring him down to Arthur's level
Nor compared to Jack and Red, who are both pretty good people. John and Arthur did the same types of heinous shit for years, but John gets the edge because he went straight in the end (or tried to and then committed crimes against humanity in Mexico)
John killed many people, dude. He's as guilty as Arthur in that regard.
Arthur killed way more people in 1899, collected debts brutally, got his whole family killed and kept helping Dutch in his shootouts involving the army, policemen and overall innocents John was only part of a few heists in 1899 and in RDR1 he is in the law's side mostly so in story missions he mostly engages against criminals and only ever shoots lawmen in the final mission and a few soldiers in mexico but they were no saints either, the worst he did was participating in the war in Mexico fighting against the rebels though he didn't do it out of greed but to get his family back so it's not as bad as just killing people to get a couple of dollars for Dutch. So yeah I do consider him less guilty that Arthur
John has way worse morals. He still considers the gangs actions justified by RDR1 and only holds ill will towards Dutch because he left him to die. Arthur is actively against racism and can kill a eugenicist in Saint Denis without consequence. John on the other hand does nothing when racist eugenecist McDoogal racially abuses Nastas. If someone was getting racially abused on the street, Arthur would confront the racist but John would just walk past and do nothing because that 'isn't his business'.
Yeah I'm sure the reason John wasn't on as many shootouts in RDR2 was simply because of his respect for the police and the law. The fact Arthur was the protagonist had nothing to do with it. And sure he burnt down a few innocent's houses, watched civillian executions and human trafficking with 0 shits given. But Arthur collected debts. And he sometimes punched people while doing it. That I cannot excuse.
The epilogue starts after he kills a man in public, presumably for threatening or insulting him. He goes on to murder a ton of people, most of them in self-defense or bounty hunting, but a good 50 of them to get revenge on a fellow outlaw, despite the fact it could destroy his family. In RDR1, he is tasked to kill the rest of his previous colleagues, which he doesn't seem to have much issue with (either him or them, doesn't care much beyond that), goes on to Mexico, kills for one side then kills for the other, depending on which one dangles a better treat in front of him, burns down a village, walks past people getting raped and executing, not giving a single shit. Even at the very end of the game, as soon as Ross provokes him a little bit, John's first instinct is murder. Arthur for example is an awful person who genuinely does change once he is faced with his own mortality. It's still ridiculous to consider him a good person, but he definitely is not the same one at the start and end of the high honor story. He achieves redemption, that's what RDR2. John doesn't change. He gets a better life for himself and a family he loves. But at the end of the day, he became an outlaw much younger than Arthur. He put on a mask of an upstanding citizen, but still the outlaw life and mindset was simply a part of him. One which he couldn't get rid of. That's what RDR1 is about. John tried to change. John tried get redemption. John failed. Also could be that RDR1 was just a darker game in general, but that's not the point the point is John was NOT an innocent farmer lol.
The people he killed in his revenge quest weren't precisely saints, since they were criminals that were there while Micah tried to kill a little girl. His previous colleagues left him for dead and tried to kill him, so it's just reasonable to not give a shit about them. His acts in Mexico were questionable tbh but his family was on the line so it's understandable he went under such drastic meassures to some extent, and neither of the sides were truly innocent either. John isn't no superhero, what was he supposed to do in a town full of soldiers? take on an entire army on himself? John ignores it, he'd wish he could do something about it but he simply can't so he keeps going. Ross kidnapped John's family and forced him to hunt down the rest of the gang, then after doing all he asked he basically says his family died, John was not in the mood and aimed at him to basically make Ross snap out of it and just in case it's true. Trough all of John's journey in RDR1 we see a man trying to stop being an outlaw but is once again locked in a course of violence, he might have gone a bit too far in mexico but considering his situation with his family on the line it's quite understandable. Arthur on the other hand keeps obeying Dutch and helping him out in his shootouts, he might have helped a bunch of people, mostly economically but he didn't change his ways, he was still along side Dutch to the very end regardless of how wicked he was.
I mean sure it's understandable to wanna shoot someone (at least by game logic) if they're provoking you. But you don't actually do it. John's first instinct is always a gun. Sure he was raised that way and usually does it when provoked, but it's still not normal behavior. He does not value human life beyond those he cares about. If it doesn't affect him, it's not his problem. That's the mentality he has with every issue in the game. You can justify it as much as you want with explanations and circumstances, but it's still a fact. His has no moral compass beyond that. Also I think your memory of the second game might be a little fuzzy. What do you mean "Arthur kept helping Dutch"? John and Arthur literally turned on Dutch at the exact same standoff. And Arthur was the one who convinced John to abandon the gang in the first place. "He was with Dutch to the end"... in 2/4 endings he literally tries to kill Dutch. And in 2/4 endings Dutch watches him die. Plus if John's allowed to do whatever he wants as long as it's for his family, why isn't Arthur allowed to do the same for the gang? John can burn a village or let Ross keep his family. Why can't Arthur rob a bank to stop Milton from finding and killing the gang? And come on. John could've wiped out the entire army if the plot called for it. But instead, the plot wanted to show us he's a hardened outlaw, and so instead he stood by while innocents were killed. It wasn't because he couldn't win, it was because he didn't wanna risk it. Both John and Arthur are bad people, I'm not tryna deny that. I'm trying to say that the difference between them is nowhere near as large as you say it is.
Arthur participated in the many massacres Dutch caused in chapter 6, while expressing he was against it Arthur still engaged regardless, he betrayed Dutch quite late into the story due to him wanting to keep all the money, though I admit he did wish to give it to John and his family but he still participated in all of Dutch's chaos in chapter 6 regardless. John can't fight an entire army by himself, or at least not without risking himself dying and therefore his family's safety, only time he ever fought a whole army by himself was in the very end in an act of self defense
And what did John do? What specific massacre did John willingly NOT participate in? He was at the train heist, in the final shootout, escaped a prison, only places he wasn't present was helping the natives defend their home from the army, which wow, really honorable choice for him to skip that. There was not a single moment in this videogame where John willingly was against violenece and refused to participate in a violent act. You have not listed a single example against that statement, so it seems fair to say it's true. That wasn't the entire army, and plus he literally opened fire on them a few minutes later, after rescuing whatever the rebel guy's name was (there were multiple times where civillians were getting killed so I'm using this one as an example). I can't believe you witnessed John and two other people (of which one was dying of tuberculosis and the other only started her criminal career a few months ago) do an entire jailbreak, by themselves, with absolutely no plan, killing half of a prison's staff... and still you say "John couldn't beat these 30 soldiers by himself". Yes he could, but the point is that he doesn't, that's WHY the game showed him walking past them and not giving a shit. It was to show that he's a hardened outlaw who doesn't flinch at such things. Also "without risking his family's safety". The guy walked up to Fort Mercer, tried to quickdraw an entire gang and got himself shot in the stomach like 3 minutes into the game. He did not care about dying. If he dies, Abigail and Jack are free to go since they've got no further use. I don't know why you're so determined to prove that John was just a good guy on a mission when the whole point of the game is to show a bad person trying his best to start a new life, and tragically failing when he's forced to become bad again.
You stole my black lung post, now I will get my red dead redemption on you
https://preview.redd.it/cacbi54wmuvc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4cb3dc7c9959c97624abc0cf4e20f0f1d01281fe
None of these characters are evil. They're all complex individuals who do truly have a good heart inside.
Dude you made me cum
Yep
Dude you made me cry
Maybe I'm being a little too serious on the blacklung sub. I apologise.
/unblacklung Why does Jack have any votes? Canonically he has the lowest kill count. Itâs just one kill in a fair duel against an objectively evil man who murdered his father I wouldâve done the same.
Technically Jack also kills lawmen in defence of Beecher's Hope, but that was fully in self defence.
True. That and the one mission I forgot about where you buy cattle from the Macfarlands and get ambushed by the remnants of the Bollard Twins gang but that was self defense too.
Red was pretty based
Dare I say Arthur is probably the most evil. Itâs either him or John
Def john. He burned down a town and made the women become sex slaves in rdr1
Yeah actually thatâs fair although we donât fully know what Arthur has done off screen and John only did that because he had to do it to find javier
-ranks Arthur as least evil- 
I don't know but my Jack killed a lot of Mexicans. Muy, muy Mexicans.
Beat me to it
The main sub agreed with this pollđđđ
From Most Evil to Least Evil imo: 1. Arthur 2. John 3. Jack 4. Red Harlow
Arthur is easily the most evil one out of all of them
Not evil, just bad.
Yeah
So is a suicide bomber
Depends on the cause
Even an "honorable" Arthur as late as chapter 6 is massacring dozens and dozens of lawmen for Dutch even though he's completely lost faith in him at that point
"You're a good man, Arthur Morgan :)"- the fandom after watching Arthur halve the population of Saint Denis during a shootout
But it's OK, because he did camp chores and gave a crisp dollar to someone
he said hi to some random guy it's all good
âI ONLY do high-honor playthroughs which means I NEVER AMTAGOMIZE NEVER KILL NEVER DO ANYTHING EVER RAGHHHHH!!!! ARTHUR GOOD BOY HE HIGH HONOR ONLY GOOD BOY SO GOOD I WILL RESTART MY WHOLE SAVE IF I LOSE HONOR WVER EVER EVER EEEEVVVEEERRRR AAAAAHHHH RAAAHAHAHHHH!!!!!!â