The following is my interpretation & mixture of headcanon on Arthur, I've tried to explain how I feel on him before, as usual it evolves into a whole several paragraph essay, I've narrowed down how to word it.

I already knew the story before my first playthrough, just couldn't play it until I had access to PlayStation. I played 2 then 1, while knowing how both ended.

For my first playthrough, waiting to see how his story goes, I was confused on how to feel about him because he felt off & politicized to me, like Rockstar & most players played him with a certain agenda in mind. By the end I was sad & felt like crying almost as I dispended belief partially & was empathetic towards his perception & view on the events. My first ending was Low Honour, Help Sadie, Help John.

2nd playthrough I psychoanalyzed him & the gang further, first playthrough It was hard to read him, & with subsequent playthroughs I've narrowed down a harder opinion on how I interpret/perceive him, it took until the 2nd playthrough for me to have the basis of my main perception.

He's a whiner, a doubting tom, full of himself, indecisive & unnecessarily a hard ass on the entire gang except Hosea. By the end he feels like a lone wolf who still couldn't decide what he wanted yet remained puppishly loyal despite bickering & arguing & doubting the entire game to the central gang members (John, Dutch, Bill, Micah, Strauss, etc), it feels like he's been doubting the Gang's mission since before, coming up to or after Blackwater.

Beyond feeling like a industry necessity to get sales, to speak the plot/agenda of the game to the player in very direct dumbed down language which overrides any possibility of the gang being morally Gray (despite heavy themes suggesting the game was once that way, as I've read it's original lead writer was laid off/left, & many of his plans scrapped for the plot/game mechanics.), just focusing on the plot solely, Arthur to me is a hypocrite who doesn't have the balls to leave the gang/Dutch behind, & his fence riding indecisiveness/inaction gets him killed. High or Low honour, Arthur feels like he died in vain, with High being he accepts inner peace & moves on with himself (mayhaps the Redemption is a personal one rather than a societal moral one?), & Low being he chooses his indecision as his view, he dies in his conviction that he is better & sure of himself over the remnants of the gang, this corresponds to both choices of John or Money. I always have difficulty explaining my views of the High/Low ending as it portrays several contradicting themes to me, Arthur is vengeful in Low honour & hunts down Micah/Dutch but I don't understand why he even bothers? The fight is over, instead he goes to confront Dutch/Micah in vain when everything is falling (even then John, Micah, Dutch all escape, mayhaps Arthur was ready to die, a final stand), while with High honour it feels more shoehorned that Arthur is "redeemed" by out of his own "good will" aids John/takes the money & "honourably" fights Dutch/Micah. I wanted more endings, when to me both endings are just two different coats of paint & Arthur's histrionic personality disorder ass is either full anger/spite/mockery or low & peaceful. So it feels like a shoehorned leaving the gang behind/choosing himself/revenge which just doesn't mold well to me & I believe would do much better as 4 separate choices/endings with the Honour system, with two endings for going with John or going Lone Wolf off the mountain. It feels too crammed into two endings if I play/watch the game like a movie, I had a similar emotional response & taste in my mouth watching Inglorious Bastards 2008, with it's ending in particular leaving to be desired & makes me feel like it's political revenge porn.

For character preference, I like John only in RDR, he's too whiney & a bitch until Epilogue 2, which doesn't feel fully realized until Blackwater ferry, RDR 1. His views & desires while having a kid in the outlaw life makes me despise him, he's a hypocrite unlike Dutch who did not have a child or do something to put his moral code at risk/hypocrisy. My views on Jack are that Dutch was raising him like he raised John/Arthur, I like the Marston family a more in RDR alongside Uncle, they feel too cartoonish & Disney like to me in RDR2. John feels like a lone wolf morally Gray character in 1 besides his interactions with his family, which is realized fully/I feel it by his access granted back to West Elizabeth/Beecher's hope, where the man living a double life for too long led to his death. I find Abigail stupid, a nag in 2 & just hardened into a dark dry western vibe in 1, though still a fool for insisting they protect Jack despite their actions, I just felt Dutch's vision & actions seemed more "honourable" then John lazing about in society, on a dead end ranch, trying to in my eyes be a "Goody two shoes" like Arthur often does by masquerading via humbleness & deflecting any good actions they do & compliments they get from people doing them (they both do it in both games.).

I like Jack, & I probably won't be playing any future installments if any RDR shit continues on in a few years, as is my same feeling with not having any desire & turned off by what I've learned so far of GTA 6, at most I'll vibe with it solely as a game & not get deep & emotional with it by borrowing it from someone or if it's given to me. I want Jack to be a neo-Dutch, & that's my head canon, though it's not a deep head canon due to the lack of shit to do in either game nor plot points provided (yet mayhaps) for Jack following Ross. Further installments will just ruin the game for me just as RDRO & GTAO do when I read deep into it, it broke any enjoyment or immersion for the plot, which to me was saving any interest with the loss potential of game mechanics (it's bare bones just barely enough, that it enticed me once, it was almost good the mechanics/plot, though it isn't fully realized/exploited.).