Rockstar Games' "Red Dead Redemption" was released on May 18th, 14 years ago. The game was largely considered the controversial developer's best game, until the sequel was released last generation (I can't weigh in on that yet as I haven't played it yet; jobs and parenthood are for real). Like any good content creator on the internet, I wanted to write something up to mark the occasion.
Spoilers follow for “Red Dead Redemption.” Naturally.
I was reminded of Robert McKee's seminal book on screen-writing, "Story," and a bit about defining the moral compass of a work, what he calls the "center of good." As McKee says;
“As a story opens, the audience, consciously or instinctively, inspects the value-charged landscape of world and characters, trying to separate good from evil, right from wrong, things of value from things of no value. It seeks the Center of Good. Once finding this core, emotions flow to it. The reason we search for the Center of Good is that each of us believes that we are good or right and want to identify with the positive. Deep inside we know we're flawed, perhaps seriously so, even criminal, but somehow we feel that despite that, our heart is in the right place. The worst of people believe themselves good.”
McKee doesn’t give “center” a dictionary definition, but we can interpret what he tells us as making sure the protagonist is relatable, admirable, and that no matter how "bad" they are, the antagonist(s) is/are worse. We look to them to be "good," at least relative to the world. The example I always use is John Wick. Sure, he’s an unstoppable retired hit man, gunning down hundreds with ruthless efficiency, but he loved his wife and loves his dog. Who among us wouldn’t go ballistic if someone hurt our dog?
This applies to video games, even titles where we're presumably the bad guy. We can forgive a lot of moral failings if we believe our protagonist is doing it for the right reasons, and that the antagonist is worse. When we play a game, we want to win. That means we want the protagonist to win. And since most people consider themselves to he good, we project that onto the character.
It's not hard to believe a character like Super Mario is the good guy. He's handsome, capable, and the other guy is a dragon monster who kidnaps princesses. Even when you play as Kratos in the original “God of War,” he feels “good,” even though you’re tossing people down the gullet of the hydra and shredding up innocent bystanders who get between you and the Minotaur. That’s because the game lets us emphasize with his motivations and gives us someone worse. Sure, Kratos is undeniably a dick and just trying to escape the consequences of killing his family, but at least he’s not Ares, slaughtering Rome for giggles!
Enter “Red Dead Redemption,” Rockstar Games’ open-world western, released in May 2010 for PS3 and Xbox 360, and again last year for PS4 and Nintendo Switch. You play John Marston, a former outlaw whose wife and child are being held by a federal agency, until he captures or kills the other members of his old gang. John's our Center of Good; everyone else who is 'good' is better morally than him (or at least more sympathetic) and everyone 'bad' does things worse than you as Marston could ever do.
The main antagonists (notice I don't say villains) in "RDR" are two Bureau of Investigation agents, Edgar Ross and Archer Foreman. I'm avoiding saying "villains" because technically, we like to think of law enforcement agencies as the good guys. Especially during the days of the Wild West, when getting away with a crime was as simple as just literally getting away. But we know that Ross and Foreman aren't "good," because while Marston is hunting down outlaws, he's doing so to get his family back. We don't get an indication that our two BOR agents are after Marston's old gang for any reason other than it’s their job.
In most of Rockstar Games’ AAA open-world games, morality boils down to “if you can get away with it, then you did a good thing.” While “RDR” does have an Honor system that measures if your actions make you more respected or feared, given leniency or treated harshly by law enforcement, you are on the honor system. You can shoot someone to stop an attempted kidnapping or shoot someone to take their horse. It all depends on if you’re caught doing it.
This even applies to Marston’s allies along the journey. We can almost see “good” as a spectrum with Marston in the literal center. The closer the supporting cast comes to helping Marston with his goal, the more “good” they are. Snake oil salesman Nigel West Dickens is conscripted to help Marston, but needs you to help him sell his fake tonics, and swindle a family out of their land. These tend to end in a shootout, because Dickens even admits he's acting selfishly before doing "something which I greatly discourage in all wise and rational men: a selfless act, for you John Marston." Dickens has to get his before he helps Marston, and the bullets start flying. He does manage to avoid getting shot, but later on Marston finds him in jail, having been up to his old tricks. He doesn’t get away with it.
Bonnie MacFarlane, the rancher who helps patch up Marston and even helps him get his farm going again, is a saint by comparison. Her goal, being able to carve out a life on the land, aligns with Marston’s, and he helps her out on her farm without complaint in return for her help. When her property is attacked, it has less to do with her actions. It’s more about the bad guys wanting to get back at the Maraton and the player. But the player and Marston are helpful sorts, who help repel the bandits and get Bonnie back on her feet. She’s closer to the center, so everything works out.
Of course, just being the protagonist isn’t enough to make a character “good.” Sometimes the creators intention can be to make a “bad” character empathetic without imparting a moral statement. Or sometimes a lead is just a bad guy. See “Joker,” “American Psycho,” etc. In video games, usually the protagonist’s bad-ness is spelled out by a binary morality choice. In “Ultimate Spider-Man,” playing as Venom lets you “consume” people in a way, and “inFamous’” negative path turn you into a glowing red supervillain who maims bystanders as well as deformed monsters. RDR’s Honor system lets you similarly play the game if you want. We’ve already established that you can be honorable if you want (and can get away with it), but you can be as ruthless and trigger happy as you want. The game’s ending allows for both.
Once Marston has completed his task for the BOI, he’s able to resume his life with his farm and family. However, the BOI soon comes calling, not to arrest Marston, but kill him. If you’ve played the game honorably (aka “good”), then it’s a grave injustice. A former criminal was forced out of retirement to do law enforcement’s job, and gets rewarded with a firing squad. If you played the game like a returned bandit (aka “bad”) then justice is being done. Marston was a criminal who didn’t get away with it.
I confess, I've never played "RDR" as anything but a relative saint. I'm a bit of a wuss that way, I don't even play a game's "evil" path until I've done the upstanding law and order playthrough. I try not to be any worse than the game makes me be. "Red Dead Redemption" is an excellent example of the "center of good," or the story's protagonist doing things that might shock us or cause us to call the cops (or sheriff) in real life. But emphasizing with the character can help us understand why it's the best course of action. Rockstar's touch to the formal is to focus the world of Wild West Texas on John Marston, so criminals can be good and law enforcement can be corrupt. We can tell by how close they are to our "center"
"Red Dead Redemption” is currently available on Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 5, and Xbox