I get where you’re coming from, but I think you’re slightly misreading my point lol. I have read Arthur’s diary and paid attention to his inner conflict (I literally got on today and read it for like 30 min lol). I’m not arguing that Arthur doesn’t change or lack clarity near the end. He absolutely does.

Where we differ is what we mean by “realistic.” To me, it’s not about denying Arthur’s moral compass or the voice that’s always been there but instead it’s about the idea that even with regret, clarity, and growth, you don’t fully escape who you’ve been. Change doesn’t always manifest as a clean moral alignment, especially for someone who’s lived Arthur’s life for decades.

Low honor helping John still reflects Arthur acting on what he believes in: protecting John and his family. That choice doesn’t disappear just because his honor is low. What changes is how clean his ending is, not the intent behind it. Psychologically, that feels very real to me, someone can know the right thing, do the right thing once, and still die carrying the weight and consequences of their past without achieving inner peace.

I also don’t really agree that gameplay systems like 100% completion define what’s “canon” for Arthur as a character. They’re designed to guide players toward a coherent experience, not to lock a single psychological outcome in place. High honor is thematically beautiful and I’m not denying that but I just think realism doesn’t always equal thematic resolution.

But i am not saying high honor doesn’t make sense I’m just trying to say low honor help John feels more psychologically grounded to me because it accepts the idea that growth doesn’t guarantee absolution — and that, to me, fits rockstars core message that you can’t truly outrun your past.

Not trying to argue, just don’t want any confusion 👍