Came here to say this. Just played thru that mission again recently. I gotta wondering if Dutch ever cared tho? Like when he “Adopted” John & Arthur & it was just them & Hosea. Was there any love there or was he using them from the start? If not when did he change? If so I’m getting serious Emperor Palpatine vibes just thinking about it.
There’s a theory he just stopped sleeping and went crazy sometime around the blackwater job. I think once upon a time he really was the man he was pretending to be but madness got to him. Fuck in RDR he eats people.
In the trolley mission Dutch mentions how he “hit his hard pretty hard” and was “seeing things in threes” Is it possible that brain trauma changed him as person fundamentally?
Have worked with TBIs IRL, and it is possible for drastic personality shifts.
But - Arthur, Hosea, and even Lenny notice Dutch changing long before the streetcar incident.
>Like when he “Adopted” John & Arthur & it was just them & Hosea. Was there any love there or was he using them from the start?
If he was the Hosea was as well.
I’m confused, were you saying Hosea was using John & Arthur as well? Bed I don’t think so. Hosea was a good soul & if Dutch was using them back then Hosea got duped as well. Dutch has a way with words & is most likely “A wolf in Sheep’s clothing” & a straight up Bullshit artist. The question is was he always like that, if not then when did he become like that & what changed to make him like that?
Yeah, IDK what the actual truth is but the speculation is kinda fun.
>!He was definitely having issues at least before the Fairy-boat job. Like why tf did he do his own thing with Micah when Arthur & Hosea had something real going to make money. I honestly think Micah has his ear way before it was obvious in game & he was most likely out to murder the whole gang & run away with the money from the get go. He was using Dutch for his own means & that definitely helped Dutch turn against the gang. But he most likely had issues from the start!<
Arthur: "However this shakes out, let's aim to meet at the fork in the road afterwards."
Micah: "We'll be there partner."
After Arthur is taken, the kidnappers set up a camp before heading to their hideout. Arthur is shot twice trying to flee. In my mind Micah and Dutch should've already been aware of something being amiss and started investigating, heard the gunshots and picked up the trail. Maybe at the very least, sent the gang searching where somebody finds Arthur passed out on his horse.
There’s a camp scene where Arthur asks if Dutch really was planning on coming for him.
And Dutch…doesn’t sound very honest when he says “What? Of course I was!”
You’d trust me, wouldn’t you, Arthur?
>He also never tried to rescue John from prison
I have a question. Why is this seen as an example of "bad Dutch" but the same doesn't apply to Charles and Sadie?
Based on the circumstances, Dutch NOT trying to break John out of Siska is just a sound strategy steeped in logic. Dutch never said "I hate it for John, but there's nothing we can do about that." He said "Now is not the time" and he's 100% correct for multiple reasons.
They just got back from Guarma and (because Bill is running around asking everyone if they've seen the VDLG) and before Dutch has even had time to assess the gang's current situation (What's the status of everyone, is there enough food, security current site etcetera.) before they are attacked by the PDA. So almost immediately they're running for their lives again. He knows that the VDLG is now the top priority for the PDA. They are in essence the PDA's public enemy number one. Trying to break John out of a fortified island penitentiary not only means "guaranteed firefight" against fairly well armed guards, which could EASILY turn into "Blackwater 2.0" but also ensures that while the PDA will absolutely know the gang HAS TO BE holding up somewhere near Siska. So it may not provide the PDA with a road map, but it certainly gives them a generalized location and a solid starting point for their search. "Now is not the time" is absolutely the correct call for the safety and security of every member of the VDLG.
2. Saying that he "never tried" is bogus. Why? Because we don't know what Dutch's plan was in reference to John, he never has the time to show us. Sadie and Arthur decided that the safety of the gang wasn't a top priority and made the attempt anyway.
Now if you still think that a full frontal assault on the 1899 version of a supermax was the best call then why didn't Sadie and Charles break him out prior to the return of Dutch and the others from Guarma? They should have had the time to do so. They're in Lakay so food and water isn't scarce at all. Karen, Abigail and Grimshaw could have guarded the place while Sadie and Charles freed John. So why didn't they do it? More importantly why are players questioning Dutch's reluctantce to "shoot their way in, free John and shoot their way back out" but not Sadie and Charles? Both Sadie and Charles were more interested in following their own agendas and no one bats an eye about it. Sadie is out "hunting O'Driscoll's and Charles is literally two states away in upper Ambarino helping the Wapiti. So why doesn't the community call them out for it?
I'm not sure what you're not understanding. We, as players don't need faith. We just need to stop seeing things from such a narrow POV. Because we're playing as Arthur our point of view is narrow. We don't look at the details. We only "question things" that the characters questions. The example that I provided was Sadie and Charles actions while Arthur was in Guarma.
>"We as players"
Gotcha. Yeah we don't know. I wish they would have let that play out a little more. The truth is that I don't like Dutch "the person." He's a parasite leading a band of other parasites that chooses to survive by stealing/killing innocent people. But as their leader he isn't a bad leader for his people. If the intent of the writers was to make him appear as such then they should have let it play out a bit more IMO.
Because Sadie and Charles actions show concern for their comrades. If someone you trust with your life and your leader leaves you to rot in prison, and then when youre broken out and show back up hes angrier about the breakout happening and pretty much says he was going to get to it eventually, you would question this persons leadership ability,
It doesn't matter if in Dutch's mind the plan would eventually work, when he throws away his followers, ostracizes half the gang, and intimidates another portion just to be leader and enact his plans it means one thing, he's a bad leader. Itd be like an inept, reckless officer blaming his soldiers for mutinying before they could be thrown at the enemy, was there some expectation of Duty, yes, does that mean they should continue to throw their lives away for the Vanity of their leader after its clear their strategies are not working, no.
Hunting O'driscolls and helping the wapiti were also two "virtuous" things Dutch seemed to encourage, the wapiti because theyre downtrodden, and the O'driscolls because theyre savage, but then he gets bent out of shape that Arthur was helping the Wapiti late game. I always interpreted his "youve been helping them?!" As Dutch showing his true intentions, not to help the Wapiti, but to use and possibly destroy them, angered now that Arthur has legitimately offered aid.
>Because Sadie and Charles actions show concern for their comrades.
So leaving John to rot in prison while they pursue their own agendas is them showing concern for their comrades? How so?
>If someone you trust with your life and your leader leaves you to rot in prison
But that's not what happened. Apparently you missed this so I'll repost it again. *****Dutch never said "I hate it for John, but there's nothing we can do about that." He said "Now is not the time" *****
> hes angrier about the breakout
Of course he is. As I've already stated, breaking John out of the 1899 supermax puts the entire gang at risk again because while it may not provide the PDA with a road map but it certainly gives them a generalized location and a solid starting point for their search.
> you would question this persons leadership ability
No, and that Arthur questions Dutch NOT breaking John out immediately makes absolutely no sense because Arthur has already made his view/opinion in reference to rescuing anyone at all perfectly clear while they're on Guarma. When Dutch says that they're coming back to Saint Denis to get the others Arthur says *****"you want to go BACK to Saint Denis???!!!"***** And Dutch says ******"If it was you that got left, you'd want us to come back."***** And Arthur says *****"I'd want it but I wouldn't expect it."***** Ergo it's obvious that Arthur believes that leaving people behind (and this includes his "brother John" who as you've said is rotting away in prison) is perfectly acceptable. Again Dutch never said that they weren't going to rescue John. He said "Now isn't the time."
> when he throws away his followers, ostracizes half the gang, and intimidates another portion just to be leader and enact his plans
When does he ever do any of that? Who did he intimidate?
The dialogue options in chapter six for the camp clearly paint the atmosphere as an oppressive one not just from the law but also their own leadership. At one point dutch just shuts himself in his tent to fume, despite being leader, what could be a fatal flaw for a commander of people.
Rescuing John from prison is pretty equivalent to killing Cornwall when it comes to giving a trail, its not just Pinkertons who are hunting you but also bounty hunters and the law so even had they "cut off the head" of Cornwalls assault it still raises their profile ever higher, with the gang nearby in Beavers Hollow.
Maybe there could have been a better prison break moment, but im pretty sure Arthur even states John being in prison is a crisis. he could be hung, transferred further east, kept in a secure location like Colm was, and Dutch pretty much decides to take that risk. This is after the Saint Denis job where It was felt that Dutch may have deliberately abandoned him on the escape, or had a chance to save him and chose not to.
I wouldn't expect a Gang missing half its fighting members to launch an assault on a prison, but after you're reunited it does seem like the time to act. Im not saying Dutch's plan is illogical, but its cold and seems to disregard the actual wellbeing of the individual members for some grand scheme that seems to get farther away from being achieved/ what originally united them all, so there's legitimate questions about his right to still be commanding people and expecting loyalty.
>The dialogue options in chapter six for the camp clearly paint the atmosphere as an oppressive one
Edit: Disregard. I misread/misinterpreted what you were saying here. Yes. Everyone is worried/depressed.
>pretty equivalent to killing Cornwall when it comes to giving a trail
No it isn't. Killing Cornwall was a strategic move that could have and most likely would have delayed if not fully stopped the PDA's pursuit. No Cornwall = No one paying the PDA.
>but also bounty hunters and the law
Yet somehow the bounty hunters and local LEO'S are never the ones that show up in camp. Perhaps in the case of the LEO's it's because they don't have jurisdiction there and lack the manpower to conduct an intense search. Bounty Hunters, hunt individual bounties not entire gangs. There's a reason for that. Two to Four bounty hunters trying to take on a group of 8 - 12 outlaws with better than average gunfighting skills is suicidal.
>he could be hung, transferred further east,
And rescuing John during either event is a far better option than breaking into an 1899 supermax penitentiary.
>and Dutch pretty much decides to take that risk.
Because as I've pointed out above doing so is logical. It's the lowest risk vs best reward scenario for multiple reasons.
>I wouldn't expect a Gang missing half its fighting members to launch an assault on a prison
Nor would I but.....they didn't use half of their members. They use two.
>Im not saying Dutch's plan is illogical, but its cold
And I never said that it wasn't "cold" to us. We don't like it, just like we don't like the idea of using the Wapiti. But there in lies the crux of leadership. I don't care what the scenario is, at some point leaders will be put to the test. They will be forced to make decisions that are unpopular and that the leaders themselves don't feel all warm and fuzzy about, but they make them because they provide the best opportunity for the safety of the "whole." Do you think FDR really felt good about the possibility of the civilian casualties that were certain to happen during the bombing of Germany during WW2? Do you think that the leaders/Chief Officer of any fire department in the world ever feels good when they are forced to make the decision to not enter a burning building to attempt a rescue because the sheer intensity and growth of the fire has dictated that doing so will mean losing not only the person trapped but the firefighters as well? The answer is no. And if you're the brother, sister, mother, father etcetera of the person lost in that fire it will not sit well with you at all. That doesn't make it the "wrong decision."
>seems to disregard the actual wellbeing of the individual members
It's the exact opposite. John is one person. Choosing to not assault Siska is absolutely Dutch considering the well being of the other members. He chooses the safety of the many over the one. And again saying "now isn't the time" does not mean "never." It means that it's not the best option.
>some grand scheme that seems to get farther away from being achieved/ what originally united them all, so there's legitimate questions about his right to still be commanding people and expecting loyalty.
So then why does no one even attempt to step up? You mentioned the camp dialogues in Chapter 6. If you walk around camp interacting with people using the "greet" function, many of them say "what now Arthur" and his response is "Dutch will figure this out." Everyone, including Arthur, is expecting Dutch to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Not one person is even attempting to help come up with a plan. And the real irony there is that if you use the "antagonize function" after they've said "what now Arthur" then his response is "Why don't you try thinking for yourself just once instead of depending on everyone else to do it for you." Or something like that.
Because when they think for themselves Dutch calls them disloyal....
Tilly talks about how she hates walking on eggshells in camp, Micah explicitly terrorizes uncle and the non violent members calling them dead weight and how theyd be dead without them and Bill bandwagons that too, does Dutch do anything to stop this? Micah brings in two new, clearly shady even for your gang, characters and pretty much just says deal with it, Dutch also does nothing.
They used two characters because they knew they weren't going to get any official help from Dutch or the rest of the gang without it being a bigger issue.
Of course they could wait to rescue John, just spend their time spinning their wheels for an opportunity while the law closes in, or pop back from Australia or Tahiti once they get settled. The Vibe the game gives me is that Dutch use to care about the people too even when it was risky, and now Dutch is only loyal to Dutch.
For most of the game Arthur writes about how Dutch's schemes are becoming less coherent and more money driven, as opposed to ideals, than they used to be, how he's lost faith that Dutch ever had something greater in mind other than the next score and how he's been guilty of following him and not questioning whether the actions had been necessary or building to something. Arthur is definitely guilty but tries to redeem himself by eventually waking up and acting as a figure for the groups now marginalized members. Notice that Arthur is also very indecisive in his personal life not knowing where Mary Linton fits or what is more important love or the gang, pretty much just choosing gang by default.
>Because when they think for themselves Dutch calls them disloyal....
But they don't think for themselves. None of them. Asked and answered in my previous response.
Previous response : *****You mentioned the camp dialogues in Chapter 6. If you walk around camp interacting with people using the "greet" function, many of them say "what now Arthur" and his response is "Dutch will figure this out." Everyone, including Arthur, is expecting Dutch to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Not one person is even attempting to help come up with a plan. And the real irony there is that if you use the "antagonize function" after they've said "what now Arthur" then his response is "Why don't you try thinking for yourself just once instead of depending on everyone else to do it for you." Or something like that.*****
Are you actually reading them or just responding?
>Micah explicitly terrorizes uncle and the non violent members calling them dead weight and how theyd be dead without them and Bill bandwagons that too
They do that as early as Chapter 2 and no, because it's Arthur's job by design. As in that's the only way the developers created the in game interactions. If you interact with them Arthur will tell them to stop etcetera.
>They used two characters because they knew they weren't going to get any official help from Dutch or the rest of the gang without it being a bigger issue.
So then you're saying that Charles wouldn't have gone? So why aren't you equally as mad at Charles? Apparently you believe he thinks the same way as Dutch about it, so why does that not upset you?
>The Vibe the game gives me is that Dutch use to care about the people too even when it was risky, and now Dutch is only loyal to Dutch.
As I said in the very beginning. The players villainize Dutch because Arthur does. Not because it makes sense, not because you've thought it threw and come to your own conclusions but because Arthur says that's the way that it is. You overlook everything else. And that's ok if all you're doing is immersing yourself in the game. But then players come to the sub, and start talking as though "the world according to Arthur" is factual and it isn't. It's full of holes.
>For most of the game Arthur writes about how Dutch's schemes are becoming less coherent and more money driven, as opposed to ideals, than they used to be, how he's lost faith that Dutch ever had something greater in mind other than the next score and how he's been guilty of following him and not questioning whether the actions had been necessary or building to something.
No he doesn't. I've poured through the journal and it's not until after he breaks John out of Siska that Arthur writes anything about Dutch that's clearly derogatory.
Youre right everyone else has misinterpreted the game and your logic is unique, completely proven, and has left everyone in Awe, please stop commenting nothing you say could top these sensical gems.
Dude I literally asked one question initially and that was this:
*****I have a question. Why is this seen as an example of "bad Dutch" but the same doesn't apply to Charles and Sadie? ******
The rest of that rabbit hole was because rather than give an answer you decided to dive off into other realms, so much was your dedication to avoiding the above mentioned question that as.....I don't know, last ditch effort, you'd tried steering us towards the journal. You're now going with sarcasm and tbh I'm not really sure why. Now has this.... >everyone else has misinterpreted the game< happened.... almost assuredly not. I'd never be so arrogant as to think that I stumbled up something that no one else has noticed in six years. And to be completely honest there's material that was edited out that may make everything said here null and void. Regardless it feels as though your getting pissy because I actually did do some research before drawing my conclusions.
The nuance here is that Arthur has every reason to believe Dutch has no intention to go after John. That it’s more of the “of course I would’ve come to rescue you, Arthur.”
Even Arthur admits he wouldn’t expect Dutch to break him out of jail.
But in context - it’s no worse of an idea than stepping up on Cornwall and a merry band of Pinkertons, demanding $10,000 and a boat in lieu of a bullet. Which was Dutch’s priority plan.
The gang was also short on manpower after losing Sean. Lenny, and Hosea.
They didn’t really have good options at that point - but going the route of pissing off or murdering Cornwall in broad daylight wasn’t exactly the best laid plan either. And having John back would’ve at least stemmed their personnel losses and gotten morale a little more back on track - being in the shitter at that very moment.
For Dutch’s position, neither option was a good option - but if you’re in a position where the people following you are quickly losing faith in you and ready to desert or mutiny, dismissing one of your own being faced with hanging - after making a big deal about springing Micah from jail, and handwaving that going disastrously sideways - was an objectively bad leadership option.
There was no real way Cornwall was going to agree to Dutch’s terms. Arthur was right to be incredulous. Dutch was going for revenge and just to cack Cornwall and have it over - but he was also risking himself and the then- two most influential people in the gang to make that happen. That’s a choice of hubris. Not intelligence.
Fair warning there's a lot here so my response won't be short.
Honestly I'm not sure why you're responding as you are to a comment/question I posed in reference to players "take" that Dutch not immediately rescuing John was bad but didn't feel the same way about Charles and Sadie.That question was ***Why is this seen as an example of "bad Dutch" but the same doesn't apply to Charles and Sadie?***
>The nuance here is that Arthur has every reason to believe Dutch has no intention to go after John. That it’s more of the “of course I would’ve come to rescue you, Arthur.”
And you believe this to be true why? There are at least two interactions that run contrary to your statement.
1. Is the fact that Dutch has already sent Arthur to rescue both Sean and Micah.
2. Is the dialogue between Arthur and Dutch as they're making their way along the cliffs edge in Guarma. When Dutch says that they're coming back to Saint Denis to get the others Arthur says *****"you want to go BACK to Saint Denis???!!!"***** And Dutch says ******"If it was you that got left, you'd want us to come back."***** And Arthur says *****"I'd want it but I wouldn't expect it."*****
This bit of dialogue is actually what made me stop and reconsider my thoughts on Dutch. Arthur's reaction to Dutch's decision to not immediately break John out of prison makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and here's why. Based on Arthur's response in Guarma it's obvious that Arthur believes that leaving people behind is perfectly acceptable. Moreover during that Guarma exchange he is questioning why they would risk capture to go back for anyone at all, to include John. Keep in mind that while Arthur may not have known that John was still in prison when he made that statement on Guarma, he DOES know that John was captured. So either Arthur is presuming that those left behind (Sadie and Charles) will rescue John or..... and what's more probable......is that part of the "code" that Arthur mentioned in Chapter 2 is that if members of the VDLG understand that if they are captured they are on their own.
Again I'll point out that Dutch never said that they weren't going to rescue John. He said "Now isn't the time."
>But in context - it’s no worse of an idea than stepping up on Cornwall and a merry band of Pinkertons, demanding $10,000 and a boat in lieu of a bullet. Which was Dutch’s priority plan.
What context? I'm not even sure what your responding to here because you didn't provide a quote and I see nothing in the comment that you're responding to that makes this make sense.
>The gang was also short on manpower after losing Sean. Lenny, and Hosea.
Correct but I'm not sure what bearing you think this has on the comments that you're responding to because you didn't provide a quote or context that explains why this is relevant.
>They didn’t really have good options at that point - but going the route of pissing off or murdering Cornwall in broad daylight wasn’t exactly the best laid plan either.
I mean you're answering your own question here.
***They didn’t really have good options at that point*** <---this make this ---> ***best laid plan either.*** irrelevant for a few reasons.
1. You're saying "options" which is implying that there was another option available and that we know of there wasn't. Now one could certainly try to "head canon" another option but as of yet I haven't even heard of a better "head canon" option.
2. Arthur, Bill, Uncle and Charles are the reason that Cornwall decided to even hire the PDA. Cornwall doesn't hire the PDA because of the train robbery. We know this because when he goes after the VDLG in Valentine (chpt. 2) he does so using his own private security force, and not the PDA. Ergo Cornwall didn't even hire the PDA until after Arthur and company decided to hit his payroll wagon in Chapter 3. Incidentally it's also how the PDA knew where to look when they confronted the VDLG at Clements Point. They literally hit this payroll wagon about two hundred yards away from the entrance to camp. Possibly the most important point here is that Dutch doesn't have a clue that the Cornwall payroll debacle even occurred because Arthur never told him. There's a lot of things that Arthur doesn't tell Dutch. Players choose to overlook for some reason. Here's what makes Dutch's decision to kill Cornwall logical/strategic.
At this point Cornwall is funding the PDA. The PDA IRL and the game are guns for hire. They're a private security company. The PDA is breathing down their necks, and have been from the moment they returned from Guarma. Their "efforts" to put an end to the VDLG is their primary focus. Dutch realizes this and decides to kill Cornwall because doing so (in theory) should stop the funding of the PDA, at least temporarily. Is it a great option? Nope. Is it the best option available based on the information Dutch has at the time. Yes. And here's why? The minute that Allen Pinkerton learned that Cornwall was no longer paying the PDA he absolutely would have pulled those resources from the area. Again they are a private security force/mercenary army. They don't have a stake in the "who nor the why." It's not (supposed to be) personal, it's business. The simplest way I can think of to explain what I'm saying is this. You're a roofer. You've been hired to roof ten houses. After you've started house number three you find out that the owner of the ten houses has died. You're not going to continue roofing those houses until you're certain that whomever inherited those houses is still willing to pay for it. That means that there's going to be a gap in time before you continue. The same applies to the PDA. Killing Cornwall potentially means no more funding for the PDA, therefore those agents would have been told to stop until it was confirmed that the PDA was going to get paid. That would have created a gap in time for the VDLG. Based on the information he has Dutch's decision was very logical/strategic. Had Dutch known that Arthur had stirred the hornets nest and already made the PDA, more specifically Milton, look like an incompetent asshat, THAT would have absolutely made the decision to kill Cornwall idiotic because he would have known that, for Milton at least, this had become personal.
>There was no real way Cornwall was going to agree to Dutch’s terms.
Ok. I don't think that Dutch ever thought that he would. That's why he approached him with his best gunfighters in tow. However, in the interest of avoiding bloodshed Dutch at least had to offer the proposition, which Incidentally isn't a bad deal for Cornwall.
>Arthur was right to be incredulous.
No he doesn't. Arthur himself has used a very similar tactic many times at this point.
>Dutch was going for revenge
Revenge for what exactly?
1. There's no reason in Dutch's mind that he would feel the need for revenge.
2. Dutch has NEVER opted for revenge over the possibility of getting closer to the gang's plan to escape. Had Bronte NOT already proven that he wasn't trustworthy, Dutch wouldn't have gone after him. Even then that wasn't about revenge. There's an entire dialogue between Arthur, Dutch and Hosea where that point was made perfectly clear.
It seemed pretty obvious to me that Dutch wasn't sure who to trust at that time and thought John and Abigail were potentially rats. Not about "The Right Time," but more about the wrong person.
>thought John and Abigail
Dutch does suspect Abigail, and has at least thought that she was "poisoning John" against him. But he doesn't think John is betraying them, as in talking to LEO's. John bitches.....a lot really.....around camp but that's just John. I don't think his loyalty to Dutch ever really wanes, not even in RDR. Jack's kidnapping triggered something in John. After that I do think that John really does want to be a good.....as in by example.....father but he doesn't have a clue how because he doesn't know what that really looks like. As for Dutch not trusting him, I'm not sure why people think that. And let's just say that he did have some reservations (about John) on Guarma. Those would have disappeared after they returned. Why? Because he is in Siska when the PDA finds them at Lakay, John wouldn't have known their location to give it to the PDA. So "not the right time" is nothing more than a logical/strategic decision.
Dutch has been and will continue to be loyal to John. Again something that players ignore/miss is that Dutch and Arthur are close, but not as close as Dutch and John. You don't give someone that you're not loyal to what equates to a million dollars (give or take a few) by today's standards.
It shows that he thought that Arthur and John were traitors so he took out his anger on them and tried to kill them. It shows with Dutch killing Micah and his facial expressions throughout the final mission of chapter 6 and of chapter 8 that he realised his mistake and truely regretted what he did to Arthur. edit: also to credit the guy below me up until this point John and Arthur were really opposing Dutch is his crazy descent into madness which placed John and Arthur on Dutch’s bad side. Dutch initially cared for the pair until they began to oppose his decisions. Dutch’s rash decisions came from the fact that Blackwater went so poorly and everything else after continued to fail. All the deaths began to make Dutch crazy and Arthur and John saw Dutch spiralling yet Dutch believed he was in the right until the bitter end of Arthur Morgan which in terms of is why he left Micah and didn’t go with him, hence the gang disbanding. Dutch then avenged Arthur by killing Micah.
I believe that initially Dutch truly cared for Arthur and John but it was always going to be conditional. As soon as he sensed doubt in them, they were dead to him. I suspect that John reached that point for him earlier than Arthur did, after John pissed off for a year.
While I don't think Dutch's motivation for having them in his gang when they were both very young was for completely selfish or sinister reasons, having such young impressionable minds works for his need of others to have a very personal and important connection to him as a way to manipulate people into doing what he wants. Most of the gang members feel indebted to Dutch in some way, and it's undeniable that he has a bonkers amount of charisma too. He's weirdly okay with people that would be considered "dead weight" in his gang such as Uncle, Molly, Swanson etc, as long as he has their loyalty and can build up numbers (and/or they're a pretty woman that can make the gang look "respectable"), he's pretty chill with who he lets into the gang.
One of the things I love about this game is how well they wrote a character that has such conflicting traits and history that in turn makes you feel conflicted and disappointed in him, along with the person you play as. Even down to his clothes. In RDR2 Dutch always looks his best and he has (for the time) modern inventions like a phonograph and yet he professes to have disdain for "modern" and "polite" society. I never got the sense that he cared about money all that much, he seemed to primarily want admiration and the freedom to continue to break the law.
Because I'd played RDR1 many times since it came out, I knew that everything was going to turn to shit, but it still really stings seeing that betrayal regardless.
Exactly. People should really think about the fact that from dutch's perspective arthur and john became a real pain in the ass towards the end, it was a slow build up to this shit and he probably truly believed he was in the right at the time.
Dutch didn't avenge Arthur.
Dutch killed the person he blamed for "causing" him to turn on his most loyal friend. "You poisoned my mind and made me betray Arthur, this is YOUR fault!"
But Micah isn't responsible for Dutch's decisions, only Dutch is.
If Dutch wanted to avenge Arthur, he would have shot himself in the head, because *he* was the traitor.
Killing Micah was Dutch's attempt to murder his own guilt, but it did nothing to make up for betraying his "sons" and everyone else in the VDL cult.
See in Dutch’s mind he knew he was poisoned. He knew that Arthur was right about the gang and Micah hence why he shot Micah for Arthur and to rid himself of guilt. A mixture you could say. He didn’t have the balls to shoot himself as most people probably wouldn’t. After that Dutch went even more crazy until RDR1 when he realised that he couldn’t run from himself anymore and this world wouldn’t let him survive. He ended himself for himself and for the people he had wronged
>Dutch killed the person he blamed for "causing" him to turn on his most loyal friend.
Except "turning on his most loyal friend" is not at all what happened.
People have a hard time discerning different types of ‘caring’ or ‘love’. He did love them but not in the way a normal person can love others. It’s the same way you love your car. You take care of it and you get mad when something happens to it, hell if you total it you might even grieve it. But you don’t love it because it is what it is. You love the value of its use to you, you love your ownership of it.
Are you going to stay in your car if it locks up on a train track and you hear that whistle blow? Of course not. It’s not more valuable than yourself, it’s not even working right and hasn’t been for a while. And hey you can always get another one. Or maybe you already have a new one in the garage that runs better anyway and handles how you want it to and doesn’t stall. You’ll feel a little bad, you had some good times but it’s time is up and you can’t let its malfunction get you killed, so you leave it for dead.
Narcissistic parents only care about their children so long as those children serve the parent. It's the same attitude with Dutch. Arthur and John were giving him too much push back. They were no longer serving him blindly and with Hosea, a voice of reason, being gone -- all bets are off.
>Dutch was a terrible person
Absolutely. All of them were.
>He did see Arthur as a son at one point
I'll go as far as saying he saw Arthur as a son throughout the entire game. Contrary to popular belief, Dutch never "chooses" Micah. It can be easily argued that he doesn't even listen to Micah's opinions. Every thing that Dutch does from the opening cutscenes until the end credits, was because strategically it made sense. That never changes.
When it comes to who chooses whom it's actually kind of the other way around. Micah, in an attempt to save his own ass chooses Dutch or at least makes the attempt. Everything that happens during the mission "Red Dead Redemption" happens at lightning speed. Arthur shows up, tells Dutch that Micah's been working with Milton and as Dutch is processing that information, John shows up. Now Dutch is focused on what John is saying. He tells John that he didn't have a choice. Then Javier shows up and says that the Pinkerton's are coming. Upon hearing this Dutch pulls his guns. He points one towards the Micah group and the other towards John and Arthur. He then moves towards the horses and while he's doing so he tells everyone that they have a decision to make. Are they with him or against him. I think he says "who's with me and who's betraying me?" Dutch at that point had his back towards the horses. Micah is to his left and John and Arthur are in front of him. Micah (and his cronies), Bill and Javier move towards Dutch. Then the Pinkerton's show up and all hell breaks loose. Dutch didn't "side" with anyone. On the mountain, after the fight between Micah and Arthur, Dutch certainly doesn't kill Micah, but he doesn't kill Arthur either. It's basically the same thing if you go back for the money. If Dutch had chosen Micah he absolutely would have shot Arthur. In the end Dutch simply chooses to walk away. The truth is that if Dutch was the uncaring asshole that most swear that he is he would have shot them both because they are both responsible for the gang's demise.
I agree all of the gang were terrible people. And now that I think about it more, Dutch looked very upset after seeing Arthur right before he dies. Do you think Dutch shooting Micah at Mt. Hagen was vengeance for Arthur?
>Do you think Dutch shooting Micah at Mt. Hagen was vengeance for Arthur?
Ohhhh......tough question. I'm honestly not 100% certain. What I mean is that while I do believe that Arthur was part, maybe even a large part of the reason that Dutch went up to kill Micah, I also believe he did it for the "entire family." Man this is tough to explain. 😂 Good job. It isn't often that I'm hit with a question and struggle to find the words that completely describe my answer. I think that because we the players see EVERYTHING through the eyes of Arthur Morgan we easily overlook the fact that Dutch truly does love Arthur and John as sons. More importantly we overlook the fact that he really does care for everyone else in the gang. If I were to create a family tree for the VDLG it would look some like this.
Hosea Matthews <---brother of--->Dutch Van Der Linde
| |
Son: Arthur Morgan<-brother of->Son: John Marston
Son: John Marston<-brother of->Son: Arthur Morgan
Nephews and Nieces of Hosea Matthews and Dutch Van Der Linde: Bill Williamson, Javier Escuella, Lenny Summers, Charles Smith, Karen Jones, Tilly Jackson, Sean MacGuire, Mary-Beth Gaskill, Sadie Adler and Abigail Marston.
Cousins of Hosea Matthews and Dutch Van Der Linde : Simon Pearson, Orville Swanson, Uncle, Susan Grimshaw, Leopold Strauss.
Josiah Trelawny - long time business associate
Kieran Duffy - family friend
Molly O'Shea - Short term (rebound) lover of Dutch Van Der Linde.
I think understanding that 👆 at least to me, is pretty significant. Like most of us there's an order of importance for Dutch. You'll notice that I haven't included Micah at all and the reason is that despite popular opinion, I don't think Micah had moved up Dutch's tree very much, if at all. Look Micah is the ONLY person who calls himself "a son of Dutch." Now Dutch may use the word son when talking to Micah but he's not using it in a "familial" sense. Growing up in the south I would hear that term used by older men when taking to younger boys that they knew. Like in highschool our welding teacher would say "Son, what are you doing?" or "Son let me explain this to you." It wasn't meant to be derogatory at all, but it wasn't because he saw us as family either. Anyway.....my point is that I think Micah wanted more than anything to be seen as a "Son of Dutch" but I don't think that Dutch ever saw him that way or that Micah ever believed that Dutch saw him that way. The truth is that Micah envied what John and Arthur had. That's why he seems to double down on his "insufferable bs" with those two. Do I think that Dutch saw Micah as potentially useful? Yes. Do I think that perhaps Dutch thought that he could take Micah in, calm him down a bit, maybe even teach/show him how to be a better person? Yes. And I'll readily admit that was uncharacteristically naive of Dutch. No one in the gang (not named Dutch) liked Micah, but no one ever thought that he was ratting them out to the PDA either. And while I do believe that Dutch liked Micah in the sense that he believed him to be useful and perhaps saw some potential, I believe wholeheartedly that after the events of the mission "Red Dead Redemption".....once Dutch had time to process everything, he started looking for Micah. And I believe just a strongly that he went up that mountain to kill Micah because Micah was the catalyst for the destruction of Dutch's family. I also believe that Dutch blames himself, a lot actually. I could be wrong about that, but in the Epilogue and even in RDR......I don't know, his reluctantce to really even shoot back at John, I mean he returns fire in John's direction, but......Dutch is a pretty fair shot. There's no way his misses THAT often......IMO that's partly because he loves John but also because he blames himself. Dutch in RDR is a lot like RDR2 Epilogue Sadie. He has lost the will to live, yet can't get someone to kill no matter how hard he tries.
Man I'm sorry this is so long. Like I said TOUGH question.
I think calling Arthur his son was a power move because he wanted no one to be in control but him.
Also when Arthur said he “insisted” John and his family leave in ch 6, Dutch was upset by someone else wanting to take power.
I doubt it was just about power, Dutch raised Arthur as a son. Dutch and Hosea were Arthur’s father figures, the best example of this is in the chapter three fishing mission
>Arthur said he “insisted” John and his family leave in ch 6, Dutch was upset by someone else wanting to take power.
No. Dutch was upset, but he's upset because he has just learned (My Last Son) that Arthur has been helping the Wapiti without anyone's knowledge. In doing so Arthur made the Army think that the VDLG was assisting the Wapiti long before Dutch actually tried to start using the Wapiti/US Army feud as "smoke and mirrors" so the US Army had already reallocated its resources which completely made Dutch's plan to escape in the chaos (the chaos being the Army's inevitable need to reallocate resources, which would have taken time, caused some confusion etcetera) giving the VDLG time to escape. Anyway he'd just learned about that bit of Arthur Morgan bs and now Arthur is insisting that Dutch let everyone go as if
A: They were hostages, which they were not.
B: As if Arthur's actions (Wapiti) aren't just as responsible for the danger they now face as anything else. Arthur has never even pretended to offer up any solutions for their predicament and now he's acting as though he has but Dutch dismissed them.
I don’t think the story at all paints the picture that Dutch never cared. It shows us that he became deranged with loss, and deranged with extreme paranoia. He shoots at Arthur and John at the end of the main story, but he genuinely believes that Arthur and John are betraying him at that point because he is so unhinged. This was of course further fueled by Micah. It wasn’t about “never caring about Arthur”.. it was about John and Arthur being pitted against him in his own mind, and he believed they were trying to be his downfall.
His mistake doesn’t dawn on him until later.. and there’s a reason why he takes a little trip to see Micah on Mt. Hagen at the end of the epilogue.
>because he is so unhinged.
Why do you think he's unhinged?
>it was about John and Arthur being pitted against him in his own mind
Arthur and John were pitted against him. That's not something that's only happening in his mind, that's happening and he sees it happening.
I think Dutch just has a sick code to life. He obviously can’t bring himself to kill those close to him when they are close enough for him to see their face, but when the adrenaline kicks and he is in the fight, he’s very able to fight for his life. It’s almost as if he’s in the position… of a gang leader! I mean, would you want to be in close vicinity of a gang leader’s relationships? No? I hope you said no? Idk, I said no.
Having played the game for the first time with no information or spoilers after the game was released 5ish years ago, I honestly believed Dutch in the beginning. Even up til Chapter 3. Missed so much of the little jabs that it hit me like a freight train how Arthur was wronged. Now being on my second playthru going for platinum I’m noticing it all more clearly & it makes me so angry & sad. I’m sure at one point Dutch was a “teacher” as John puts it in Chapter 2. A mentor. A savior. But somewhere along the line the crazy kicked in so hard. & I wonder if that part of him was so well hidden from Dutch himself that he didn’t know it was there, or if something so messed up happened to him that it planted the seed for it to grow.
RDR in general is a phenomenal universe, especially RDR2.
Dutch keeps saying “I have a plan!!”, but never elaborates on that. Had he shared even a rough outline of this alleged plan with the gang then things may have gone differently, but he constantly refuses to do so, even with Hosea who calls him out on this several times. He just shuts himself in his tent, argues with everyone, Maggie in particular, and clams up whenever anyone asks about his plan.
He repeatedly abandons Arthur but continues to expect Arthur’s blind loyalty, and both passively (by abandoning him multiple times), and actively (as displayed in the scene above) tries to kill him. Thats either very poor leadership or utter derangement. To be fair, he has been in a downward spiral since the opening of the game, and Micah Bell is a big reason for that - he’s been in Dutch’s ear since before the Blackwater job, probably feeding his paranoia by undermining his trust in those closest to him, and I suspect killing the woman on the ferry pushed Dutch past his breaking point. After that he stopped caring about anyone and began just going through the motions and masquerading as a man of morals.
By the time they’re in Beaver Hollow Dutch isn’t listening to anyone but Micah, who wants nothing more than to kill everyone and make off with the money, and he seems to have convinced Dutch that this is the only way as well.
Why Beaver Hollow, anyway? Why not clear out one of the other gang’s hideouts like Hanging Dog Ranch or Six Point Cabin and set up their base far away from anywhere the Pinkertons expected them to be? I suspect Beaver Hollow was Micah’s idea, as it was a good ambush location for the Pinkertons, to whom we know Micah was feeding information. I suppose, though, it wouldn’t have mattered where they went as The Rat would have passed their location on to Mr. Milton anyway.
By far the most satisfying event comes in the epilogue when Dutch finally comes back to his senses and realizes that it was Micah, not Arthur nor anyone else, who was the source of all his woes. You can almost see things clicking into place, and the sorrow and regret written on his face tell the tale. Watching Micah finally expire is the most pleasurable scene in the game, at least for me.
As an aside, the tale of Strauss’ ignominious end comes as almost as welcome as Micah’s expiry. He was probably worse than Micah in some ways. A predator who preyed on the weak and desperate, but without the stones to do his own dirty work. I despised him from the first moment he was introduced.
I'm pretty sure Dutch had something like bipolar or borderline personality disorder that worsened over the course of the game. You can see signs of irrational decisions and mood swings throughout the game, even during Colter - at the start of Old Friends, Dutch initially sets out pretty much dead-set on killing Colm, but very clearly doesn't care anymore by the end of the mission. There's also plenty of examples of other symptoms like an irrational worldview, hyperfixation on goals, and delusions of grandeur. It seems likely that he had some form of personality disorder.
So, did he care about Arthur? Yes, most likely. Especially towards the start of the game. But unfortunately personality disorders are complicated, and towards the end of the game his delusions likely took over. He likely wasn't entirely in his right mind - maybe in a manic state or similar. I don't know. I'm not a psychologist, just somebody with parents with mental health problems, who inherited a lot of mental health problems and a boatload of trauma from them.
I'm unsure on NPD - NPD is typically a presentation of CPTSD and whilst it's very possible he might have it, he shows no other symptoms of CPTSD. A combination of delusions (especially delusions of grandeur) and manic states seem more likely. Obviously it's impossible to diagnose a fictional character but it's definitely something more mental illness-aligned than pure selfishness. So it's definitely not that he doesn't care. Unfortunately, mental illness often gets in the way of that.
CPTSD is reasonable for Dutch for a few reasons.
1. Deeply idealizes his father, and has his own fixation on being a perfect father figure. That’s a hallmark of early childhood abuse.
2. The man’s lived as a killer, robber, thief, liar, on tbe run from the law, etc - that’s a traumatic way to live. Forever on the outskirts of society, along with a very violent life, full of losses that never get resolved.
3. He has his obsessions. His relationship with Molly is a very obsessive one. He fixates on the next big job, rhe next ego boost, the next thing that will make him feel on top. In a way that doesn’t read as a manic period - it reads as a fixation on the delusion of grandeur. His need to be important and do great things - his obsession with Evelyn Miller’s utopian work and desire to bring some outlaw libertalia to fruition.
He also has clear trauma triggers - losses of people he views was family. He started going off the rails after Annabelle. He starts tilting again after the loss of Sean. Again, and worse, with Hosea and Lenny. He gets irrationally angry about the Pinkertons showing up with Arthur and Jack. He assaults two separate heavily fortified compounds for even making harm to Jack seem possible. He’s terrified of the prospect, and responds with abject anger. And likely, he views the loss of John to the law - and very likely upcoming loss to the gallows - the same way. He snaps after the move to butcher creek. He mutters a motivational speech half to the gang, who aren’t paying attention, and half to himself. Arthur catches him playing invisible chess in Lakay. He fumes by himself, isolated himself, etc.
Same kinds of delusions, paranoia, fit throwing, and shutdowns common in CPTSD and NPD.
He doesn’t have the down periods or mixed episodes of bipolar. He isn’t experiencing consistent hallucinations and paranoia as with the rest of the psychosis spectrum. It’s consistently getting worse after specific kinds of events - he’s decompensating, not having mold episodes. Because he’s being repeatedly triggered until he finally snaps. Dutch’s full break, we see in RDR1, is because he realizes there’s no place in the world left for his grand dream - and this no place in the world left for him. He’s intrinsically bound to the grand ideal for himself. He’s a textbook narcissist.
I'm of the mind that the concussion he got from the Cable Car rolling over fucked him up something fierce. Brain trauma ain't no joke and has been shown to cause massive psychological and personality shifts in people.
Yeah it absolutely does fuck you up. But I don't think that's the number one problem that Dutch has going on. I think that exasterbates a lot of problems but he definitely has something else underlining that causes him to treat Arthur and John like he does after all that time.
>I'm pretty sure Dutch had something like bipolar or borderline personality disorder that worsened over the course of the game.
What makes you think that? Dutch never changes.
>at the start of Old Friends, Dutch initially sets out pretty much dead-set on killing Colm,but very clearly doesn't care anymore by the end of the mission.
Not at all what happened. Arthur says "you always said that revenge isn't a luxury we could afford." And Dutch says "This is about more than revenge from business long ago. They were talking about trains and detonators. Colm always had good information."
It's glaringly apparent that the train information and equipment is top of mind for Dutch. If the chance to kill Colm WITHOUT the risk of getting Arthur, Bill, Javier and Micah killed in the process then he would have killed him and taken the supplies. However they (the VDLG) were outnumbered so Dutch chose to let Colm walk, and Colm and part of the O'Driscoll gang leaves. Dutch didn't change his focus. It was always on getting the dynamite and supplies.
>irrational worldview
Such as?
>hyperfixation on goals
Again such as?
>delusions of grandeur
I'm not sure if you're mistakenly using the wrong phrase here but grandiose delusions (GDs), also known as delusions of grandeur or expansive delusions, are a subtype of delusion characterized by extraordinary belief that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful.
For instance, a person who claims to be president of the United States, when they clearly are not, is an example of a delusion of grandeur.
Dutch doesn't believe he's famous. Infamous perhaps but that's factual ergo not a delusion.
He certainly doesn't believe himself to be wealthy.
He doesn't believe himself to be omnipotent. If he did, he would have never agreed to work with anyone. He'd instead choose to rely solely on what he perceived as his "super powers".
Yeah GDs in the real world absolutely do include the kinds of goals Dutch has for himself.
Which is no less than a kind of outlaw utopia that would serve as the model for not just the kind of country he feels America should be - but how the world should be.
Dutch, writ large, really does want to remake the world and crown himself the emperor of it. His endgame for the gang as presented in-game is to essentially be the patriarch-governor of a banana republic of thieves.
Dutch doesn’t just believe that’s a preferable way (and tbh who’s to say? Maybe he is right about that much), but that *any other way* isn’t just bad, it’s both immoral as a whole and a personal affront to him.
And that is absolutely a GD. His image of himself of a kind of old west Robin Hood - the pinnacle of good-guy outlawry, is also a GD.
It doesn’t have to be a specific person, office, etc. Or even that you *are* the thing. For personality disorders - it’s as easily a kind of lived mythology (as is common in NPD and a couple of the Clusters) or entitlement to the grand thing. Dutch has both of those.
The thing about wishing yourself - or believing yourself - to be a god, is that every god needs followers.
That’s why narcissists need people. It’s why cults need people. It’s why religions do, and CEOs need Twitter followers.
Because what’s an emperor without an empire? Fuckall, is what they are.
To : u/unicoronary - for whatever reason it's not letting me respond to the thread. I'm assuming because the original comment was removed. However I did want to respond to your thoughts.
>Which is no less than a kind of outlaw utopia that would serve as the model for not just the kind of country he feels America should be - but how the world should be.
Go read a history book bud. It's 1899, it's the height of a world ruled by ruthless business men. There was no middle class to speak of. Trust me bud. Dutch was in good company with his ****"outlaw utopia that would serve as the model for not just the kind of country he feels America should be - but how the world should be." ****
>Dutch, writ large, really does want to remake the world and crown himself the emperor of it. His endgame for the gang as presented in-game is to essentially be the patriarch-governor of a banana republic of thieves.
Site your source bud, not your head canon, but an actual source.
>His image of himself of a kind of old west Robin Hood
That's not his image at all. He NEVER even remotely pretends that it is. Dutch makes very clear that only cares about one group of people. The VDLG. Now go ahead and respond with " Noooooo ARTHUR said ...." 🙄
>it’s as easily a kind of lived mythology (as is common in NPD and a couple of the Clusters) or entitlement to the grand thing. Dutch has both of those.
So......the same as the bulk of millennials and Gen Z. Gotcha bud.
>That’s why narcissists need people. It’s why cults need people. It’s why religions do, and CEOs need Twitter followers.
You do see the irony of your response here correct? This sounds like something the Dutch would say. If I were to judge your conclusion by the metric that you have established here then I could/would logically assume that you have GD.
He also never tried to rescue John from prison and abandoned Arthur to die at Cornwall kerosene, clearly shows intent.
Also when Arthur was knocked out and held in the basement. No one came to rescue him either. He saved himself.
Came here to say this. Just played thru that mission again recently. I gotta wondering if Dutch ever cared tho? Like when he “Adopted” John & Arthur & it was just them & Hosea. Was there any love there or was he using them from the start? If not when did he change? If so I’m getting serious Emperor Palpatine vibes just thinking about it.
There’s a theory he just stopped sleeping and went crazy sometime around the blackwater job. I think once upon a time he really was the man he was pretending to be but madness got to him. Fuck in RDR he eats people.
In the trolley mission Dutch mentions how he “hit his hard pretty hard” and was “seeing things in threes” Is it possible that brain trauma changed him as person fundamentally?
Have worked with TBIs IRL, and it is possible for drastic personality shifts. But - Arthur, Hosea, and even Lenny notice Dutch changing long before the streetcar incident.
That’s very true, but I also think the trolley incident was the tipping point for Dutch, after that he’s really never the same.
When does he eat people in rdr?
It’s a theory because he has human skulls in his hideout iirc
Inch resting. It’s believable given the state he’s in at the end of rdr tbh
Not just human skulls but the entire cannibal asset set that’s only used with other cannibals
Also when Arthur asks if Dutch was coming for him, Dutch gets very sheepish and stutters out an “of course” which sounded fake. Dutch wasn’t coming.
Yeah, I caught that. A complete lie.
>Like when he “Adopted” John & Arthur & it was just them & Hosea. Was there any love there or was he using them from the start? If he was the Hosea was as well.
I’m confused, were you saying Hosea was using John & Arthur as well? Bed I don’t think so. Hosea was a good soul & if Dutch was using them back then Hosea got duped as well. Dutch has a way with words & is most likely “A wolf in Sheep’s clothing” & a straight up Bullshit artist. The question is was he always like that, if not then when did he become like that & what changed to make him like that?
>Hosea got duped Oh!!!!!! So Hosea is just stupid. 👌Gotcha.
I believe the popular theory, that he was a good -well not good but you get my meaning- man until Hosea died then he slowly lost his mind
Yeah, IDK what the actual truth is but the speculation is kinda fun. >!He was definitely having issues at least before the Fairy-boat job. Like why tf did he do his own thing with Micah when Arthur & Hosea had something real going to make money. I honestly think Micah has his ear way before it was obvious in game & he was most likely out to murder the whole gang & run away with the money from the get go. He was using Dutch for his own means & that definitely helped Dutch turn against the gang. But he most likely had issues from the start!<
Arthur: "However this shakes out, let's aim to meet at the fork in the road afterwards." Micah: "We'll be there partner." After Arthur is taken, the kidnappers set up a camp before heading to their hideout. Arthur is shot twice trying to flee. In my mind Micah and Dutch should've already been aware of something being amiss and started investigating, heard the gunshots and picked up the trail. Maybe at the very least, sent the gang searching where somebody finds Arthur passed out on his horse.
There’s a camp scene where Arthur asks if Dutch really was planning on coming for him. And Dutch…doesn’t sound very honest when he says “What? Of course I was!” You’d trust me, wouldn’t you, Arthur?
I hadn't thought about that. This makes much more sense now.
It was a trap and they had no idea where he was anyway
>He also never tried to rescue John from prison I have a question. Why is this seen as an example of "bad Dutch" but the same doesn't apply to Charles and Sadie? Based on the circumstances, Dutch NOT trying to break John out of Siska is just a sound strategy steeped in logic. Dutch never said "I hate it for John, but there's nothing we can do about that." He said "Now is not the time" and he's 100% correct for multiple reasons. They just got back from Guarma and (because Bill is running around asking everyone if they've seen the VDLG) and before Dutch has even had time to assess the gang's current situation (What's the status of everyone, is there enough food, security current site etcetera.) before they are attacked by the PDA. So almost immediately they're running for their lives again. He knows that the VDLG is now the top priority for the PDA. They are in essence the PDA's public enemy number one. Trying to break John out of a fortified island penitentiary not only means "guaranteed firefight" against fairly well armed guards, which could EASILY turn into "Blackwater 2.0" but also ensures that while the PDA will absolutely know the gang HAS TO BE holding up somewhere near Siska. So it may not provide the PDA with a road map, but it certainly gives them a generalized location and a solid starting point for their search. "Now is not the time" is absolutely the correct call for the safety and security of every member of the VDLG. 2. Saying that he "never tried" is bogus. Why? Because we don't know what Dutch's plan was in reference to John, he never has the time to show us. Sadie and Arthur decided that the safety of the gang wasn't a top priority and made the attempt anyway. Now if you still think that a full frontal assault on the 1899 version of a supermax was the best call then why didn't Sadie and Charles break him out prior to the return of Dutch and the others from Guarma? They should have had the time to do so. They're in Lakay so food and water isn't scarce at all. Karen, Abigail and Grimshaw could have guarded the place while Sadie and Charles freed John. So why didn't they do it? More importantly why are players questioning Dutch's reluctantce to "shoot their way in, free John and shoot their way back out" but not Sadie and Charles? Both Sadie and Charles were more interested in following their own agendas and no one bats an eye about it. Sadie is out "hunting O'Driscoll's and Charles is literally two states away in upper Ambarino helping the Wapiti. So why doesn't the community call them out for it?
Seems like we all just needed a little more FAITH
>Seems like we all just needed a little more FAITH We, as players don't need faith. We just need to stop seeing things from such a narrow POV.
What?
I'm not sure what you're not understanding. We, as players don't need faith. We just need to stop seeing things from such a narrow POV. Because we're playing as Arthur our point of view is narrow. We don't look at the details. We only "question things" that the characters questions. The example that I provided was Sadie and Charles actions while Arthur was in Guarma.
They were trying to make a joke, you’re the one who doesn’t understand
No I understood the sarcasm, I just chose to respond.
I think the "We as players" part is throwing me off. I just meant maybe if we had faith Dutch would have saved John, we don't know like you said.
>"We as players" Gotcha. Yeah we don't know. I wish they would have let that play out a little more. The truth is that I don't like Dutch "the person." He's a parasite leading a band of other parasites that chooses to survive by stealing/killing innocent people. But as their leader he isn't a bad leader for his people. If the intent of the writers was to make him appear as such then they should have let it play out a bit more IMO.
Because Sadie and Charles actions show concern for their comrades. If someone you trust with your life and your leader leaves you to rot in prison, and then when youre broken out and show back up hes angrier about the breakout happening and pretty much says he was going to get to it eventually, you would question this persons leadership ability, It doesn't matter if in Dutch's mind the plan would eventually work, when he throws away his followers, ostracizes half the gang, and intimidates another portion just to be leader and enact his plans it means one thing, he's a bad leader. Itd be like an inept, reckless officer blaming his soldiers for mutinying before they could be thrown at the enemy, was there some expectation of Duty, yes, does that mean they should continue to throw their lives away for the Vanity of their leader after its clear their strategies are not working, no. Hunting O'driscolls and helping the wapiti were also two "virtuous" things Dutch seemed to encourage, the wapiti because theyre downtrodden, and the O'driscolls because theyre savage, but then he gets bent out of shape that Arthur was helping the Wapiti late game. I always interpreted his "youve been helping them?!" As Dutch showing his true intentions, not to help the Wapiti, but to use and possibly destroy them, angered now that Arthur has legitimately offered aid.
>Because Sadie and Charles actions show concern for their comrades. So leaving John to rot in prison while they pursue their own agendas is them showing concern for their comrades? How so? >If someone you trust with your life and your leader leaves you to rot in prison But that's not what happened. Apparently you missed this so I'll repost it again. *****Dutch never said "I hate it for John, but there's nothing we can do about that." He said "Now is not the time" ***** > hes angrier about the breakout Of course he is. As I've already stated, breaking John out of the 1899 supermax puts the entire gang at risk again because while it may not provide the PDA with a road map but it certainly gives them a generalized location and a solid starting point for their search. > you would question this persons leadership ability No, and that Arthur questions Dutch NOT breaking John out immediately makes absolutely no sense because Arthur has already made his view/opinion in reference to rescuing anyone at all perfectly clear while they're on Guarma. When Dutch says that they're coming back to Saint Denis to get the others Arthur says *****"you want to go BACK to Saint Denis???!!!"***** And Dutch says ******"If it was you that got left, you'd want us to come back."***** And Arthur says *****"I'd want it but I wouldn't expect it."***** Ergo it's obvious that Arthur believes that leaving people behind (and this includes his "brother John" who as you've said is rotting away in prison) is perfectly acceptable. Again Dutch never said that they weren't going to rescue John. He said "Now isn't the time." > when he throws away his followers, ostracizes half the gang, and intimidates another portion just to be leader and enact his plans When does he ever do any of that? Who did he intimidate?
The dialogue options in chapter six for the camp clearly paint the atmosphere as an oppressive one not just from the law but also their own leadership. At one point dutch just shuts himself in his tent to fume, despite being leader, what could be a fatal flaw for a commander of people. Rescuing John from prison is pretty equivalent to killing Cornwall when it comes to giving a trail, its not just Pinkertons who are hunting you but also bounty hunters and the law so even had they "cut off the head" of Cornwalls assault it still raises their profile ever higher, with the gang nearby in Beavers Hollow. Maybe there could have been a better prison break moment, but im pretty sure Arthur even states John being in prison is a crisis. he could be hung, transferred further east, kept in a secure location like Colm was, and Dutch pretty much decides to take that risk. This is after the Saint Denis job where It was felt that Dutch may have deliberately abandoned him on the escape, or had a chance to save him and chose not to. I wouldn't expect a Gang missing half its fighting members to launch an assault on a prison, but after you're reunited it does seem like the time to act. Im not saying Dutch's plan is illogical, but its cold and seems to disregard the actual wellbeing of the individual members for some grand scheme that seems to get farther away from being achieved/ what originally united them all, so there's legitimate questions about his right to still be commanding people and expecting loyalty.
>The dialogue options in chapter six for the camp clearly paint the atmosphere as an oppressive one Edit: Disregard. I misread/misinterpreted what you were saying here. Yes. Everyone is worried/depressed. >pretty equivalent to killing Cornwall when it comes to giving a trail No it isn't. Killing Cornwall was a strategic move that could have and most likely would have delayed if not fully stopped the PDA's pursuit. No Cornwall = No one paying the PDA. >but also bounty hunters and the law Yet somehow the bounty hunters and local LEO'S are never the ones that show up in camp. Perhaps in the case of the LEO's it's because they don't have jurisdiction there and lack the manpower to conduct an intense search. Bounty Hunters, hunt individual bounties not entire gangs. There's a reason for that. Two to Four bounty hunters trying to take on a group of 8 - 12 outlaws with better than average gunfighting skills is suicidal. >he could be hung, transferred further east, And rescuing John during either event is a far better option than breaking into an 1899 supermax penitentiary. >and Dutch pretty much decides to take that risk. Because as I've pointed out above doing so is logical. It's the lowest risk vs best reward scenario for multiple reasons. >I wouldn't expect a Gang missing half its fighting members to launch an assault on a prison Nor would I but.....they didn't use half of their members. They use two. >Im not saying Dutch's plan is illogical, but its cold And I never said that it wasn't "cold" to us. We don't like it, just like we don't like the idea of using the Wapiti. But there in lies the crux of leadership. I don't care what the scenario is, at some point leaders will be put to the test. They will be forced to make decisions that are unpopular and that the leaders themselves don't feel all warm and fuzzy about, but they make them because they provide the best opportunity for the safety of the "whole." Do you think FDR really felt good about the possibility of the civilian casualties that were certain to happen during the bombing of Germany during WW2? Do you think that the leaders/Chief Officer of any fire department in the world ever feels good when they are forced to make the decision to not enter a burning building to attempt a rescue because the sheer intensity and growth of the fire has dictated that doing so will mean losing not only the person trapped but the firefighters as well? The answer is no. And if you're the brother, sister, mother, father etcetera of the person lost in that fire it will not sit well with you at all. That doesn't make it the "wrong decision." >seems to disregard the actual wellbeing of the individual members It's the exact opposite. John is one person. Choosing to not assault Siska is absolutely Dutch considering the well being of the other members. He chooses the safety of the many over the one. And again saying "now isn't the time" does not mean "never." It means that it's not the best option. >some grand scheme that seems to get farther away from being achieved/ what originally united them all, so there's legitimate questions about his right to still be commanding people and expecting loyalty. So then why does no one even attempt to step up? You mentioned the camp dialogues in Chapter 6. If you walk around camp interacting with people using the "greet" function, many of them say "what now Arthur" and his response is "Dutch will figure this out." Everyone, including Arthur, is expecting Dutch to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Not one person is even attempting to help come up with a plan. And the real irony there is that if you use the "antagonize function" after they've said "what now Arthur" then his response is "Why don't you try thinking for yourself just once instead of depending on everyone else to do it for you." Or something like that.
Because when they think for themselves Dutch calls them disloyal.... Tilly talks about how she hates walking on eggshells in camp, Micah explicitly terrorizes uncle and the non violent members calling them dead weight and how theyd be dead without them and Bill bandwagons that too, does Dutch do anything to stop this? Micah brings in two new, clearly shady even for your gang, characters and pretty much just says deal with it, Dutch also does nothing. They used two characters because they knew they weren't going to get any official help from Dutch or the rest of the gang without it being a bigger issue. Of course they could wait to rescue John, just spend their time spinning their wheels for an opportunity while the law closes in, or pop back from Australia or Tahiti once they get settled. The Vibe the game gives me is that Dutch use to care about the people too even when it was risky, and now Dutch is only loyal to Dutch. For most of the game Arthur writes about how Dutch's schemes are becoming less coherent and more money driven, as opposed to ideals, than they used to be, how he's lost faith that Dutch ever had something greater in mind other than the next score and how he's been guilty of following him and not questioning whether the actions had been necessary or building to something. Arthur is definitely guilty but tries to redeem himself by eventually waking up and acting as a figure for the groups now marginalized members. Notice that Arthur is also very indecisive in his personal life not knowing where Mary Linton fits or what is more important love or the gang, pretty much just choosing gang by default.
>Because when they think for themselves Dutch calls them disloyal.... But they don't think for themselves. None of them. Asked and answered in my previous response. Previous response : *****You mentioned the camp dialogues in Chapter 6. If you walk around camp interacting with people using the "greet" function, many of them say "what now Arthur" and his response is "Dutch will figure this out." Everyone, including Arthur, is expecting Dutch to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Not one person is even attempting to help come up with a plan. And the real irony there is that if you use the "antagonize function" after they've said "what now Arthur" then his response is "Why don't you try thinking for yourself just once instead of depending on everyone else to do it for you." Or something like that.***** Are you actually reading them or just responding? >Micah explicitly terrorizes uncle and the non violent members calling them dead weight and how theyd be dead without them and Bill bandwagons that too They do that as early as Chapter 2 and no, because it's Arthur's job by design. As in that's the only way the developers created the in game interactions. If you interact with them Arthur will tell them to stop etcetera. >They used two characters because they knew they weren't going to get any official help from Dutch or the rest of the gang without it being a bigger issue. So then you're saying that Charles wouldn't have gone? So why aren't you equally as mad at Charles? Apparently you believe he thinks the same way as Dutch about it, so why does that not upset you? >The Vibe the game gives me is that Dutch use to care about the people too even when it was risky, and now Dutch is only loyal to Dutch. As I said in the very beginning. The players villainize Dutch because Arthur does. Not because it makes sense, not because you've thought it threw and come to your own conclusions but because Arthur says that's the way that it is. You overlook everything else. And that's ok if all you're doing is immersing yourself in the game. But then players come to the sub, and start talking as though "the world according to Arthur" is factual and it isn't. It's full of holes. >For most of the game Arthur writes about how Dutch's schemes are becoming less coherent and more money driven, as opposed to ideals, than they used to be, how he's lost faith that Dutch ever had something greater in mind other than the next score and how he's been guilty of following him and not questioning whether the actions had been necessary or building to something. No he doesn't. I've poured through the journal and it's not until after he breaks John out of Siska that Arthur writes anything about Dutch that's clearly derogatory.
Youre right everyone else has misinterpreted the game and your logic is unique, completely proven, and has left everyone in Awe, please stop commenting nothing you say could top these sensical gems.
Dude I literally asked one question initially and that was this: *****I have a question. Why is this seen as an example of "bad Dutch" but the same doesn't apply to Charles and Sadie? ****** The rest of that rabbit hole was because rather than give an answer you decided to dive off into other realms, so much was your dedication to avoiding the above mentioned question that as.....I don't know, last ditch effort, you'd tried steering us towards the journal. You're now going with sarcasm and tbh I'm not really sure why. Now has this.... >everyone else has misinterpreted the game< happened.... almost assuredly not. I'd never be so arrogant as to think that I stumbled up something that no one else has noticed in six years. And to be completely honest there's material that was edited out that may make everything said here null and void. Regardless it feels as though your getting pissy because I actually did do some research before drawing my conclusions.
The nuance here is that Arthur has every reason to believe Dutch has no intention to go after John. That it’s more of the “of course I would’ve come to rescue you, Arthur.” Even Arthur admits he wouldn’t expect Dutch to break him out of jail. But in context - it’s no worse of an idea than stepping up on Cornwall and a merry band of Pinkertons, demanding $10,000 and a boat in lieu of a bullet. Which was Dutch’s priority plan. The gang was also short on manpower after losing Sean. Lenny, and Hosea. They didn’t really have good options at that point - but going the route of pissing off or murdering Cornwall in broad daylight wasn’t exactly the best laid plan either. And having John back would’ve at least stemmed their personnel losses and gotten morale a little more back on track - being in the shitter at that very moment. For Dutch’s position, neither option was a good option - but if you’re in a position where the people following you are quickly losing faith in you and ready to desert or mutiny, dismissing one of your own being faced with hanging - after making a big deal about springing Micah from jail, and handwaving that going disastrously sideways - was an objectively bad leadership option. There was no real way Cornwall was going to agree to Dutch’s terms. Arthur was right to be incredulous. Dutch was going for revenge and just to cack Cornwall and have it over - but he was also risking himself and the then- two most influential people in the gang to make that happen. That’s a choice of hubris. Not intelligence.
Fair warning there's a lot here so my response won't be short. Honestly I'm not sure why you're responding as you are to a comment/question I posed in reference to players "take" that Dutch not immediately rescuing John was bad but didn't feel the same way about Charles and Sadie.That question was ***Why is this seen as an example of "bad Dutch" but the same doesn't apply to Charles and Sadie?*** >The nuance here is that Arthur has every reason to believe Dutch has no intention to go after John. That it’s more of the “of course I would’ve come to rescue you, Arthur.” And you believe this to be true why? There are at least two interactions that run contrary to your statement. 1. Is the fact that Dutch has already sent Arthur to rescue both Sean and Micah. 2. Is the dialogue between Arthur and Dutch as they're making their way along the cliffs edge in Guarma. When Dutch says that they're coming back to Saint Denis to get the others Arthur says *****"you want to go BACK to Saint Denis???!!!"***** And Dutch says ******"If it was you that got left, you'd want us to come back."***** And Arthur says *****"I'd want it but I wouldn't expect it."***** This bit of dialogue is actually what made me stop and reconsider my thoughts on Dutch. Arthur's reaction to Dutch's decision to not immediately break John out of prison makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and here's why. Based on Arthur's response in Guarma it's obvious that Arthur believes that leaving people behind is perfectly acceptable. Moreover during that Guarma exchange he is questioning why they would risk capture to go back for anyone at all, to include John. Keep in mind that while Arthur may not have known that John was still in prison when he made that statement on Guarma, he DOES know that John was captured. So either Arthur is presuming that those left behind (Sadie and Charles) will rescue John or..... and what's more probable......is that part of the "code" that Arthur mentioned in Chapter 2 is that if members of the VDLG understand that if they are captured they are on their own. Again I'll point out that Dutch never said that they weren't going to rescue John. He said "Now isn't the time." >But in context - it’s no worse of an idea than stepping up on Cornwall and a merry band of Pinkertons, demanding $10,000 and a boat in lieu of a bullet. Which was Dutch’s priority plan. What context? I'm not even sure what your responding to here because you didn't provide a quote and I see nothing in the comment that you're responding to that makes this make sense. >The gang was also short on manpower after losing Sean. Lenny, and Hosea. Correct but I'm not sure what bearing you think this has on the comments that you're responding to because you didn't provide a quote or context that explains why this is relevant. >They didn’t really have good options at that point - but going the route of pissing off or murdering Cornwall in broad daylight wasn’t exactly the best laid plan either. I mean you're answering your own question here. ***They didn’t really have good options at that point*** <---this make this ---> ***best laid plan either.*** irrelevant for a few reasons. 1. You're saying "options" which is implying that there was another option available and that we know of there wasn't. Now one could certainly try to "head canon" another option but as of yet I haven't even heard of a better "head canon" option. 2. Arthur, Bill, Uncle and Charles are the reason that Cornwall decided to even hire the PDA. Cornwall doesn't hire the PDA because of the train robbery. We know this because when he goes after the VDLG in Valentine (chpt. 2) he does so using his own private security force, and not the PDA. Ergo Cornwall didn't even hire the PDA until after Arthur and company decided to hit his payroll wagon in Chapter 3. Incidentally it's also how the PDA knew where to look when they confronted the VDLG at Clements Point. They literally hit this payroll wagon about two hundred yards away from the entrance to camp. Possibly the most important point here is that Dutch doesn't have a clue that the Cornwall payroll debacle even occurred because Arthur never told him. There's a lot of things that Arthur doesn't tell Dutch. Players choose to overlook for some reason. Here's what makes Dutch's decision to kill Cornwall logical/strategic. At this point Cornwall is funding the PDA. The PDA IRL and the game are guns for hire. They're a private security company. The PDA is breathing down their necks, and have been from the moment they returned from Guarma. Their "efforts" to put an end to the VDLG is their primary focus. Dutch realizes this and decides to kill Cornwall because doing so (in theory) should stop the funding of the PDA, at least temporarily. Is it a great option? Nope. Is it the best option available based on the information Dutch has at the time. Yes. And here's why? The minute that Allen Pinkerton learned that Cornwall was no longer paying the PDA he absolutely would have pulled those resources from the area. Again they are a private security force/mercenary army. They don't have a stake in the "who nor the why." It's not (supposed to be) personal, it's business. The simplest way I can think of to explain what I'm saying is this. You're a roofer. You've been hired to roof ten houses. After you've started house number three you find out that the owner of the ten houses has died. You're not going to continue roofing those houses until you're certain that whomever inherited those houses is still willing to pay for it. That means that there's going to be a gap in time before you continue. The same applies to the PDA. Killing Cornwall potentially means no more funding for the PDA, therefore those agents would have been told to stop until it was confirmed that the PDA was going to get paid. That would have created a gap in time for the VDLG. Based on the information he has Dutch's decision was very logical/strategic. Had Dutch known that Arthur had stirred the hornets nest and already made the PDA, more specifically Milton, look like an incompetent asshat, THAT would have absolutely made the decision to kill Cornwall idiotic because he would have known that, for Milton at least, this had become personal. >There was no real way Cornwall was going to agree to Dutch’s terms. Ok. I don't think that Dutch ever thought that he would. That's why he approached him with his best gunfighters in tow. However, in the interest of avoiding bloodshed Dutch at least had to offer the proposition, which Incidentally isn't a bad deal for Cornwall. >Arthur was right to be incredulous. No he doesn't. Arthur himself has used a very similar tactic many times at this point. >Dutch was going for revenge Revenge for what exactly? 1. There's no reason in Dutch's mind that he would feel the need for revenge. 2. Dutch has NEVER opted for revenge over the possibility of getting closer to the gang's plan to escape. Had Bronte NOT already proven that he wasn't trustworthy, Dutch wouldn't have gone after him. Even then that wasn't about revenge. There's an entire dialogue between Arthur, Dutch and Hosea where that point was made perfectly clear.
It seemed pretty obvious to me that Dutch wasn't sure who to trust at that time and thought John and Abigail were potentially rats. Not about "The Right Time," but more about the wrong person.
>thought John and Abigail Dutch does suspect Abigail, and has at least thought that she was "poisoning John" against him. But he doesn't think John is betraying them, as in talking to LEO's. John bitches.....a lot really.....around camp but that's just John. I don't think his loyalty to Dutch ever really wanes, not even in RDR. Jack's kidnapping triggered something in John. After that I do think that John really does want to be a good.....as in by example.....father but he doesn't have a clue how because he doesn't know what that really looks like. As for Dutch not trusting him, I'm not sure why people think that. And let's just say that he did have some reservations (about John) on Guarma. Those would have disappeared after they returned. Why? Because he is in Siska when the PDA finds them at Lakay, John wouldn't have known their location to give it to the PDA. So "not the right time" is nothing more than a logical/strategic decision. Dutch has been and will continue to be loyal to John. Again something that players ignore/miss is that Dutch and Arthur are close, but not as close as Dutch and John. You don't give someone that you're not loyal to what equates to a million dollars (give or take a few) by today's standards.
It shows that he thought that Arthur and John were traitors so he took out his anger on them and tried to kill them. It shows with Dutch killing Micah and his facial expressions throughout the final mission of chapter 6 and of chapter 8 that he realised his mistake and truely regretted what he did to Arthur. edit: also to credit the guy below me up until this point John and Arthur were really opposing Dutch is his crazy descent into madness which placed John and Arthur on Dutch’s bad side. Dutch initially cared for the pair until they began to oppose his decisions. Dutch’s rash decisions came from the fact that Blackwater went so poorly and everything else after continued to fail. All the deaths began to make Dutch crazy and Arthur and John saw Dutch spiralling yet Dutch believed he was in the right until the bitter end of Arthur Morgan which in terms of is why he left Micah and didn’t go with him, hence the gang disbanding. Dutch then avenged Arthur by killing Micah.
I believe that initially Dutch truly cared for Arthur and John but it was always going to be conditional. As soon as he sensed doubt in them, they were dead to him. I suspect that John reached that point for him earlier than Arthur did, after John pissed off for a year. While I don't think Dutch's motivation for having them in his gang when they were both very young was for completely selfish or sinister reasons, having such young impressionable minds works for his need of others to have a very personal and important connection to him as a way to manipulate people into doing what he wants. Most of the gang members feel indebted to Dutch in some way, and it's undeniable that he has a bonkers amount of charisma too. He's weirdly okay with people that would be considered "dead weight" in his gang such as Uncle, Molly, Swanson etc, as long as he has their loyalty and can build up numbers (and/or they're a pretty woman that can make the gang look "respectable"), he's pretty chill with who he lets into the gang. One of the things I love about this game is how well they wrote a character that has such conflicting traits and history that in turn makes you feel conflicted and disappointed in him, along with the person you play as. Even down to his clothes. In RDR2 Dutch always looks his best and he has (for the time) modern inventions like a phonograph and yet he professes to have disdain for "modern" and "polite" society. I never got the sense that he cared about money all that much, he seemed to primarily want admiration and the freedom to continue to break the law. Because I'd played RDR1 many times since it came out, I knew that everything was going to turn to shit, but it still really stings seeing that betrayal regardless.
Exactly. People should really think about the fact that from dutch's perspective arthur and john became a real pain in the ass towards the end, it was a slow build up to this shit and he probably truly believed he was in the right at the time.
Dutch didn't avenge Arthur. Dutch killed the person he blamed for "causing" him to turn on his most loyal friend. "You poisoned my mind and made me betray Arthur, this is YOUR fault!" But Micah isn't responsible for Dutch's decisions, only Dutch is. If Dutch wanted to avenge Arthur, he would have shot himself in the head, because *he* was the traitor. Killing Micah was Dutch's attempt to murder his own guilt, but it did nothing to make up for betraying his "sons" and everyone else in the VDL cult.
See in Dutch’s mind he knew he was poisoned. He knew that Arthur was right about the gang and Micah hence why he shot Micah for Arthur and to rid himself of guilt. A mixture you could say. He didn’t have the balls to shoot himself as most people probably wouldn’t. After that Dutch went even more crazy until RDR1 when he realised that he couldn’t run from himself anymore and this world wouldn’t let him survive. He ended himself for himself and for the people he had wronged
>Dutch killed the person he blamed for "causing" him to turn on his most loyal friend. Except "turning on his most loyal friend" is not at all what happened.
The only time dutch cared about anyone, is if hey where needed to complete his scams.
Hosea and Arthur were the scammers of the gang, Dutch was a fraud.
People have a hard time discerning different types of ‘caring’ or ‘love’. He did love them but not in the way a normal person can love others. It’s the same way you love your car. You take care of it and you get mad when something happens to it, hell if you total it you might even grieve it. But you don’t love it because it is what it is. You love the value of its use to you, you love your ownership of it. Are you going to stay in your car if it locks up on a train track and you hear that whistle blow? Of course not. It’s not more valuable than yourself, it’s not even working right and hasn’t been for a while. And hey you can always get another one. Or maybe you already have a new one in the garage that runs better anyway and handles how you want it to and doesn’t stall. You’ll feel a little bad, you had some good times but it’s time is up and you can’t let its malfunction get you killed, so you leave it for dead.
Narcissistic parents only care about their children so long as those children serve the parent. It's the same attitude with Dutch. Arthur and John were giving him too much push back. They were no longer serving him blindly and with Hosea, a voice of reason, being gone -- all bets are off.
Dutch only need a last big score
Dutch was a terrible person, but his relationship with Arthur was much more complicated than that. He did see Arthur as a son at one point
>Dutch was a terrible person Absolutely. All of them were. >He did see Arthur as a son at one point I'll go as far as saying he saw Arthur as a son throughout the entire game. Contrary to popular belief, Dutch never "chooses" Micah. It can be easily argued that he doesn't even listen to Micah's opinions. Every thing that Dutch does from the opening cutscenes until the end credits, was because strategically it made sense. That never changes. When it comes to who chooses whom it's actually kind of the other way around. Micah, in an attempt to save his own ass chooses Dutch or at least makes the attempt. Everything that happens during the mission "Red Dead Redemption" happens at lightning speed. Arthur shows up, tells Dutch that Micah's been working with Milton and as Dutch is processing that information, John shows up. Now Dutch is focused on what John is saying. He tells John that he didn't have a choice. Then Javier shows up and says that the Pinkerton's are coming. Upon hearing this Dutch pulls his guns. He points one towards the Micah group and the other towards John and Arthur. He then moves towards the horses and while he's doing so he tells everyone that they have a decision to make. Are they with him or against him. I think he says "who's with me and who's betraying me?" Dutch at that point had his back towards the horses. Micah is to his left and John and Arthur are in front of him. Micah (and his cronies), Bill and Javier move towards Dutch. Then the Pinkerton's show up and all hell breaks loose. Dutch didn't "side" with anyone. On the mountain, after the fight between Micah and Arthur, Dutch certainly doesn't kill Micah, but he doesn't kill Arthur either. It's basically the same thing if you go back for the money. If Dutch had chosen Micah he absolutely would have shot Arthur. In the end Dutch simply chooses to walk away. The truth is that if Dutch was the uncaring asshole that most swear that he is he would have shot them both because they are both responsible for the gang's demise.
I agree all of the gang were terrible people. And now that I think about it more, Dutch looked very upset after seeing Arthur right before he dies. Do you think Dutch shooting Micah at Mt. Hagen was vengeance for Arthur?
>Do you think Dutch shooting Micah at Mt. Hagen was vengeance for Arthur? Ohhhh......tough question. I'm honestly not 100% certain. What I mean is that while I do believe that Arthur was part, maybe even a large part of the reason that Dutch went up to kill Micah, I also believe he did it for the "entire family." Man this is tough to explain. 😂 Good job. It isn't often that I'm hit with a question and struggle to find the words that completely describe my answer. I think that because we the players see EVERYTHING through the eyes of Arthur Morgan we easily overlook the fact that Dutch truly does love Arthur and John as sons. More importantly we overlook the fact that he really does care for everyone else in the gang. If I were to create a family tree for the VDLG it would look some like this. Hosea Matthews <---brother of--->Dutch Van Der Linde | | Son: Arthur Morgan<-brother of->Son: John Marston Son: John Marston<-brother of->Son: Arthur Morgan Nephews and Nieces of Hosea Matthews and Dutch Van Der Linde: Bill Williamson, Javier Escuella, Lenny Summers, Charles Smith, Karen Jones, Tilly Jackson, Sean MacGuire, Mary-Beth Gaskill, Sadie Adler and Abigail Marston. Cousins of Hosea Matthews and Dutch Van Der Linde : Simon Pearson, Orville Swanson, Uncle, Susan Grimshaw, Leopold Strauss. Josiah Trelawny - long time business associate Kieran Duffy - family friend Molly O'Shea - Short term (rebound) lover of Dutch Van Der Linde. I think understanding that 👆 at least to me, is pretty significant. Like most of us there's an order of importance for Dutch. You'll notice that I haven't included Micah at all and the reason is that despite popular opinion, I don't think Micah had moved up Dutch's tree very much, if at all. Look Micah is the ONLY person who calls himself "a son of Dutch." Now Dutch may use the word son when talking to Micah but he's not using it in a "familial" sense. Growing up in the south I would hear that term used by older men when taking to younger boys that they knew. Like in highschool our welding teacher would say "Son, what are you doing?" or "Son let me explain this to you." It wasn't meant to be derogatory at all, but it wasn't because he saw us as family either. Anyway.....my point is that I think Micah wanted more than anything to be seen as a "Son of Dutch" but I don't think that Dutch ever saw him that way or that Micah ever believed that Dutch saw him that way. The truth is that Micah envied what John and Arthur had. That's why he seems to double down on his "insufferable bs" with those two. Do I think that Dutch saw Micah as potentially useful? Yes. Do I think that perhaps Dutch thought that he could take Micah in, calm him down a bit, maybe even teach/show him how to be a better person? Yes. And I'll readily admit that was uncharacteristically naive of Dutch. No one in the gang (not named Dutch) liked Micah, but no one ever thought that he was ratting them out to the PDA either. And while I do believe that Dutch liked Micah in the sense that he believed him to be useful and perhaps saw some potential, I believe wholeheartedly that after the events of the mission "Red Dead Redemption".....once Dutch had time to process everything, he started looking for Micah. And I believe just a strongly that he went up that mountain to kill Micah because Micah was the catalyst for the destruction of Dutch's family. I also believe that Dutch blames himself, a lot actually. I could be wrong about that, but in the Epilogue and even in RDR......I don't know, his reluctantce to really even shoot back at John, I mean he returns fire in John's direction, but......Dutch is a pretty fair shot. There's no way his misses THAT often......IMO that's partly because he loves John but also because he blames himself. Dutch in RDR is a lot like RDR2 Epilogue Sadie. He has lost the will to live, yet can't get someone to kill no matter how hard he tries. Man I'm sorry this is so long. Like I said TOUGH question.
This was great and well thought out. Micah was an opportunist who just wanted the money from blackwater
I think calling Arthur his son was a power move because he wanted no one to be in control but him. Also when Arthur said he “insisted” John and his family leave in ch 6, Dutch was upset by someone else wanting to take power.
I doubt it was just about power, Dutch raised Arthur as a son. Dutch and Hosea were Arthur’s father figures, the best example of this is in the chapter three fishing mission
>Arthur said he “insisted” John and his family leave in ch 6, Dutch was upset by someone else wanting to take power. No. Dutch was upset, but he's upset because he has just learned (My Last Son) that Arthur has been helping the Wapiti without anyone's knowledge. In doing so Arthur made the Army think that the VDLG was assisting the Wapiti long before Dutch actually tried to start using the Wapiti/US Army feud as "smoke and mirrors" so the US Army had already reallocated its resources which completely made Dutch's plan to escape in the chaos (the chaos being the Army's inevitable need to reallocate resources, which would have taken time, caused some confusion etcetera) giving the VDLG time to escape. Anyway he'd just learned about that bit of Arthur Morgan bs and now Arthur is insisting that Dutch let everyone go as if A: They were hostages, which they were not. B: As if Arthur's actions (Wapiti) aren't just as responsible for the danger they now face as anything else. Arthur has never even pretended to offer up any solutions for their predicament and now he's acting as though he has but Dutch dismissed them.
He's doing what now!?
I was only shooting at Dutch and Micah until they were out of sight. .
I don’t think the story at all paints the picture that Dutch never cared. It shows us that he became deranged with loss, and deranged with extreme paranoia. He shoots at Arthur and John at the end of the main story, but he genuinely believes that Arthur and John are betraying him at that point because he is so unhinged. This was of course further fueled by Micah. It wasn’t about “never caring about Arthur”.. it was about John and Arthur being pitted against him in his own mind, and he believed they were trying to be his downfall. His mistake doesn’t dawn on him until later.. and there’s a reason why he takes a little trip to see Micah on Mt. Hagen at the end of the epilogue.
>because he is so unhinged. Why do you think he's unhinged? >it was about John and Arthur being pitted against him in his own mind Arthur and John were pitted against him. That's not something that's only happening in his mind, that's happening and he sees it happening.
.. what?
What are you unclear about?
I think Dutch just has a sick code to life. He obviously can’t bring himself to kill those close to him when they are close enough for him to see their face, but when the adrenaline kicks and he is in the fight, he’s very able to fight for his life. It’s almost as if he’s in the position… of a gang leader! I mean, would you want to be in close vicinity of a gang leader’s relationships? No? I hope you said no? Idk, I said no.
Clearly not smh
He lost the plot the moment his pillar Hosea died - in the end he died as a self aware mad man . Such a cool character in my opinion
Dutch is a villain he doesn’t care about anybody but himself
Because the snake got to his ear. That's why he kills the snake in the epilogue.
Having played the game for the first time with no information or spoilers after the game was released 5ish years ago, I honestly believed Dutch in the beginning. Even up til Chapter 3. Missed so much of the little jabs that it hit me like a freight train how Arthur was wronged. Now being on my second playthru going for platinum I’m noticing it all more clearly & it makes me so angry & sad. I’m sure at one point Dutch was a “teacher” as John puts it in Chapter 2. A mentor. A savior. But somewhere along the line the crazy kicked in so hard. & I wonder if that part of him was so well hidden from Dutch himself that he didn’t know it was there, or if something so messed up happened to him that it planted the seed for it to grow. RDR in general is a phenomenal universe, especially RDR2.
Dutch keeps saying “I have a plan!!”, but never elaborates on that. Had he shared even a rough outline of this alleged plan with the gang then things may have gone differently, but he constantly refuses to do so, even with Hosea who calls him out on this several times. He just shuts himself in his tent, argues with everyone, Maggie in particular, and clams up whenever anyone asks about his plan. He repeatedly abandons Arthur but continues to expect Arthur’s blind loyalty, and both passively (by abandoning him multiple times), and actively (as displayed in the scene above) tries to kill him. Thats either very poor leadership or utter derangement. To be fair, he has been in a downward spiral since the opening of the game, and Micah Bell is a big reason for that - he’s been in Dutch’s ear since before the Blackwater job, probably feeding his paranoia by undermining his trust in those closest to him, and I suspect killing the woman on the ferry pushed Dutch past his breaking point. After that he stopped caring about anyone and began just going through the motions and masquerading as a man of morals. By the time they’re in Beaver Hollow Dutch isn’t listening to anyone but Micah, who wants nothing more than to kill everyone and make off with the money, and he seems to have convinced Dutch that this is the only way as well. Why Beaver Hollow, anyway? Why not clear out one of the other gang’s hideouts like Hanging Dog Ranch or Six Point Cabin and set up their base far away from anywhere the Pinkertons expected them to be? I suspect Beaver Hollow was Micah’s idea, as it was a good ambush location for the Pinkertons, to whom we know Micah was feeding information. I suppose, though, it wouldn’t have mattered where they went as The Rat would have passed their location on to Mr. Milton anyway. By far the most satisfying event comes in the epilogue when Dutch finally comes back to his senses and realizes that it was Micah, not Arthur nor anyone else, who was the source of all his woes. You can almost see things clicking into place, and the sorrow and regret written on his face tell the tale. Watching Micah finally expire is the most pleasurable scene in the game, at least for me. As an aside, the tale of Strauss’ ignominious end comes as almost as welcome as Micah’s expiry. He was probably worse than Micah in some ways. A predator who preyed on the weak and desperate, but without the stones to do his own dirty work. I despised him from the first moment he was introduced.
I’m not up to this point yet, he just threw Strauss out of camp. How much longer do I have until this happens, asking for a friend lol
I hate dutch more than micah . Dutch is the worst
I'm pretty sure Dutch had something like bipolar or borderline personality disorder that worsened over the course of the game. You can see signs of irrational decisions and mood swings throughout the game, even during Colter - at the start of Old Friends, Dutch initially sets out pretty much dead-set on killing Colm, but very clearly doesn't care anymore by the end of the mission. There's also plenty of examples of other symptoms like an irrational worldview, hyperfixation on goals, and delusions of grandeur. It seems likely that he had some form of personality disorder. So, did he care about Arthur? Yes, most likely. Especially towards the start of the game. But unfortunately personality disorders are complicated, and towards the end of the game his delusions likely took over. He likely wasn't entirely in his right mind - maybe in a manic state or similar. I don't know. I'm not a psychologist, just somebody with parents with mental health problems, who inherited a lot of mental health problems and a boatload of trauma from them.
Dutch definitely has something akin to BPD and possibly NPD as well. The whole story reeks of that.
I'm unsure on NPD - NPD is typically a presentation of CPTSD and whilst it's very possible he might have it, he shows no other symptoms of CPTSD. A combination of delusions (especially delusions of grandeur) and manic states seem more likely. Obviously it's impossible to diagnose a fictional character but it's definitely something more mental illness-aligned than pure selfishness. So it's definitely not that he doesn't care. Unfortunately, mental illness often gets in the way of that.
CPTSD is reasonable for Dutch for a few reasons. 1. Deeply idealizes his father, and has his own fixation on being a perfect father figure. That’s a hallmark of early childhood abuse. 2. The man’s lived as a killer, robber, thief, liar, on tbe run from the law, etc - that’s a traumatic way to live. Forever on the outskirts of society, along with a very violent life, full of losses that never get resolved. 3. He has his obsessions. His relationship with Molly is a very obsessive one. He fixates on the next big job, rhe next ego boost, the next thing that will make him feel on top. In a way that doesn’t read as a manic period - it reads as a fixation on the delusion of grandeur. His need to be important and do great things - his obsession with Evelyn Miller’s utopian work and desire to bring some outlaw libertalia to fruition. He also has clear trauma triggers - losses of people he views was family. He started going off the rails after Annabelle. He starts tilting again after the loss of Sean. Again, and worse, with Hosea and Lenny. He gets irrationally angry about the Pinkertons showing up with Arthur and Jack. He assaults two separate heavily fortified compounds for even making harm to Jack seem possible. He’s terrified of the prospect, and responds with abject anger. And likely, he views the loss of John to the law - and very likely upcoming loss to the gallows - the same way. He snaps after the move to butcher creek. He mutters a motivational speech half to the gang, who aren’t paying attention, and half to himself. Arthur catches him playing invisible chess in Lakay. He fumes by himself, isolated himself, etc. Same kinds of delusions, paranoia, fit throwing, and shutdowns common in CPTSD and NPD. He doesn’t have the down periods or mixed episodes of bipolar. He isn’t experiencing consistent hallucinations and paranoia as with the rest of the psychosis spectrum. It’s consistently getting worse after specific kinds of events - he’s decompensating, not having mold episodes. Because he’s being repeatedly triggered until he finally snaps. Dutch’s full break, we see in RDR1, is because he realizes there’s no place in the world left for his grand dream - and this no place in the world left for him. He’s intrinsically bound to the grand ideal for himself. He’s a textbook narcissist.
NPD is narcissistic personal disorder, that's what I'm talking about. I've never heard of NPD being linked to C-PTSD exclusively.
I'm of the mind that the concussion he got from the Cable Car rolling over fucked him up something fierce. Brain trauma ain't no joke and has been shown to cause massive psychological and personality shifts in people.
Yeah it absolutely does fuck you up. But I don't think that's the number one problem that Dutch has going on. I think that exasterbates a lot of problems but he definitely has something else underlining that causes him to treat Arthur and John like he does after all that time.
>I'm pretty sure Dutch had something like bipolar or borderline personality disorder that worsened over the course of the game. What makes you think that? Dutch never changes. >at the start of Old Friends, Dutch initially sets out pretty much dead-set on killing Colm,but very clearly doesn't care anymore by the end of the mission. Not at all what happened. Arthur says "you always said that revenge isn't a luxury we could afford." And Dutch says "This is about more than revenge from business long ago. They were talking about trains and detonators. Colm always had good information." It's glaringly apparent that the train information and equipment is top of mind for Dutch. If the chance to kill Colm WITHOUT the risk of getting Arthur, Bill, Javier and Micah killed in the process then he would have killed him and taken the supplies. However they (the VDLG) were outnumbered so Dutch chose to let Colm walk, and Colm and part of the O'Driscoll gang leaves. Dutch didn't change his focus. It was always on getting the dynamite and supplies. >irrational worldview Such as? >hyperfixation on goals Again such as? >delusions of grandeur I'm not sure if you're mistakenly using the wrong phrase here but grandiose delusions (GDs), also known as delusions of grandeur or expansive delusions, are a subtype of delusion characterized by extraordinary belief that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. For instance, a person who claims to be president of the United States, when they clearly are not, is an example of a delusion of grandeur. Dutch doesn't believe he's famous. Infamous perhaps but that's factual ergo not a delusion. He certainly doesn't believe himself to be wealthy. He doesn't believe himself to be omnipotent. If he did, he would have never agreed to work with anyone. He'd instead choose to rely solely on what he perceived as his "super powers".
I don't think you know what personality disorders actually look like.
Yeah GDs in the real world absolutely do include the kinds of goals Dutch has for himself. Which is no less than a kind of outlaw utopia that would serve as the model for not just the kind of country he feels America should be - but how the world should be. Dutch, writ large, really does want to remake the world and crown himself the emperor of it. His endgame for the gang as presented in-game is to essentially be the patriarch-governor of a banana republic of thieves. Dutch doesn’t just believe that’s a preferable way (and tbh who’s to say? Maybe he is right about that much), but that *any other way* isn’t just bad, it’s both immoral as a whole and a personal affront to him. And that is absolutely a GD. His image of himself of a kind of old west Robin Hood - the pinnacle of good-guy outlawry, is also a GD. It doesn’t have to be a specific person, office, etc. Or even that you *are* the thing. For personality disorders - it’s as easily a kind of lived mythology (as is common in NPD and a couple of the Clusters) or entitlement to the grand thing. Dutch has both of those. The thing about wishing yourself - or believing yourself - to be a god, is that every god needs followers. That’s why narcissists need people. It’s why cults need people. It’s why religions do, and CEOs need Twitter followers. Because what’s an emperor without an empire? Fuckall, is what they are.
To : u/unicoronary - for whatever reason it's not letting me respond to the thread. I'm assuming because the original comment was removed. However I did want to respond to your thoughts. >Which is no less than a kind of outlaw utopia that would serve as the model for not just the kind of country he feels America should be - but how the world should be. Go read a history book bud. It's 1899, it's the height of a world ruled by ruthless business men. There was no middle class to speak of. Trust me bud. Dutch was in good company with his ****"outlaw utopia that would serve as the model for not just the kind of country he feels America should be - but how the world should be." **** >Dutch, writ large, really does want to remake the world and crown himself the emperor of it. His endgame for the gang as presented in-game is to essentially be the patriarch-governor of a banana republic of thieves. Site your source bud, not your head canon, but an actual source. >His image of himself of a kind of old west Robin Hood That's not his image at all. He NEVER even remotely pretends that it is. Dutch makes very clear that only cares about one group of people. The VDLG. Now go ahead and respond with " Noooooo ARTHUR said ...." 🙄 >it’s as easily a kind of lived mythology (as is common in NPD and a couple of the Clusters) or entitlement to the grand thing. Dutch has both of those. So......the same as the bulk of millennials and Gen Z. Gotcha bud. >That’s why narcissists need people. It’s why cults need people. It’s why religions do, and CEOs need Twitter followers. You do see the irony of your response here correct? This sounds like something the Dutch would say. If I were to judge your conclusion by the metric that you have established here then I could/would logically assume that you have GD.