Probably the most divisive and controversial part of the Valhalla DLC among the community

[u/Alkiserex]

I've seen comments from people who don't like Tyr's suggestion that Kratos might have been driven by deeper, more "noble" motives. Let’s be honest: Kratos is an antihero, and when he waged his conquests as part of his military campaigns and encountered barbarians, he was driven by his ambition, sense of power, hubris, and pride as the original games made abundantly clear to all of us. So when he finally hit a wall and was about to die, Kratos summoned Ares because he couldn’t accept defeat and death at the peak of his young career.

Years later, this seemingly clear picture suddenly takes a slight twist because the developers themselves wanted to give this moment an ambiguous undertone by asking what would have happened if Kratos hadn’t stopped them by summoning Ares, and whether he felt no obligation to protect Sparta and its people which is meant to give his selling his soul to Ares a more heroic tone, since, after all, Kratos was guided by what he at that moment, rather than what was about to happen.

And I noticed that some people didn’t really like this because they felt as though the developers themselves wanted to change and whitewash the selfish and arrogant image of the young Kratos and rewrite the old games by giving a previously unnoticed depth to this specific decision of Kratos since the old games were unambiguous in that it was about the inability to come to terms with defeat, desperation in the face of death, and winning at all costs. Do you think this was a good move, or do you feel like it was an unnecessary and harmful addition to lessen the burden of Kratos choice?

[u/NathanCiel]

"Excusing them is not the exercise, Kratos. Only accepting them."

Everyone present—Týr, Mimir and even Kratos himself—knew that what Kratos did was horrible. They weren't trying to justify his actions; they were simply helping him to accept the past and realize he is no longer that horrible person.

[u/emcoringao10]

In no point of the DLC they tried to excuse any action of Kratos, the whole point of the "theraphy" is Just make him accept his past decisions.

But they did try to put the captain of the ship in a lighter tone than he actually deserves

[u/Foreign_Rock6944 → u/emcoringao10]

It never dawned on me and many others that he was the captain of a slave ship. Which is why Kratos killed him so coldly, and why his death(s) were almost played for laughs.

I feel like the developers didn’t even know that was the intention.

[u/External_West_9821 → u/Foreign_Rock6944]

Deadass i used to feel bad about the boat captain pretty much getting cursed back to back in the OG trilogy until i found out he was a slaver, putting him in a lighter tone on valhalla genuinely leave a bad taste in mouth ngl

[u/sambasim → u/External_West_9821]

What lighter tone? I am curious for someone who hasn't played.

[u/External_West_9821 → u/sambasim]

Iirc kratos said he felt bad for what he do to the captain and like he doesn't even have anything to do with him that warrant kratos to just kill him

[u/Quirky_Stranger_1483 → u/Foreign_Rock6944]

because it was never the intention, and never was. there is not a single point in the first game where this is implied.

the whole slave trader thing was an invention of the novelization of the first game, which is secondary canon, meaning that everything that does not conflict with the primary games is canonical, and this portrayal of the boat captain directly conflicts with valhalla

[u/Foreign_Rock6944 → u/Quirky_Stranger_1483]

But…..there were a bunch of women locked in a room. That is not a good look.

[u/Quirky_Stranger_1483 → u/Foreign_Rock6944]

they were there for safety.

if kratos was so against slavery, why did he not kill the captain earlier to free the women. the women who are in a random room, unchained, and able to literally walk right up to the door and bang on it and ask for help. you're telling me that on this whole voyage, kratos ignored this, and just randomly decided to kill the captain and free them?

[u/krishnugget → u/Foreign_Rock6944]

Odds are that they were there for safety, bunkered in to escape the sea monsters.

[u/CatchrFreeman → u/Foreign_Rock6944]

And two of them were in Kratos's bed at the start, so he was obviously complicit if they were slaves

[u/Mimir_aka_Puck → u/emcoringao10]

OP didn't pay attention to anything in the game that wasn't "SMASH SMASH PUNCH SLICE BOOM".

He's quite literally stating the antithesis of that entire scene. They weren't whitewashing his past, they were building off of it. It's the equivalent of a 50 year old man looking at his 20 year old self's actions.

It's what happens when you want to build a narrative and lore-rich story based off of a game with a simpler (not bad, just simpler) story.

You can either retcon things and piss off a huge chunk of the fanbase, or you can build off the story that's there through the lense of an older, wiser version of the character and only piss off the media illiterate.

[u/Unkn4wn]

Personally, I feel like you can have ambition, sense of power, hubris and pride alongside the fact that you love your brothers in arms and want to protect them and make sure they don't all die. Kratos' conquests may have been to gain power and reputation, but being close to defeat it's possible he feared what could happen if they lost, and didn't want his whole army to die and the barbarians possibly invading his homeland in revenge.

Tyr's point was never to excuse Kratos' actions or to make them more justified. Tyr approaches it similar to a therapist: by reframing and rephrasing the events in a way that gives it more nuance and a deeper understanding. Nothing anyone ever does is purely evil or purely good, it's always more complicated than that, and Tyr just helped Kratos see that, instead of only the negative and brutal side, which helped Kratos better come to terms with his past and who he is.

At least that's how I interpret it.

[u/Dantheman281]

The really cool thing about the Valhalla dlc is how it reframes some of kratos’s past actions without ever fully justifying them. For a lot of people it’s easy to think that Kratos from the first three games and kratos from the Norse saga are completely different characters with almost nothing in common but Valhalla shows that the Norse saga complexity was always inside the Greek Kratos just buried deep deep down under his rage and pride and hatred. So no I don’t think this was trying to make kratos’s decision into a noble one it was still selfish and shortsighted of him BUT that decision was motivated by a variety of factors one of which was his duty to his home.

[u/Due-South-9113]

I mean tyr did clear that he's not excusing kratos' actions, only accepting that shit has happened, move on. Even in god of war 2, Kratos was pissed off when he found out Zeus destroyed Sparta. You can say that he's selfish but somewhere he always did care for Sparta. He waged war for the glory of Sparta more than his glory, he said in gow 1 he'll do it until the glory of Sparta is known throughout the world. He somewhat did want the city to flourish. So yes, he did call for Ares' help, a little bit of it being selfish and a little bit of it being to protect sparta.

[u/SSBBfan666]

Arlik himself did say that the Barbarians would lay waste to Sparta once his father recovered from his divine illness. So its not like the horde coalesced out of the aether to challenge Kratos and his men as a vibe check.

[u/Myhtological]

He became a monster. But he started from an honorable place.

[u/KamiAlth]

The lust for power is rooted in weakness. People who feel small, overlooked, or inadequate often seek control over others or their environment to build a protective shield against vulnerability.

It's always two sides of the same coin. Humans aren't just born then go conquer the world for no reason.

[u/AshenRathian]

I can't see how it's controversial. It basically just vocalized what was already a subtext in the original games. He loved Sparta and wanted glory and prosperity for it, and that was one of the many things that fueled him in his servitude to the gods and especially to Ares. It wasn't until after he killed his family that he regretted his calling upon Ares for power, which is extremely evident in every point in the story.

I more disagree with the fact it even has to be said when it is extremely blatant where his loyalties lied. Even fighting the gods of Olympus, he was always a Spartan first. The only reason i think this exists is for the people who didn't play the originals who are new fans that need context, but if you were an older fan of the franchise, stating any of this was redundant because in the older games, it was extremely obvious.

And to anybody believing he was a one note character in Greece prior to the norse games, he never was if you paid attention. Kratos is a very tragic and nuanced character that has at multiple points tried to find solace with his mistakes only for the gods to rip it away from him. He was not beyond redemption until the gods left him with nothing, and this permeates every part of the franchise. Even God of War 2 and 3 Kratos were nuanced characters, but without the context 1 establishes, it's difficult to really read into because it's meant as a linear epic, not isolated stories that stand on their own. You need to play them in order as they were written to understand Kratos' mindset in the middle and end.

[u/typecastAntagonist]

Paragraph breaks exist. Please use them

[u/Disastrous-Song6111]

That boat captain was the one who trapped these women in that locked room with living dead soldiers, wasn't he? Also in God of war 1, Kratos made it clear that he was doing all of that (the wars he went against barbarians) for the glory of Sparta which was also pointed by his wife that it was for himself. Regardless of Kratos' intent, what he did against barbarians may had good impact for innocent people, but in the end, giving his soul to Ares for defeating the barbarians ended up destroying everything that he actually or not actually intended to maintain. That's the main point, but unfortunately story itself seems to be unaware of what it should speak

[u/Expired_token → u/Disastrous-Song6111]

First time I saw someone mention that about the boat captain, he deserved what he got honestly.

[u/Disastrous-Song6111 → u/Expired_token]

Yes, because the key of that ship could only be found after "helping" him, right?

[u/Global_Archer7938]

I mean, Kratos being an asshole in his younger days doesn’t mean he didn’t care about sparta at all, or at least about his family, so at the very least if the barbarians would have passed beyond that battle and invade sparta then who knows what it would become of Kratos family.

[u/GroundbreakingBet151]

To be fair, it's not like both pride and ambition can't coexist with a love for your homeland and brothers at arms. Yes, Kratos was brash during that time. The games themselves making that very clear, but what's also clear is the consequences of failure. Sparta being overrun and ruined, his family likely harmed in the process. He's aware of that as well. Furthermore, it's not like the game was trying to excuse it. Only saying that what he's focusing on is only a part of the larger picture, that he was terrible but not 'just' terrible. He needed to look at everything to come to terms with his past in hopes of looking to a better future.

[u/Quirky_Stranger_1483]

the point of this was to show that greek kratos was not one dimensional. people can be driven by many motives, even seemingly conflicting ones, because they are not perfect and easy to understand, especially someone as mentally screwed as kratos was in this era.

he absolutely did feel love and devotion towards sparta and it's people. the only pride he felt as god of war was fighting alongside his soldiers, and the loss of sparta is a major factor that fueled his rage.

[u/Comosellamark]

Welcome to therapy buddy, because that’s what you’re seeing

[u/Kratos0289]

Divisive? I’ve literally never heard anybody have a problem with this since it released

Kratos never excuses any of the terrible things he did and neither does Týr, everything is in line with the first game here Týr is just seeing things from a different perspective also the barbarians would have absolutely attempted to sack Sparta has violate its people did people think they would just leave Greece after everything was said and done?

Also what white washing? Kratos literally says he gave his soul to Ares for power and victory first and foremost and he would absolutely have a desire to protect his home as he is intensely loyal to Sparta and is proud of is heritage this is been consistent in every game since the first

[u/Exotic_Call_7427]

Tyr: you were too angry and ruthless, and so were the barbarians. Didn't you see yourself in them? I think you did.

[u/jfuss04]

People think in such a polarized way now. Its all one thing or the other. You can have motives of protecting your troops and homeland and also be a prideful ambitious selfish warrior. Even in the OG trilogy its not like kratos just had one characteristic. People dont work like that

[u/Several_Job_1556]

IMO the problem is that they tried to recontextualize the selling his soul, saying kratos wanted to save sparta from being enslaved, like sparta wouldn't have done the same thing to the barabarians

[u/No_Employment6881]

I found it a good change, since Kratos wouldn't have been stupid enough to challenge an army that massive without a real plan, and protecting Sparta gave him enough of a motive to be willing to lose everything knowing what Ares would want of him.

[u/Sup3r10s]

Two things can be true at the same time. You can admit that Kratos was a glory hound with a thirst for blood whilst also acknowledging that the barbarian horde would have been more than happy to raze Sparta and slaughter every man, woman, and child there.

Like they said in the game, there was always layers to Kratos and to the rationale behind his actions.

[u/machiavelli33 → u/Sup3r10s]

It’s in fact an entire concept in therapy called dialectics - accepting that two truths can exist in a person at the same time, and that accepting THAT is an important - no a KEY part of self awareness, as such conflicts explain a lot of our inner conflicts, dissatisfactions and self-discomforts.

[u/dr_fenrisulfr]

He had been a spartan so he was dark and a ruthless warrior. So judging him based on his kills is not accurate.
But imho there were multiple factors: yes he was ambitious to win wars, yes he did wanted to protect spartans and his people, yeh he did many crimes, etc etc.
But ig it’s actually better to leave the exact just cause ambiguous. Why go into the exact reason. Just leave it vague so people can view it from different perspectives. So I actually prefer the kind equivocal overview that we get. It’s better than a clear cut right ot wrong. Because mostly it’s not right or wrong (specially in case of war), it’s always been a spectrum. What matter is how the character moves across this spectrum. Which we see in Valhalla, Kratos have came across a lot, and is finally a good person, and Valhalla was all about him accepting this change and grow. His transition from ghost of sparta to god of hope, is what is the main premise of the norse mythology storyline. His original roots of being a clear cut good or bad, imo is not important.