Why did Arthur, an outlaw murderer, lier, thief judged and attacked an old guy because he worked as a slave owner in the past?
Arthur is made to be a very smart man but here he acts like a complete brainlet and yet doesn't think something like "wew, maybe my own job isn't much better than slave owning, I should probably just mind my own business then".
He may be a murderer but he sure ain't a damn racist
It's because they have to keep in mind the audience they are making this game for.
Newsflash: everywhere else on the world outside Any Forums owning slaves is bad. Just because Arthur is pretty bad, doesn't mean others can't be worse.
What? That's player driven.
Same thing happens in prison.
A nigger that kills and robs and sells drugs is going to act all self righteous with pedos.
>bigots are still whining because Arthur isn't scum like they are
not putting a darkie to work or down is no different than murder
left to his own devices, a nigger will always cause harm
Im on Any Forums and I think owning slaves is bad? But how is killing innocent ppl not worse than slave owning? My ancestors were enslaved. i'd rather be enslaved than murdered like a dog and rot in rabbit's shit somewhere in the woods
>hmmmmm I wonder why did person that hates the government, hates being authority and considers freedom to be above everything in life doesn't like the concept of slavery in 1900
He didn't attack him?
Those nasty, ebil bigots can't relate to Arthur, but murderer lowlives can, very honorable, le bigots owned!
So are you implying most of the cowboy outlawed gangs in the late 19th century cried for slave rights?
I'm implying that you're being deliberately retarded.
Red dead was semi based. It's a game made by negros for negros but it made trannies seethe so much when arthur and that one hoe kept "misgendering" the guy who wanted to call himself margaret
Dutch's gang specifically is all about liberty. They want to go to TAHITI for MANGOES and getting the fuck away from civilization and authority. It'd be completely hypocritical to be OK with slaves, and clearly the gang is okay with black members.
All the same, killing the slave catcher is a choice you can make. You don't have to do anything to him.
Based.
vgh dutch the trve chaotic evil character of our age........
Fucking kek, he looks like a tranny 41% Any Forums meme
Its just forced virtue signaling
I think they cut up the story a little during the delays, the writing is inconsistent.
Arthur could go west at one point, he has journal entries and dialog for it still in the game
you're so close to understanding the point of that sidequest, and yet incredibly far
i've got a plan you guys just trust me
That's the point of the game.
The entire gang is a band of hypocrites that ameliorate their evils by playing at being good-hearted villains.
Even the beginning of the game sets that up with the "We're bad men, but we ain't them" line.
He's an evil person for everything that he's done, but at least he can look down at someone, the slave catcher, and defer judgement to him instead.
You get +honor if you kill him
Have some awareness. I doubt anyone here would say American Slavery was a good decision for the future of America.
rockstar is gay, they should keep copying movies and not make their own
la noire is the only time they had a gram of nuance
The Age of Enlightenment and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Reminder that the Jew that Arthur kicked out of the gang was named after the CEO of TakeTwo.
Òooòo ameliorate ooòoooooooo
Cringe
Americans write their protagonists as murderous criminals but they hate racism so it’s ok
Dutch and his gang were anarchists plain and simple. He continues this ideology with his gang of indians in rdr1.
Dutch was a fool in charge of bigger fools. His act of sophistication was a larp, one a guy like Micah saw right though and used to his advantage.
Subpar writing, and a houser cliche. It's Gary, Dmitri, Smoke, Lance all over again. It was interesting the first few times. Not anymore.
and i get +honor for saying hello to a bunch of people after i tie up black people and throw them on train tracks.
so what?
>character in a historical or fictional setting, suspiciously holds opinions that coincide with what their writers believe, even if they don't make sense in context
It's really crazy how this keeps happening. What's the common theme here? Could it be hack writers?
>haha lol I actually just wanted to be retarded
I forget that most the people on this shithole site are actually underage.
Daily reminder that abolition wasn't because people were "anti-racist" or loved black people or thought blacks were equal to whites, it was because there were a minority of slave owners who physically abused and mutilated their slaves, and they were mostly religious.
The concept of someone who wasn't a racist during that time is a modern leftist creation.
Also "Harriet Tubman" wasn't an actual real person, it was a fictional character that was created to build support for abolition.
Wasn't it more of a political move by the North to fuck up Southern industry?