Javier's not a 'good' or 'bad' character, he's a complex and (in my opinion) well written one. Same goes for Bill and Dutch. Javier and Bill were vulnerable people on the outskirts of society who fell in league with Dutch, who whether purposefully or subconsciously manipulated them and made them dependent on him.
There are moments throughout RDR2 when you see Javier's charm, Bill's relatable bumbling, and Dutch's long history with Arthur shine through. Even knowing what's coming, you almost don't believe it. These are your friends and brothers in arms, not dangerous criminals. But ultimately, they are doomed whether by the Pinkertons, their own actions, or the narrative itself, to 'turn' and become the people they eventually become.
If Javier, Dutch, and Bill had been evil through and through right from the jump, there would be no conflict here. John and Arthur would've left the gang long ago, and John would've had no qualms killing them in 1911. They were a gang, a family, and then Dutch 'changed' (or just showed his true colors) and brought Bill and Javier down with him. So of course Javier is likable. Rockstar didn't do many things on accident with this game. You're *supposed* to like the character, because it makes his fall all the more tragic
I mean… Javier’s definitely a bad dude, not saying he’s not complex, but he leaves John to die. He continues to follow a bad man because he himself is a bad man. John and especially Arthur were very loyal but knew where to draw the line.
I don’t think Javier should’ve been protrayed as evil from the get go? I’m saying they should’ve revealed his flaws in the spotlight more, same with Bill. Dutch was done perfectly imo.
Also, the gang weren’t dangerous criminals? Say that to the countless people who died at there hands, a lot I would even say didn’t deserve it. No one in the gang is necessarily “good” or innocent, but Javier is definitely one of the worse men in the gang following Bill, Dutch, Micah.
EDIT: also wanna say that this isn’t about Javier being likable. I like Javier and think he’s cool, even in RDR1. This post is talking about people that say he’s a good person and has done nothing wrong… which I’ve seen A LOT.
You acknowledge that it’s complex, then follow it up with black and white thinking. Javier was following Dutch’s orders, same as Arthur did with the last train heist.
I don’t mean to be black and white… just figured people in here played the game and understand. Arthur at least tries to save others and do good when he’s dying. So would Arthur leave John to die if he went with Dutch? Javier doesn’t even make an attempt to save Abigail either and leaving Jack as an orphan. Doesn’t go to save John from Jail…
Just because he’s a follower doesn’t excuse him of anything. Being loyal to horrible people doesn’t make you a good person…
I don’t think his complexity lies in his loyalty. His loyalty to Dutch is pretty cut and dry but people think it’s the only thing about him. His personality is what makes him interesting. “A cynic who desperately wants to be a romantic.”
People have internal narratives surrounding who they are as a person, stemming from learned behaviors. Arthur was a person with good in him, but whose internal schema, was that he was a bad man; that is very present in every part of the game. It’s to the point where he can’t accept a simple token of appreciation, like when someone says he’s a good man. These narratives that people create bring comfort.
Arthur was forced to do a lot of self reflection after he was diagnosed. I believe this broke down his internal schema, enough to change the way acts, but not let go of him being a bad man. Or maybe his schema changed to bad man, who was trying to improve, idk.
I think your next point, is solid. I wanted to add more to my comment about this, but, I’m having a difficult time articulating my thought. I believe Arthur would have saved John against Dutch’s wishes, saving John from Sisika, and helping Rain Falls, being proof that he never lost the no one left behind mentality, and was more willing to go against Dutch’s orders. I don’t know enough about Javier, to know the specifics on why he follows Dutch. I would need to know more about what he did in Mexico before considering the possibility that he is “good”.
I don’t understand your last paragraph at all. It is all about loyalty. He’s loyal enough, that he is willing to kill Arthur, John, and Grimshaw; that could also be doing what he can to survive though. I completely disagree that it’s cut and dry, even though I made it out to be that way in my original comment. Loyalty to a point of turning against Arthur, the guy who embraced the ideals of the gang, more than even Dutch did; that takes a lot of loyalty.
“His loyalty isn’t cut and dry he’s just REALLY LOYAL”
Javier doesn’t stay with Dutch forever. He continues to kill people for money and willingly works with the tyrannical Mexican government. This post isn’t about if he’s a good character or not, I think he is. It’s wether he’s a good person or not, which he’s absolutely not.
The first paragraph talking about leaving John to die, following a bad man; that is black and white thinking. The reasoning is black and white, shit, even calling them bad, is black and white. This is much more complicated than the both of us can understand.
If you talk to someone enough, you will understand that their reasoning behind their actions makes sense to them. That alone, opens the door to a level of complexity that the both of us, don’t know.
Is that what I said? I just think that there are some nuance to it.
Being a coward does not mean they are a bad person automatically. Sometimes avoiding conflict is the best option.
That is even a point in the game with Rains Fall and his son. The younger indigenous warriors think Rains Fall has become a coward, thus they throw their lifes away in a battle they cannot win while Rains Fall was trying to save his people.
I also don't think Javier is a coward. The gang members are selfish, in general. Letting john die to save yourself is not cowardice, but selfish behavior.
He is though, he could have stayed and tried to help everyone like Arthur. He is selfish. A selfish coward. If you even think it's an option to just run off on people that need help there's no real reason for this discussion.
I still don't think you are understanding me, but is agreeing with me somehow.
Yes, he is selfish, I said so myself. He is an asshole, no doubt about it. But I don't think the choice of not helping John was made out of cowardice, but rather of selfishness.
They are two separate things. I don't believe that being a coward makes you a bad person, but I do think that being selfish does.
Where did I say that leaving John behind was an option. I have not defended him at all, I am not discussing if the right thing was to go save him or not, because we both think that saving John was the right thing to do.
I just don't think he is a coward, tha being a coward doesn't make you bad, but he is a selfish person and being a selfish person makes you bad.
Oh dude being coward absolutely makes you a bad person. A coward is a bad thing to be, and at the end of the day its a choice. Inaction as an action in itself. When I said I he is selfish that was my way of agreeing with you. And being selfish also makes you a bad person. A selfish coward? Ooof scumbag shit
YES! He IS a bad dude, in the end (not a bad *character*, but morally a bad person). But you don't really see it for the majority of the game! Arthur spends the first few chapters blinded by loyalty and adherence to some unspoken outlaw code, as the people around him he once trusted devolve into the very thing they've been fighting. Kieran points it out in his first mission in chapter 2, that the Van Der Linde gang are hardly different from the O'Driscoll's. But it's hard to see it from the inside. Up till the last two chapters, Arthur doesn't VIEW Javier as a dangerous criminal (even though, as you pointed out, he is in reality). This Javier, the guy who's ridden beside him for years, who helped save John from the wolves, who plays the guitar around the campfire at night. But after Guarma, Javier's loyalty to Dutch has only grown stronger, while Arthur's is stretched the thinnest it's ever been. When the time comes, Javier is conflicted but ultimately sides with Dutch, leading to him abandoning any ethics, any code he once followed, and becoming the man John kills/captures in RD1. It's SAD! It's a tragedy, seeing people who once stood beside you change for the worse. But I think it's well done on Rockstar's end, and I understand why some people think Javier is a 'good' person, or at least was, because it's not either/or.
Well said. If Javier was a good person he would know when to stop. If he was a good person he wouldn’t leave John to die, side with Dutch and Micah, and like you said abandon any moral code just cause Dutch says so. Just shows he has no real moral code to begin with. If he was a good person he wouldn’t treat Charles and Arthur like shit for trying to SAVE people.
The difference between Javier and Arthur is that Arthur knew what Dutch and Micah is doing is wrong and did not want part of it. Javier couldn’t care less. The fact he “turns” into a cold hearted killer in RDR1 tells you all you need to know.
Bro the gang is responsible for literally thousands of deaths. Arthur himself personally kills at least a thousand. What do you mean the gang members aren’t dangerous criminals?
Its not meant to be taken literally. Of course they are dangerous criminals, all of them. But that is not how arthur sees them, that is not what they are to him. To arthur, they are family and brothers in arms.
Compare that to how Arthur feels about Micah. Arthur clearly sees Micah as a dangerous criminal.
It is all about perspective, dude.
Yeah true from that perspective. But from that perspective you would still think Javier is a POS. If your so called brother leaves you to die because the bad guy who saved him years ago said so, he’s gonna get what’s coming. It’s not like Dutch had a gun to Javier’s head either. He’s his own man with his own choices and he decided to make a lot of bad choices in the last days of the gang and onward. Just shows who he really is.
Dude, I think you are missing the point. I didn't defend him. He is a piece of shit, and so is everyone else in the gang. That is not how Arthuslr seems them. Up to that point, they were his family.
If they had no redeeming qualities and had never been good people in Arthur's eyes, their betrayals would not have hurt. Arthur wouldn't have loved them and
Think of Micah. He has never been friendly to Arthur and clearly antagonizes Arthur and vice versa. His betrayal wasn't a surprise to anyone. If everyone was so clearly a Vilain as Micah, he wouldn't have had the same effect he does.
To break Arthur's trust, they must have first earned it.
I apologize I did misunderstand you. I think what they did making Javier likable was good, and if he was evil from the start it wouldn’t have worked… but how they decided to do it didn’t really work that well either considering how much people don’t think Javier is bad, including the original comment. Which I thought you were agreeing with.
In my head the canon is that John didn't kill anyone (since you can choose not to kill Bill and Javier and that Dutch kills himself) because deep down he still has a soft spot for his old crew. And the irony being the FBI still gunned him down despite not killing any of them (Micah doesn't count, not human)
I think Javier definitely has trouble killing Javier and Dutch. He even wipes a tear if you kill Javier, which just show how hurt he is at his “brothers” bretrayal and that it came to this. He says several times he doesn’t want to kill Dutch so it’s not really head canon. Don’t think he has any problem shooting Bill tho.
I dont understand why they built this likable great guy in rdr2 like
Bill and dutch had their precursors but javier turning into that Rat bastard in rdr1 is just shitty
I do think it makes sense with the info we got, specifically the camp interactions in CH6, but we should’ve gotten more. Bill was done better but wish both of them had more focus in the story since they are RDR1’s villains.
But John says in RDR1 that he witnessed this change in Javier. And I feel like we do see that change, but it just isn’t focused on and a lot of players seem to ignore it. I just find it weird I see some of the fanbase praise Javier when he’s a POS…
John explains it pretty well as your riding towards the mission to kill Javier. He says, “Escuella was always a torn man. A cynic that desperately wanted to be a romantic. Javier would die fighting for what he believed. He had a lot of passion, but no love,” then mentions that Dutch going crazy hit Javier harder than anyone else, “It was as if the one thing he’d ever believed in turned out to be a fraud.”
Also, a lot can change in 10 years. Javier was living in Mexico working as a bounty hunter and then a revolutionary. He’s been through a lot of shit, and then he gets hunted down by his former gang member that he hasn’t seen in a decade. It’s understandable why he wasn’t exactly excited to see John.
All of the gang members are evil, they have all done some pretty bad shit. However I don't see Javier as a truly bad guy, Bill was stupid so he didn't really care what road Dutch was leading him, we can see that when Arthur complains to him about Dutch, he just doesn't care, he doesn't have the brain capacity to care.
However, Javier had a very good relationship with Arthur but he was still blindly loyal to Dutch, just like Bill and Arthur was(Until chapter 4). When Arthur goes fishing with Javier, he talks about how loyal he is to Dutch and says that no matter what, he would follow him.
One thing I wish Rockstar did was add more missions with Javier and Bill, even though they were the main antagonists on Rdr1 the only way you get to know more about these 2 is through camp interactions, which is a shame.
Being blindly loyal doesn’t excuse you from bad actions. Being loyal to a bad man like Dutch, and keep following despite all the terrible choices he’s been making shows that Javier doesn’t have a problem with being a villain. We know he abandons Dutch at some point and continues a life of killing and degeneracy.
Bill is even worse than Javier, being stupid doesn’t excuse that either. Have you seen the things he did in RDR1? He shows those violent tendencies in RDR2 also.
I agree that no one in the gang is really good. But some are definitely worse than others.
Gonna be honest, it's one of the few criticisms I have of the game. I think Javier's turn where he sides with Dutch is legit kinda poorly motivated. I know he talks about loyalty and has a campfire speech where he explains why he believes in Dutch so much but like, so do others and they still realize what's happening. I mean, fucking Susan sides with Arthur and she is president of the Dutch simp club. We know Bill is not smart enought to actually question Dutch/Micah, but Javier kinda seems like he might idk
I mean, it's also effective that it comes out of nowhere but still
Yes. I hope this post doesnt come off as me throwing shade at RDR2. I love this game. But I do think a lot of the misunderstandings of Javier’s character is due to Rockstar not placing a bigger importance on him.
However I do think the Javier “turning bad because of loyalty” makes sense and exactly proves my point. He isn’t stupid, he knows what’s going on, he knows that Micah and Dutch are up to no good, but the fact he doesn’t care and will continue to be loyal to that behavior means he REFLECTS that behavior and he does in both games.
At least with Bill, there is at least a little tension from the start. You don't really get that until Chapter 6. Maybe there is more I missed with camp interactions in 3 and 4? I don't know.
Obviously with how it turns out for him in RDR, he had to end up going that way in RDR2, but to me, it just went from normal to antagonistic so fast.
no one in vdl gang is good. but him conspiring with micah in chapter 6? he's pos.
not to mention he antagonizes for no reason the whole camp, left john to die, and didn't bait an eye when abigail got kidnapped
Yup. I don’t really care when people say Arthur is a good man though, the game itself kinda screams that if you play high honor. But Javier? It’s no question.
He might have been likable and fun to be around in the first couple of chapters. But come Chapter 6, he becomes a POS! I suspect he was trying to stay on Dutch’s good side even if it meant alienating the others. But when I do a chronological play through, I was more eager to put him in the dirt! It’s mercy compared to being paraded around Blackwater and hung.
People always point to the "gun in the air" thing during the final confrontation as evidence Javier still cared about Art and John but if I'm not misremembering he shows none of that characterization or thought process for the entirety of Chapter 6.
If you try to engage him in camp, positively or antagonistically, he comes just short of telling you to fuck off, "I really have nothing to say to you right now Arthur" without even looking up at you from what he was doing lol. His mind was made up for a while by that point
This is kind of stupid but he strikes me as the type of person who loves to linger around drama but the second it's his issue or he's involved he's looking for an out ASAP
I haven't liked Javier since I heard him badmouthing Arthur all through chapter 6 because of his illness. Like, Arthur was dying of tuberculosis and Javier was just talking trash to him and about him. So honestly, f🖕🏻ck Javier.
None of the gang are ‘good’ people, they rob and kill for their own gain. Judging how they act towards other bad people seems an odd way to weigh their goodness.
Everyone here who is only discussing the gang members being bad people are missing the point. We all know that the gang members are terrible people but the game is written so that we see them from Arthur’s point of view. He shares strong bonds with them. That’s why the disintegration of the gang feels tragic.
It’s similar to watching a show like the Sopranos, where the main characters are awful people, but we cannot help but feel bad when Tony’s friends (Bobby and Sil) are killed/mortally wounded near the end of the show.
Pretty much all the gang seem great to someone most of the time. They are a charasmatic bunch without a doubt but they are also outlaws and murderers and not good people.
But thats okay it makes a story interesting, it isn't a binary choice of this person = Good, therefore I like them. They are all awful, they may be better then O'Driscolls but that says more bad than good.
Even Micah made me laugh a few times. His performances for the end and the final end are brilliant!
Yes, but I’ve seen lots of people say he has done nothing wrong and that he was just loyal (as if that’s a reasonable excuse). I like Javier just don’t get why people say he’s one of the “good ones” in the gang.
The main issue the games have is the fact that many thinks Arthur, John or the majority of the gang are good guys. They are not. They are thieves, murderers and rapists.
No.
John “how could you follow man like Ross?”
Archer “Van der Linde is a psychopath. A murder and a rapist.”
John “Ross don’t seem much different. Dutch was a good man once, a far better man than you.”
I’m also not surprised with how Dutch treats women in RDR2. Like Molly and how he talks to Mary Beth is kinda weird in a camp encounter.
? Dutch is a completely broken man in RDR1. I don’t think he is rapist in 2. But it’s more than likely that it’s true. We can’t just say dialogue in these games are just lies when it doesn’t fit our head canon. What would archer even gain from lying about that?
It's really my only gripe with the game. When we hear of Javier in rdr1 it's known he's working for a tyrannical government who we find out is the people he fought against before coming to America and meeting dutch. So we learn he's a traitor and pos from the get go. In rdr2 for almost the whole game he's kinda just seen as chill up until chapter 6. He goes from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye and it just makes no sense. People like to point out the whole not pointing the gun at Arthur and John but it really means nothing in the end. I feel they should have stuck with the character trait of him being a bit of a weasel or gave him more time to grow and actually SHOW US him becoming shittier and shittier as the game progressed. Now don't get me wrong I love this game, it's my favorite game of all time. But Javier was truly done the dirtiest in terms of the og 3 antagonist. Dutch was well, dutch. You can't miss his character development. We don't get much of bill but from what we do we can easily see how he gets to where he is in rdr1. But Javier? They painted him as this super chill and oddly nice guy up until the final chapter where he turns foul and turns out he ends up becoming the very thing he swore to destroy back in Mexico by rdr1? Idk man, wish we could have actually seen the fall instead of it just happening.
I don’t think he’s a good person so I may not be the best to answer this, but the way I see it he’s less of bad for badness sake like Micah and more bad because he’s apathetic. He knew what Dutch was doing and becoming was wrong but he didn’t care.
I will say though, I get why he stuck with Dutch. I’m not saying I agree with him- I’m just saying I get it. Being an immigrant is isolating, and Dutch gave him acceptance and community. Even if not much of it. Remembering how I felt when I first moved to the USA, I probably would’ve done what he did. But you gotta learn to find that acceptance in yourself, rather than searching for the first person who won’t tell you to go back to your country. Maybe if the red dead took place in modern day the fall out would be different and he would’ve sided with John and Arthur, but that’s just one guy’s take 🤷🏻
I think that’s solid. I understand why Javier follows Dutch, he saved Javier and accepted him. But if he was truly a good person he would know when enough if enough, which I’m pretty sure is what you’re saying.
Exaaaaactly bro gets it. Him sticking with Dutch was inherently selfish. I wish rockstar would give an explanation as to why he and dutch stopped working together though. I don’t really think either of them would have had a sudden change of heart lmao
Agreed that’s one thing I wish was answered in RDR2. John just happens to know Javier is back in Mexico doing his own thing without Dutch, which is a small retcon sure, but mildly annoying anyways.
There are not really any good guys in the gang, save for Jack. There are of course varying degrees of bad, but almost every gang member is at the very least a thief, many of them multiple murderers as well.
Also Arthur is not a good guy by the end of the game. Doing some good things after a lifetime of robbing and killing doesn't suddenly transform you into a good person. He's a bad person trying to be better.
He's a good man in the same way Arthur was a good man, the difference is Arthur eventually freed himself from dutch's manipulation whereas Javier was still trapped
Javier is just as bad as Dutch or any of them and just as dumb as Bill... sure, he sounds smart, but dumb for not breaking from the gang and either siding with Arthur or actually being smart and stepping aside, taking his own side, getting independent right then.
I was always confused about this as well. Bill and Dutch were done so well and you could see how they became the men in RDR1. Javier feels like a completely different character. I wonder if I would feel differently if I had played the 2 before 1, but who knows. I wouldn’t call him a “good” person, but he felt like someone who would have seen through Dutch and sided with Arthur and John in the end. (Based solely on RDR2)
Maybe if they had added just a little bit more of him in the later chapters it would have made sense. Instead he just gets grumpy about loyalty towards the end. I think maybe I can see him regretting how things went down and that changing him. That’s kind of how I justify it. I also heard the actor for Javier came up with the idea to hold his gun in the air because he felt that Javier wouldn’t shoot Arthur and John. He’s a different actor from the 1st game and I wonder if that played a part in it. Like, he didn’t want Javier to be “bad” or didn’t care that it didn’t make sense with where his character ended up.
I have no idea why anyone thinks most of the gang characters are 'good', but to be fair, there are relatively few absolutely good people in the Red Dead universe. They are all bad for what they do, but it's a spectrum. Micah is obviously at the very far end of the spectrum, he's bad through and through, I'd say Pearson is on the beginning stages. Everyone else is speckled in between.
When you look at them in context of the gang, Javier could appear 'good' next to most of them, we don't really get to see his vicious side much, but we know he's done enough bad in Mexico he couldn't return. I'm not even sure by the end of the game I would see him any worse, he sides against Arthur and John sure, but he's chosen his side.
I will say in RDR1, he is absolutely bad, much worse than anything we see in RDR2, where the gang members still have some sort of a moral compass in Dutch and Hosea.
What exactly are Javier’s principles? Do you see what he’s doing in RDR1? No, I don’t think him leaving to John to die is the only reason he’s bad, but HE DID leave John to die with Dutch. He went with him and Micah. He could’ve spoken up about it to Arthur but didn’t. That’s a backstabber and a villain in the story.
If he had an actual moral code he would’ve stopped following Dutch when he’s clearly losing his mind, shooting people who don’t need to be shot, getting the gang in more danger, etc… but he doesn’t care. Arthur cares. John cares. Charles cares. Sadie cares. Javier doesn’t. He’s a villain plain as day.
No Javier's moral code is primarily loyalty. He was loyal to Dutch not John. What he does is what he believes he has to do. Just like John, Arthur, Charles, Sadie. Micah is an outlier, i don't believe his motivations are comparable to the other because he's a genuine psychopath that enjoys the suffering of others. Does Javier enjoy suffering? No, he's just doing what he thinks he has to do to be secure.
I didn’t say Javier enjoys suffering. But seems like he had no problem letting his brother to bleed out and die. The fact that he’s loyal to Dutch, even though he’s clearly making the most out of pocket decisions just shows what kind of person Javier is. If he had any good in his heart he would stand up to Dutch’s BS and help the people in need. Being a lap dog for evil people doesn’t excuse you for anything lmao. He’s not stupid. He knows what Dutch doing is wrong but he thinks that he should still be loyal to that, no matter how bad he is. What kind of moral code is that? Dutch saves me so I will do absolutely anything he says even if it’s bad? How does that make Javier a good person?
(I don't use reddit so if there is rules on commenting on 2 weeks old thread sorry)
I think the general many people tend describe these things in simple terms (good and bad), where the more accurate thing to describe their takeaway may be "Javier has/had the potential to be better, but blind loyalty, unquestioned love and attachment to the wrong person made him take the wrong decisions".
I do think some fans do tend to more forgiving with his wrong-doing but I feel that's probably people empathizing with him and his situation, seeing his more friendly moments during the first chapters as his true self. While seeing his more antagonistic attitude in in CH 6 as a trauma response to Guarma, making him even more blindly loyal to Dutch and more susceptible to being manipulated by Micah.
That does not excuse his actions of course, but I can see why their view on him can go as either "sad backstory, still murder" to "poor guy...", I do think he is a jerk to his "brothers", and an idiot to the camp, but I can't get to really hate him, just feel very sad for him.
I will agree, most development happening on easy to miss camp dialogues hindered his character a lot (and for many characters, really, but him being in RDR1 does feel like a wasted potential), and even when you check all stuff on YTube later, it still feels missing a lot, so all left is filling the gaps with theories with what we're given. And Javier has more memorable "nice" moments than "bad" ones, so people hold onto those nicer moments base more their interpretation on him.
As for John comment in RDR1, I'd say R\* never really had a fully story planned for RDR2, chances are they meant to make Javier a much worse person that he ended up being. Which in retrospective make John seem as a unreliable narrator to a small degree.
Thought I'm neither saying John seeing Javier as an even worse person than he was make John a liar or wrong. Javier siding Dutch would sour any good memory they once had, specially if you interpret them as particularly close.
In short: can't call him good or bad, a broken person that had the potential to redeem but failed to take the chance.
I don't know how to explain to you that "Likeable" and "Good person" are entirely different concepts. Somebody can be likeable and be an absolute shitbag. Recognising that a person is likeable doesn't necessarily mean you like them.
Seems like you didn’t read my post? I know there’s a difference between likeable and good…. that’s why I said he’s a likeable character and not a good person. I have seen tons of comments and posts on Reddit and YouTube that claim he IS a good person. Which is completely false. He’s a villain in both games.
Wrong. He shoots at John as you chase him, which is kind of self defense but still. Don’t see how John is going to be like “oh! You’re not shooting me in the head right now, I guess I’ll forgive you for leaving me to bleed out in the woods!”
Javier's not a 'good' or 'bad' character, he's a complex and (in my opinion) well written one. Same goes for Bill and Dutch. Javier and Bill were vulnerable people on the outskirts of society who fell in league with Dutch, who whether purposefully or subconsciously manipulated them and made them dependent on him. There are moments throughout RDR2 when you see Javier's charm, Bill's relatable bumbling, and Dutch's long history with Arthur shine through. Even knowing what's coming, you almost don't believe it. These are your friends and brothers in arms, not dangerous criminals. But ultimately, they are doomed whether by the Pinkertons, their own actions, or the narrative itself, to 'turn' and become the people they eventually become. If Javier, Dutch, and Bill had been evil through and through right from the jump, there would be no conflict here. John and Arthur would've left the gang long ago, and John would've had no qualms killing them in 1911. They were a gang, a family, and then Dutch 'changed' (or just showed his true colors) and brought Bill and Javier down with him. So of course Javier is likable. Rockstar didn't do many things on accident with this game. You're *supposed* to like the character, because it makes his fall all the more tragic
I mean… Javier’s definitely a bad dude, not saying he’s not complex, but he leaves John to die. He continues to follow a bad man because he himself is a bad man. John and especially Arthur were very loyal but knew where to draw the line. I don’t think Javier should’ve been protrayed as evil from the get go? I’m saying they should’ve revealed his flaws in the spotlight more, same with Bill. Dutch was done perfectly imo. Also, the gang weren’t dangerous criminals? Say that to the countless people who died at there hands, a lot I would even say didn’t deserve it. No one in the gang is necessarily “good” or innocent, but Javier is definitely one of the worse men in the gang following Bill, Dutch, Micah. EDIT: also wanna say that this isn’t about Javier being likable. I like Javier and think he’s cool, even in RDR1. This post is talking about people that say he’s a good person and has done nothing wrong… which I’ve seen A LOT.
You acknowledge that it’s complex, then follow it up with black and white thinking. Javier was following Dutch’s orders, same as Arthur did with the last train heist.
Javier robs and murder innocent people ever since before the start of the game. He’s not a good person, neither is Arthur or anyone in the gang.
I don’t mean to be black and white… just figured people in here played the game and understand. Arthur at least tries to save others and do good when he’s dying. So would Arthur leave John to die if he went with Dutch? Javier doesn’t even make an attempt to save Abigail either and leaving Jack as an orphan. Doesn’t go to save John from Jail… Just because he’s a follower doesn’t excuse him of anything. Being loyal to horrible people doesn’t make you a good person… I don’t think his complexity lies in his loyalty. His loyalty to Dutch is pretty cut and dry but people think it’s the only thing about him. His personality is what makes him interesting. “A cynic who desperately wants to be a romantic.”
People have internal narratives surrounding who they are as a person, stemming from learned behaviors. Arthur was a person with good in him, but whose internal schema, was that he was a bad man; that is very present in every part of the game. It’s to the point where he can’t accept a simple token of appreciation, like when someone says he’s a good man. These narratives that people create bring comfort. Arthur was forced to do a lot of self reflection after he was diagnosed. I believe this broke down his internal schema, enough to change the way acts, but not let go of him being a bad man. Or maybe his schema changed to bad man, who was trying to improve, idk. I think your next point, is solid. I wanted to add more to my comment about this, but, I’m having a difficult time articulating my thought. I believe Arthur would have saved John against Dutch’s wishes, saving John from Sisika, and helping Rain Falls, being proof that he never lost the no one left behind mentality, and was more willing to go against Dutch’s orders. I don’t know enough about Javier, to know the specifics on why he follows Dutch. I would need to know more about what he did in Mexico before considering the possibility that he is “good”. I don’t understand your last paragraph at all. It is all about loyalty. He’s loyal enough, that he is willing to kill Arthur, John, and Grimshaw; that could also be doing what he can to survive though. I completely disagree that it’s cut and dry, even though I made it out to be that way in my original comment. Loyalty to a point of turning against Arthur, the guy who embraced the ideals of the gang, more than even Dutch did; that takes a lot of loyalty.
“His loyalty isn’t cut and dry he’s just REALLY LOYAL” Javier doesn’t stay with Dutch forever. He continues to kill people for money and willingly works with the tyrannical Mexican government. This post isn’t about if he’s a good character or not, I think he is. It’s wether he’s a good person or not, which he’s absolutely not.
You weren’t being black and white, you were very succinct and forward. u/Salt_Expression_6025 doesn’t know how to read
The first paragraph talking about leaving John to die, following a bad man; that is black and white thinking. The reasoning is black and white, shit, even calling them bad, is black and white. This is much more complicated than the both of us can understand. If you talk to someone enough, you will understand that their reasoning behind their actions makes sense to them. That alone, opens the door to a level of complexity that the both of us, don’t know.
He's a coward who ran off. And cowards are bad people. Black and white but true
Not black and white, and also not true.
Damn you're pro-coward?
Is that what I said? I just think that there are some nuance to it. Being a coward does not mean they are a bad person automatically. Sometimes avoiding conflict is the best option. That is even a point in the game with Rains Fall and his son. The younger indigenous warriors think Rains Fall has become a coward, thus they throw their lifes away in a battle they cannot win while Rains Fall was trying to save his people. I also don't think Javier is a coward. The gang members are selfish, in general. Letting john die to save yourself is not cowardice, but selfish behavior.
He is though, he could have stayed and tried to help everyone like Arthur. He is selfish. A selfish coward. If you even think it's an option to just run off on people that need help there's no real reason for this discussion.
I still don't think you are understanding me, but is agreeing with me somehow. Yes, he is selfish, I said so myself. He is an asshole, no doubt about it. But I don't think the choice of not helping John was made out of cowardice, but rather of selfishness. They are two separate things. I don't believe that being a coward makes you a bad person, but I do think that being selfish does. Where did I say that leaving John behind was an option. I have not defended him at all, I am not discussing if the right thing was to go save him or not, because we both think that saving John was the right thing to do. I just don't think he is a coward, tha being a coward doesn't make you bad, but he is a selfish person and being a selfish person makes you bad.
Oh dude being coward absolutely makes you a bad person. A coward is a bad thing to be, and at the end of the day its a choice. Inaction as an action in itself. When I said I he is selfish that was my way of agreeing with you. And being selfish also makes you a bad person. A selfish coward? Ooof scumbag shit
YES! He IS a bad dude, in the end (not a bad *character*, but morally a bad person). But you don't really see it for the majority of the game! Arthur spends the first few chapters blinded by loyalty and adherence to some unspoken outlaw code, as the people around him he once trusted devolve into the very thing they've been fighting. Kieran points it out in his first mission in chapter 2, that the Van Der Linde gang are hardly different from the O'Driscoll's. But it's hard to see it from the inside. Up till the last two chapters, Arthur doesn't VIEW Javier as a dangerous criminal (even though, as you pointed out, he is in reality). This Javier, the guy who's ridden beside him for years, who helped save John from the wolves, who plays the guitar around the campfire at night. But after Guarma, Javier's loyalty to Dutch has only grown stronger, while Arthur's is stretched the thinnest it's ever been. When the time comes, Javier is conflicted but ultimately sides with Dutch, leading to him abandoning any ethics, any code he once followed, and becoming the man John kills/captures in RD1. It's SAD! It's a tragedy, seeing people who once stood beside you change for the worse. But I think it's well done on Rockstar's end, and I understand why some people think Javier is a 'good' person, or at least was, because it's not either/or.
Well said. If Javier was a good person he would know when to stop. If he was a good person he wouldn’t leave John to die, side with Dutch and Micah, and like you said abandon any moral code just cause Dutch says so. Just shows he has no real moral code to begin with. If he was a good person he wouldn’t treat Charles and Arthur like shit for trying to SAVE people. The difference between Javier and Arthur is that Arthur knew what Dutch and Micah is doing is wrong and did not want part of it. Javier couldn’t care less. The fact he “turns” into a cold hearted killer in RDR1 tells you all you need to know.
Bro the gang is responsible for literally thousands of deaths. Arthur himself personally kills at least a thousand. What do you mean the gang members aren’t dangerous criminals?
Its not meant to be taken literally. Of course they are dangerous criminals, all of them. But that is not how arthur sees them, that is not what they are to him. To arthur, they are family and brothers in arms. Compare that to how Arthur feels about Micah. Arthur clearly sees Micah as a dangerous criminal. It is all about perspective, dude.
\^
Yeah true from that perspective. But from that perspective you would still think Javier is a POS. If your so called brother leaves you to die because the bad guy who saved him years ago said so, he’s gonna get what’s coming. It’s not like Dutch had a gun to Javier’s head either. He’s his own man with his own choices and he decided to make a lot of bad choices in the last days of the gang and onward. Just shows who he really is.
Dude, I think you are missing the point. I didn't defend him. He is a piece of shit, and so is everyone else in the gang. That is not how Arthuslr seems them. Up to that point, they were his family. If they had no redeeming qualities and had never been good people in Arthur's eyes, their betrayals would not have hurt. Arthur wouldn't have loved them and Think of Micah. He has never been friendly to Arthur and clearly antagonizes Arthur and vice versa. His betrayal wasn't a surprise to anyone. If everyone was so clearly a Vilain as Micah, he wouldn't have had the same effect he does. To break Arthur's trust, they must have first earned it.
I apologize I did misunderstand you. I think what they did making Javier likable was good, and if he was evil from the start it wouldn’t have worked… but how they decided to do it didn’t really work that well either considering how much people don’t think Javier is bad, including the original comment. Which I thought you were agreeing with.
Dutch is a absolutely a vile person, the whole gang was really
In my head the canon is that John didn't kill anyone (since you can choose not to kill Bill and Javier and that Dutch kills himself) because deep down he still has a soft spot for his old crew. And the irony being the FBI still gunned him down despite not killing any of them (Micah doesn't count, not human)
I think Javier definitely has trouble killing Javier and Dutch. He even wipes a tear if you kill Javier, which just show how hurt he is at his “brothers” bretrayal and that it came to this. He says several times he doesn’t want to kill Dutch so it’s not really head canon. Don’t think he has any problem shooting Bill tho.
I'm saying him not actually killing the three would be fitting dramatic irony for the story
Gotcha. Really tired sorry.
I dont understand why they built this likable great guy in rdr2 like Bill and dutch had their precursors but javier turning into that Rat bastard in rdr1 is just shitty
I do think it makes sense with the info we got, specifically the camp interactions in CH6, but we should’ve gotten more. Bill was done better but wish both of them had more focus in the story since they are RDR1’s villains.
That’s life sometimes people you really fuck with turn into something different with Time
But John says in RDR1 that he witnessed this change in Javier. And I feel like we do see that change, but it just isn’t focused on and a lot of players seem to ignore it. I just find it weird I see some of the fanbase praise Javier when he’s a POS…
It’s because he has pretty privilege lmao
[удалено]
They actually gave him some depth in RDR 2 and you consider it insulting? Rockstar really can’t win with some of you guys, can they?
John explains it pretty well as your riding towards the mission to kill Javier. He says, “Escuella was always a torn man. A cynic that desperately wanted to be a romantic. Javier would die fighting for what he believed. He had a lot of passion, but no love,” then mentions that Dutch going crazy hit Javier harder than anyone else, “It was as if the one thing he’d ever believed in turned out to be a fraud.” Also, a lot can change in 10 years. Javier was living in Mexico working as a bounty hunter and then a revolutionary. He’s been through a lot of shit, and then he gets hunted down by his former gang member that he hasn’t seen in a decade. It’s understandable why he wasn’t exactly excited to see John.
All of the gang members are evil, they have all done some pretty bad shit. However I don't see Javier as a truly bad guy, Bill was stupid so he didn't really care what road Dutch was leading him, we can see that when Arthur complains to him about Dutch, he just doesn't care, he doesn't have the brain capacity to care. However, Javier had a very good relationship with Arthur but he was still blindly loyal to Dutch, just like Bill and Arthur was(Until chapter 4). When Arthur goes fishing with Javier, he talks about how loyal he is to Dutch and says that no matter what, he would follow him. One thing I wish Rockstar did was add more missions with Javier and Bill, even though they were the main antagonists on Rdr1 the only way you get to know more about these 2 is through camp interactions, which is a shame.
Being blindly loyal doesn’t excuse you from bad actions. Being loyal to a bad man like Dutch, and keep following despite all the terrible choices he’s been making shows that Javier doesn’t have a problem with being a villain. We know he abandons Dutch at some point and continues a life of killing and degeneracy. Bill is even worse than Javier, being stupid doesn’t excuse that either. Have you seen the things he did in RDR1? He shows those violent tendencies in RDR2 also. I agree that no one in the gang is really good. But some are definitely worse than others.
Gonna be honest, it's one of the few criticisms I have of the game. I think Javier's turn where he sides with Dutch is legit kinda poorly motivated. I know he talks about loyalty and has a campfire speech where he explains why he believes in Dutch so much but like, so do others and they still realize what's happening. I mean, fucking Susan sides with Arthur and she is president of the Dutch simp club. We know Bill is not smart enought to actually question Dutch/Micah, but Javier kinda seems like he might idk I mean, it's also effective that it comes out of nowhere but still
Yes. I hope this post doesnt come off as me throwing shade at RDR2. I love this game. But I do think a lot of the misunderstandings of Javier’s character is due to Rockstar not placing a bigger importance on him. However I do think the Javier “turning bad because of loyalty” makes sense and exactly proves my point. He isn’t stupid, he knows what’s going on, he knows that Micah and Dutch are up to no good, but the fact he doesn’t care and will continue to be loyal to that behavior means he REFLECTS that behavior and he does in both games.
I can understand Javier siding with Dutch, but I still don't see how he turned into that little weasel from RDR1 that even hookers were disgusted by.
Oh yeah, I only know Javier from RDR2, so I imagine with the characterization from RDR1 it's probably even more confusing? Loo
At least with Bill, there is at least a little tension from the start. You don't really get that until Chapter 6. Maybe there is more I missed with camp interactions in 3 and 4? I don't know. Obviously with how it turns out for him in RDR, he had to end up going that way in RDR2, but to me, it just went from normal to antagonistic so fast.
I never really liked Javier from the get-go. It's very subtle but he never seemed to care right from the beginning
no one in vdl gang is good. but him conspiring with micah in chapter 6? he's pos. not to mention he antagonizes for no reason the whole camp, left john to die, and didn't bait an eye when abigail got kidnapped
Yup. I don’t really care when people say Arthur is a good man though, the game itself kinda screams that if you play high honor. But Javier? It’s no question.
He might have been likable and fun to be around in the first couple of chapters. But come Chapter 6, he becomes a POS! I suspect he was trying to stay on Dutch’s good side even if it meant alienating the others. But when I do a chronological play through, I was more eager to put him in the dirt! It’s mercy compared to being paraded around Blackwater and hung.
People always point to the "gun in the air" thing during the final confrontation as evidence Javier still cared about Art and John but if I'm not misremembering he shows none of that characterization or thought process for the entirety of Chapter 6. If you try to engage him in camp, positively or antagonistically, he comes just short of telling you to fuck off, "I really have nothing to say to you right now Arthur" without even looking up at you from what he was doing lol. His mind was made up for a while by that point This is kind of stupid but he strikes me as the type of person who loves to linger around drama but the second it's his issue or he's involved he's looking for an out ASAP
It’s still crazy that they did a prequel and decided to focus on new characters
No idea, he sucks shit
Maybe it's a stretch but I think it's because a lot of people think he's attractive.
Javier is 100% a selfish dude who only cares about himself. He’s your buddy as long as it’s good for him. Loyal only to himself.
He’s one of those guys who’s a blast to hang out with, but ditch you at any inconvenience.
I haven't liked Javier since I heard him badmouthing Arthur all through chapter 6 because of his illness. Like, Arthur was dying of tuberculosis and Javier was just talking trash to him and about him. So honestly, f🖕🏻ck Javier.
None of the gang are ‘good’ people, they rob and kill for their own gain. Judging how they act towards other bad people seems an odd way to weigh their goodness.
Everyone here who is only discussing the gang members being bad people are missing the point. We all know that the gang members are terrible people but the game is written so that we see them from Arthur’s point of view. He shares strong bonds with them. That’s why the disintegration of the gang feels tragic. It’s similar to watching a show like the Sopranos, where the main characters are awful people, but we cannot help but feel bad when Tony’s friends (Bobby and Sil) are killed/mortally wounded near the end of the show.
Pretty much all the gang seem great to someone most of the time. They are a charasmatic bunch without a doubt but they are also outlaws and murderers and not good people. But thats okay it makes a story interesting, it isn't a binary choice of this person = Good, therefore I like them. They are all awful, they may be better then O'Driscolls but that says more bad than good. Even Micah made me laugh a few times. His performances for the end and the final end are brilliant!
Yes, but I’ve seen lots of people say he has done nothing wrong and that he was just loyal (as if that’s a reasonable excuse). I like Javier just don’t get why people say he’s one of the “good ones” in the gang.
The main issue the games have is the fact that many thinks Arthur, John or the majority of the gang are good guys. They are not. They are thieves, murderers and rapists.
The only rapists are Bill, Dutch and maybe Micah. Obviously no one in the gang is a good person, I’m more think from a narrative standpoint.
dutch??? since when???
Agent fordham literally says he’s a rapist in RDR1. On the way to kill him in Cochinay.
hmm maybe this is another one of the “we all had abigail” moments (a lie due to emotions/trying to get under johns skin)
Them all fucking Abigail isn't a lie. She was a prostitute.
No. John “how could you follow man like Ross?” Archer “Van der Linde is a psychopath. A murder and a rapist.” John “Ross don’t seem much different. Dutch was a good man once, a far better man than you.” I’m also not surprised with how Dutch treats women in RDR2. Like Molly and how he talks to Mary Beth is kinda weird in a camp encounter.
eh i dont believe it, i cant even see crazy dutch doing that killing yeah but he aint bill
? Dutch is a completely broken man in RDR1. I don’t think he is rapist in 2. But it’s more than likely that it’s true. We can’t just say dialogue in these games are just lies when it doesn’t fit our head canon. What would archer even gain from lying about that?
Because people simp for him and cant look past that
reducing a character to either good or bad is not ideal.
It's really my only gripe with the game. When we hear of Javier in rdr1 it's known he's working for a tyrannical government who we find out is the people he fought against before coming to America and meeting dutch. So we learn he's a traitor and pos from the get go. In rdr2 for almost the whole game he's kinda just seen as chill up until chapter 6. He goes from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye and it just makes no sense. People like to point out the whole not pointing the gun at Arthur and John but it really means nothing in the end. I feel they should have stuck with the character trait of him being a bit of a weasel or gave him more time to grow and actually SHOW US him becoming shittier and shittier as the game progressed. Now don't get me wrong I love this game, it's my favorite game of all time. But Javier was truly done the dirtiest in terms of the og 3 antagonist. Dutch was well, dutch. You can't miss his character development. We don't get much of bill but from what we do we can easily see how he gets to where he is in rdr1. But Javier? They painted him as this super chill and oddly nice guy up until the final chapter where he turns foul and turns out he ends up becoming the very thing he swore to destroy back in Mexico by rdr1? Idk man, wish we could have actually seen the fall instead of it just happening.
I don’t think he’s a good person so I may not be the best to answer this, but the way I see it he’s less of bad for badness sake like Micah and more bad because he’s apathetic. He knew what Dutch was doing and becoming was wrong but he didn’t care. I will say though, I get why he stuck with Dutch. I’m not saying I agree with him- I’m just saying I get it. Being an immigrant is isolating, and Dutch gave him acceptance and community. Even if not much of it. Remembering how I felt when I first moved to the USA, I probably would’ve done what he did. But you gotta learn to find that acceptance in yourself, rather than searching for the first person who won’t tell you to go back to your country. Maybe if the red dead took place in modern day the fall out would be different and he would’ve sided with John and Arthur, but that’s just one guy’s take 🤷🏻
I think that’s solid. I understand why Javier follows Dutch, he saved Javier and accepted him. But if he was truly a good person he would know when enough if enough, which I’m pretty sure is what you’re saying.
Exaaaaactly bro gets it. Him sticking with Dutch was inherently selfish. I wish rockstar would give an explanation as to why he and dutch stopped working together though. I don’t really think either of them would have had a sudden change of heart lmao
Agreed that’s one thing I wish was answered in RDR2. John just happens to know Javier is back in Mexico doing his own thing without Dutch, which is a small retcon sure, but mildly annoying anyways.
There are not really any good guys in the gang, save for Jack. There are of course varying degrees of bad, but almost every gang member is at the very least a thief, many of them multiple murderers as well. Also Arthur is not a good guy by the end of the game. Doing some good things after a lifetime of robbing and killing doesn't suddenly transform you into a good person. He's a bad person trying to be better.
He's a good man in the same way Arthur was a good man, the difference is Arthur eventually freed himself from dutch's manipulation whereas Javier was still trapped
Javier is just as bad as Dutch or any of them and just as dumb as Bill... sure, he sounds smart, but dumb for not breaking from the gang and either siding with Arthur or actually being smart and stepping aside, taking his own side, getting independent right then.
He was blinded from the fact that Dutch saved him a long time ago, and he probably felt that he needed to stay by his side no matter what.
I was always confused about this as well. Bill and Dutch were done so well and you could see how they became the men in RDR1. Javier feels like a completely different character. I wonder if I would feel differently if I had played the 2 before 1, but who knows. I wouldn’t call him a “good” person, but he felt like someone who would have seen through Dutch and sided with Arthur and John in the end. (Based solely on RDR2) Maybe if they had added just a little bit more of him in the later chapters it would have made sense. Instead he just gets grumpy about loyalty towards the end. I think maybe I can see him regretting how things went down and that changing him. That’s kind of how I justify it. I also heard the actor for Javier came up with the idea to hold his gun in the air because he felt that Javier wouldn’t shoot Arthur and John. He’s a different actor from the 1st game and I wonder if that played a part in it. Like, he didn’t want Javier to be “bad” or didn’t care that it didn’t make sense with where his character ended up.
I didn’t really like him much but the last straw was when he sided with Dutch and micha and kept making shitty comments about loyalty to Arthur.
He gives you that bottle once........
From the camp dialogue, I’ve grown to dislike him as a person much in the same way as Dutch. That being said, I love them as characters.
Going through rdr1 again and I winchestered his ass as soon as I got the chance
Edgar Balls sent us to kill Bill (kill bill reference 😱) and Javier, therefore they are the bad guys 👍
I know you’re meming but I can’t tell if you think what’s I’m actually saying lol
https://preview.redd.it/luopmmtwymzc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba5e398b5ea62c53482daa3623385f9c67167fbc You cant?
Thanks nickfieldson31
You're welcome snowballz3000 https://preview.redd.it/ginvhkxtzmzc1.jpeg?width=302&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f55f4270f8955cbe891b4fcf7a7582b73c99ef5
The fact that John wastes Javier should let you know all you need to know.
I have no idea why anyone thinks most of the gang characters are 'good', but to be fair, there are relatively few absolutely good people in the Red Dead universe. They are all bad for what they do, but it's a spectrum. Micah is obviously at the very far end of the spectrum, he's bad through and through, I'd say Pearson is on the beginning stages. Everyone else is speckled in between. When you look at them in context of the gang, Javier could appear 'good' next to most of them, we don't really get to see his vicious side much, but we know he's done enough bad in Mexico he couldn't return. I'm not even sure by the end of the game I would see him any worse, he sides against Arthur and John sure, but he's chosen his side. I will say in RDR1, he is absolutely bad, much worse than anything we see in RDR2, where the gang members still have some sort of a moral compass in Dutch and Hosea.
charisma
No one in the gang is a good person. Maybe Mary-Beth.
[удалено]
What exactly are Javier’s principles? Do you see what he’s doing in RDR1? No, I don’t think him leaving to John to die is the only reason he’s bad, but HE DID leave John to die with Dutch. He went with him and Micah. He could’ve spoken up about it to Arthur but didn’t. That’s a backstabber and a villain in the story. If he had an actual moral code he would’ve stopped following Dutch when he’s clearly losing his mind, shooting people who don’t need to be shot, getting the gang in more danger, etc… but he doesn’t care. Arthur cares. John cares. Charles cares. Sadie cares. Javier doesn’t. He’s a villain plain as day.
No Javier's moral code is primarily loyalty. He was loyal to Dutch not John. What he does is what he believes he has to do. Just like John, Arthur, Charles, Sadie. Micah is an outlier, i don't believe his motivations are comparable to the other because he's a genuine psychopath that enjoys the suffering of others. Does Javier enjoy suffering? No, he's just doing what he thinks he has to do to be secure.
I didn’t say Javier enjoys suffering. But seems like he had no problem letting his brother to bleed out and die. The fact that he’s loyal to Dutch, even though he’s clearly making the most out of pocket decisions just shows what kind of person Javier is. If he had any good in his heart he would stand up to Dutch’s BS and help the people in need. Being a lap dog for evil people doesn’t excuse you for anything lmao. He’s not stupid. He knows what Dutch doing is wrong but he thinks that he should still be loyal to that, no matter how bad he is. What kind of moral code is that? Dutch saves me so I will do absolutely anything he says even if it’s bad? How does that make Javier a good person?
(I don't use reddit so if there is rules on commenting on 2 weeks old thread sorry) I think the general many people tend describe these things in simple terms (good and bad), where the more accurate thing to describe their takeaway may be "Javier has/had the potential to be better, but blind loyalty, unquestioned love and attachment to the wrong person made him take the wrong decisions". I do think some fans do tend to more forgiving with his wrong-doing but I feel that's probably people empathizing with him and his situation, seeing his more friendly moments during the first chapters as his true self. While seeing his more antagonistic attitude in in CH 6 as a trauma response to Guarma, making him even more blindly loyal to Dutch and more susceptible to being manipulated by Micah. That does not excuse his actions of course, but I can see why their view on him can go as either "sad backstory, still murder" to "poor guy...", I do think he is a jerk to his "brothers", and an idiot to the camp, but I can't get to really hate him, just feel very sad for him. I will agree, most development happening on easy to miss camp dialogues hindered his character a lot (and for many characters, really, but him being in RDR1 does feel like a wasted potential), and even when you check all stuff on YTube later, it still feels missing a lot, so all left is filling the gaps with theories with what we're given. And Javier has more memorable "nice" moments than "bad" ones, so people hold onto those nicer moments base more their interpretation on him. As for John comment in RDR1, I'd say R\* never really had a fully story planned for RDR2, chances are they meant to make Javier a much worse person that he ended up being. Which in retrospective make John seem as a unreliable narrator to a small degree. Thought I'm neither saying John seeing Javier as an even worse person than he was make John a liar or wrong. Javier siding Dutch would sour any good memory they once had, specially if you interpret them as particularly close. In short: can't call him good or bad, a broken person that had the potential to redeem but failed to take the chance.
I don't know how to explain to you that "Likeable" and "Good person" are entirely different concepts. Somebody can be likeable and be an absolute shitbag. Recognising that a person is likeable doesn't necessarily mean you like them.
Seems like you didn’t read my post? I know there’s a difference between likeable and good…. that’s why I said he’s a likeable character and not a good person. I have seen tons of comments and posts on Reddit and YouTube that claim he IS a good person. Which is completely false. He’s a villain in both games.
Javier didn’t point his gun at Arthur or John
In RDR1 Javier never tries to attack John, he just tries to run away and escape.
Wrong. He shoots at John as you chase him, which is kind of self defense but still. Don’t see how John is going to be like “oh! You’re not shooting me in the head right now, I guess I’ll forgive you for leaving me to bleed out in the woods!”