Well, was he truly an evil person?
De facto sociopath.
whose interests did he have in mind.
if there is an answer than he is not evil.
He was a busta
Yes. All he had to do, was follow the damn train.
He messed up and got his younger brother killed due to being part of a gang
>person
Does the pope shit in the woods?
Sure, he was depicted as giving zero fucks how many people he hurt or fucked over as long as he got something out of it.
why would he be considered evil? hell, compared to most people in the GTA world CJ is a fucking saint.
>person
he's black
>Wanted to escape stupid red team blue team bull shit.
>Forced back in because of his shitty older brother.
>Leaves Los Santos (against his own will)
>Makes connections.
>Starts a business (even if it is a front)
>Makes friends with the fucking Triad.
>Becomes the manager of one of the biggest rappers in the industry.
>Basically makes himself a ghost by helping government spooks.
>Has all the power in the world to not only save himself but also save all of his friends trapped in the Ghetto.
>NAW CJ YOU'Z BETTA NOT DOOOS DAT OR EWLSE UZ A BUSSSTAAAA NIGGA UZ A BUSSTAAAA
Sweet was the real bad guy of the series.
and on the lives and dreams of 200 deaf boys.
I'm fucking pissed that sweet wasn't the one that betrayed cj
ryder didn't deserve his fate
straight busta
If you rank GTA characters by the morality of the real world they are all mass murderers, but relative to the average person in GTA America none of them are that bad. Everyone in GTA America is super evil, even most of the random pedestrians are awful people if you listen to their conversations, and then the protagonists become the least evil people in the series because sometimes they realize that something is fucked up.
He spearheaded a gang war for the sole purpose of being in control of the crime in his streets. The streets were relatively calm and safe before this, and while it can be said that it's the same after this, the intermittent mass deaths achieved nothing. It's not like he wanted his gang to get out of crime, it just meant they wore green while killing and robbing, rather than purple.
CJ's loyalty to his family was probably his biggest downfall, but all his personal motivations were centered around maintaining personal peace and equilibrium, he didn't really have any great aspirations of his own, but whenever he got pulled into a bad situation he did his best to at least stabilize it.
>because sometimes they realize that something is fucked up.
This would make them more evil, as far as we know the non-player characters are oblivious to the insanity of their actions, where as the player has many moments of realising it's fucked up and does it anyway.
sweet? more like sheeeiiit
His just incredibly stupid.
Not really, because it means mostly they work against even more immoral people.
Most of the antagonists in GTA games are worse people than the protagonists, not hardworking honest cops.
With, say, Niko or Vic being the most moral and Tommy or Claude being the least moral, all of them are up against people who have wronged not only them but are generally exploiting others.
What's worse, being retarded and accidentally killing a cat, or recognising it's wrong to kill a cat and then stamping it to death because the world wronged you?
What's worse, exploiting the FBI for personal gain, no matter who or what suffers because of it or killing the guy exploiting the FBI because he's using you for personal gain?
The former obviously. My question was directed at the intention behind an action, not the scale. The scales of player character crimes vary wildly from mission to mission and game to game, so it's not really something easy enough to quantify.
That said that person exploiting the FBI only did that, the player character didn't only kill him during the course of the game so even that's not a fair comparison, because you're weighing all the crimes of one against a single crime of another.
If you're arguing that GTA antagonists are "accidentally killing cats" then you don't know what an accident is.
Nope, it wasn't directly an example of an in game action. It was an example to distinguish between an oblivious evil action vs an evil action that is contemplated and still done.
I think maybe I made my original point poorly. The GTA Protagonists are all evil people.
However, the average citizen of GTA America is evil, or at the very least, not good, so any evil action taken by a GTA protagonist is relatively less evil due to the world they live in.
As far as an argument with intentions, I disagree that the antagonists are oblivious to the evil they commit, only the evil they commit is on a larger scale than the protagonists, and has little to no justification.
>Wanted to escape stupid red team blue team bull shit
He went to live in Liberty City because of the shame of getting his brother Brian killed. You know what he did when he got there? Went straight back into petty gangbanger shit, only working for the Italians instead of The Families
Yeah I can agree that most of the antagonists are flat out more evil than most of the protagonists. I think I latched too much onto the concept of generic or one off NPCs in my counter point.
recidivism is real bro