Is Arvo REALLY good or bad?
I NEED TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS.
Also, I apologize for bad grammar as you read this - I'm hearing impaired.
I had a huge discussion with a friend of mine about Arvo as the antagonist...
So the question is he really the antagonist?
I had a long argument with a friend online, nothing serious.
I just wanted to hear everyone's opinion.
START
Friend:
Is Arvo an antagonist? I don't think he is
Me:
Arvo's not a bad guy but he works along with Russian group who tried to stop the protagonist's group.
Tell me why he's not the antagonist.
Friend:
I would consider someone who was just tagging along to be an antagonist, by that logic every member of woodbury is one. If he's an antagonist for his part to play with the Russians holding up the group, he never turned a gun to them
Also "They're not telling me to ask"
He was being made to do it.
As for his role in episode 5, the only antagonistic thing he did was try to leave and shoot clementine.
If he's an antagonist for trying to leave, then Mike and Bonnie are too. If he's an antagonist for shooting her, we honestly don't know if it was deliberate or not.
Accidental shootings are hardly antagonistic
If so then I guess Otis is an antagonist
So, then. Explain to me why he is one.
Me:
How was he being "made to do it"? If he hadn't told the group about Clementine and Jane, then there wouldn't had been a shootout, not a really major part of the antagonist. Now him shooting Clementine, that's a big part of being an antagonist - we don't really know if he "panicked" or not yet he can still shoot the protagonist when she dropped the gun so I wouldn't call it "accidental shooting".
Antagonist, a person who is hostile to someone. I understand that Arvo didnt attack anyone during the shootout but he was connected to the shootings, by telling Russian Group to about Clementine's group.
Friend:
He clearly said "They're not telling me" meaning he was being told to. Besides Clementine and Jane did rob him either way, telling his group about it is hardly an "antagonistic" action. Accidental shootings can happen all the time is someone is nervous, I'm not saying he was but it's highly possible. I'm simply saying that an antagonist is someone how directly and deliberately opposes the protagonist. We simply don't have enough evidence to link him to the direct nor deilberate opposition of their group. We have some specualtion on his state and motives but that's it
Since Kenny is a protagonist, surely Jane would be an antagonist by your standards? Since she hid the baby for the sole purpose of "antagonizing" him.
Me:
Jane as the antagonist? I wouldn't know how to explain that, but it wouldn't be the antagonistic thing if the protagonist decided to join her side.
That depends on the player's choice. Accidental shootings can happen due to the nervous problems, but again we don't know that. Maybe he was meant to shoot her, no other way - he still sticks with his antagonistic actions if you either threaten or drop the gun to Mike. He wouldn't be the antagonist if he had left Clementine without knocking her down in coma. I'm not saying your argument isn't true but how do we know that he wasn't meant to kill her and the group? We both have our own speculations that he was either meant to or not to kill the protagonist and the group. I think it's the best to name him as the antagonist since we already saw him doing the antagonistic actions to the group.
Friend:
Yes we do both have our speculation, however you are the one choosing to opt on one side specifically by calling him an antagonist. I'm not saying Arvo is an antagonist, I'm simply saying we don't know, we don't have the evidence to support it. So I don't think he should be listed as such. If the protagonist (depending on the player's choice) decided to be friendly or hostile towards Arvo, that still won't change a fact with him. He can still shoot you.
Me:
But have we seen anything in the game to show that Arvo didn't want to kill the protagonist's group - the only thing he did without being hostile towards the group is being grateful for not being robbed with his sister's supplies... (until Jane threatened him which made him become hostile towards them again). Is there any other evidences to show that he didn't want to hurt them? Let's take a look on the other side, have we seen any signs in the game that shows Arvo's antagonistic actions? Well, he was meant to shoot Clementine, doesn't matter what the choices are. Panicking or not, that was still antagonistic thing to do to the protagonist, shot her in the shoulder, put her in a coma. I find that as the evidence. Another thing, Arvo pulled out a rifle first before Clementine... it's possible that he is afraid or just wanted to kill her badly to a revenge for her sister. You're playing as the protagonist and stick with a storyline - you can't let someone like Arvo to stop you.
Friend:
Shooting Clementine wasn't antagonistic if it was in-deliberate either, even if he killed her I would argue as such. Lilly murdered a protagonist and she's not an antagonist
Also Lee, that implys Arvo deliberately shot her
If the poor guy was shaking and nervous holding a gun, I doubt his feeling towards Clementine would change the in-deliberate moving of his trigger finger.
END
Thanks and let us know if Arvo is the antagonist or not! 
Comments
Arvo robs you, even if you didn't steal from him.
Similar to what the Stranger did to Lee.
And he and his group try to kill you.
Also similar to what the Stranger did to Lee.
After you let him live, and try to be kind to him, he still shoots you.
So really, is he a good guy?
I think not!
Arvo was a survivalist, and was willing to kill anyone who got in his way.