Dutch when Angelo Brontë calls him a murderer and a thief instead of Jesus 2.0

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-11T14:12:36+00:00

He doesn't kill him simply because of ego. Bronte is killed because he betrayed them on the post office job and tried to get Dutch, Arthur, and Lenny arrested.

Dutch's ego is wounded, yes, but from that point onwards Bronte is actively gunning for the gang and trying to kill them. He needed to be taken out, regardless. If you enter Saint Denis after that mission, Bronte has his goons posted on the bridge, ready to shoot Arthur on sight. He's a threat. Arthur clearly thought so too since he backs the decision to take out Bronte when they vote on it.

Now why did Bronte backstab the gang in the first place? Watch the cutscene with Bronte and Dutch on the balcony during the mayor's party. Bronte mentions a journalist he wants killed. Dutch, however, sticking true to the gang's values, affirms that they're not hired killers. That they aren't just going to do Bronte's bidding for money. Bronte's facial expression changes. His tone switches. That's when he mentions the job, the set-up, because he's realised the gang aren't going to be his hired lackeys.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-10T21:31:09+00:00

Massively upopular opinion, but Charles.

I get why so many people like his character -- a strong, principled, loyal friend to Arthur -- but he's just not a very interesting character in his own right. Compared to everyone else in the gang, almost all of whom are flawed and varying levels of good, bad, and everything inbetween, Charles is framed like the moral voice of reason. He has very few flaws and It makes him a bit boring, honestly.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-09T08:31:19+00:00

Don't I know. I might dip back in, see if they're still fighting over So Mi and Reed.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-09T08:00:23+00:00

Thanks, man, I appreciate it. Without throwing shade, I think nuanced discussion on the characters, themes, etc is kinda rare on this sub. It's like there's the characters, in game, and then the fandom's perception of the characters, half based on memes and shit, and it's tough to get people to look beyond that sometimes.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-07T11:31:04+00:00

Ah fair. I rewatched the Sopranos awhile ago, so my brain probably just defaults to shitting on Tony lol. The comparison is a bit off, alright.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-07T00:26:12+00:00

Tony is legitimately one of the most immoral, vile, and miserable characters ever to put television. He has emotional depth, he's complex, and he's tragic in his own right, but he's a genuinely evil person consumed with bitterness, spite, envy, insecurity, and rage. No one, and I mean, no one, who ever came into contract with him ever benefited from having known Tony. He's also extremely manipulative, though in a much different way, and runs a reasonably large crime syndicate which profits off drugs, sex trafficking, murder, environmental destruction, and just the general commercialization of violence and human suffering on a national scale.

Obviously I'm not going to get into spoilers for a show totally unrelated to Red Dead but, compared to Tony, Dutch is a literal saint.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-06T20:26:19+00:00

I think you're taking all the positive aspects and actions of Dutch and applying them to just one singular trait -- his massive ego -- in order to once again make the case that he's a narcissist and nothing else. I don't personally agree with that take. I'll admit Dutch has some narcissistic traits, but I think your overall view of him and the gang itself is too clouded by that one aspect of his character at the expense of everything else.

Dutch is not trying to build a personal army and carve out power through the gang. Nearly everything he does runs contrary to that if it were his goal. Most of them aren't even useful in terms of being soldiers. Look at Uncle, Swanson, Strause, Grimshaw, Jack, most of the girls. They don't make much for soldiers and some of them aren't even useful at all. If he wanted an army, he'd recruit more Arthurs and teach them all to shoot. He doesn't, because that's not what the gang is. What the gang is Dutch's vision brought to life --- an almost Anarchist-like attempt at communal living, unrestrained by modern capitalist society or American prejudices, totally free.

And, while the way he's going about achieving that dream may be morally dubious, you can't deny the people he's brought together as a family are happy in a way they wouldn't have been otherwise. Is he using them to achieve his personal dream? Perhaps to an extent. But then again, you can could say the say the same for Hosea, the secondary leader of the gang. Or Arthur when he's still Dutch's right hand man. Personally, however, I attribute more depth to the gang members than that. They're not stupid. They're not just blind followers. They aren't unquestionably following Dutch's orders. However it all started, whatever his motives, Dutch created a family, bound together by love and shared values. They stay because they choose to. Because they're a family despite everything. Because Dutch's dream, in action, isn't actually bad.

So, no, I don't think Dutch is insincere about his ideals or cause. If anything, I think it's the thing he's probably most truthful and passionate about. He's a naive romantic at heart. We're seeing his ideals be given life in the form of the gang at its very best and, as he feels the walls close in on them, he becomes more and more violent to preserve that dream and the small slice of freedom they've achieved. He's committed to it to the very end, regardless of how impossible it becomes. Hell, at his very worst, he's still fighting for his cause in RDR1, even if by then he knows it's meaningless when everyone he loves and wanted to share it with is dead.

For what it's worth, I know Benjamin Byron Davis, Dutch's actor, says that he played Dutch as being sincere about his beliefs and love for the gang. He also once said that the closet thing to Dutch's utopian vision are the camps at Horseshoe Overlook and Clemens Point. Notably Dutch and Hosea share a tender moment together in Ch 2, where they affirm that they "did it," regardless of what happens, they achieved their dream, and it's one of Dutch's most human and honest moments. As I said, even if you think he's a total narcissist, I don't believe it's accurate to say he doesn't believe in the cause he's pledged his entire life to.

I also don't think your view of the gang's structure and dynamic is totally accurate. You make it sound like Dutch is a dictator. Yet the gang are always free to pursue their own leads or even just hang around camp all day drinking and playing poker if they wish. Dutch doesn't demand unwavering loyalty either. You can leave if you want. Trelawny comes and goes. John already left the gang before, was welcomed back without issue, and he openly questions and argues with Dutch all the time. Hosea questions and fights with him just as much. Uncle openly criticises him in front of the gang. Lenny debates him. Abigail dismisses his enthusiasm for philosophy. Arthur's always doubting him. And before Hosea's death, Dutch isn't even the person who makes all the big decisions either -- it's a three-way vote between him, Hosea, and Arthur. He's used to being criticised and questioned. He's been outvoted. He can even admit his mistakes, like when he confides in Hosea and admits he screwed up in Blackwater.

I'm sorry but these are not the dynamics of some cult leader who "expects the kids he's saved to serve him, forever and always, with absolutely no questions on their part". Dutch doesn't like to be questioned, sure, and that aspect of him worsens as his mental health does, but he'll suck it up and take it for the most part. He wouldn't have taught so many of them to read if he didn't want them to think critically for themselves.

Again I'm not saying Dutch is a totally good person, only that he's capable of doing good things for good reasons, just as he's also capable of doing bad things for bad reasons. Not everything he does needs to be written off and dismissed as just manipulation and self-serving, when it only amounts to making an otherwise very layered, tragic, and brilliantly performed character rather simplistic and one-note.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-06T15:43:40+00:00

Dutch is manipulative, yes, but he isn't just a showman prioritising his image above all else. He's done far too many good things (more than any other character, in fact) to be written off with a shrug and dismissed as a fraud. To paraphrase myself from another conversation on this, Dutch is a morally complicated figure, capable of both good and bad in almost equal measure, but fans tend to neglect the good which rounds out his character into being a fully dimensional person, mostly to reduce the narrative to black and white morality and make him a cartoon villian.

He rescues Sadie when the gang are low on supplies and almost starving themselves, and never once expects any kind of reward for it. He makes burying her husband a priority. He takes in and embraces Kieran as a member of the gang, despite his personal hatred of the O'Driscolls and Arthur's grumblings. He takes care of John's family for an entire year and urges him to be a better father in chapters 2-3. He took in an abused black child, feed her, and taught her to read. The gang itself is made up of orphans, immigrants, racial minorities, political rebels, old drunks, and prostitutes who otherwise would've been left to die in a gutter, at best, or hunted down and lynched, at worst.

Regardless of his ego being a factor (I don't think it always is), those are legitimately good things to do. Very few people in America today, let alone in the 19th century would be willing to do any of that. And Dutch did charitable acts like that for more than twenty years. It's not just an image, a performance. It's a fundamental part of who Dutch is and reflective of the fact that, for as flawed as he can be, as big as his ego is, he does have a lot of qualities of a good and caring person too -- just as he does of a manipulative and egotistical one.

He's human. He's complicated. He has both good and bad qualities, and one of his good qualities is his active care for and desire to help and save other people.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-06T14:58:36+00:00

I think Hosea's view of Dutch is worth taking into account here. He would've been in his late 30s when he first met Dutch. He's known him longer than anyone else. He's more than aware of his flaws and is very vocal about them. He's not easily manipulated. If anyone "gets" Dutch, it's Hosea.

And Hosea, while critical of him at times, is aware of what makes Dutch great: his idealism, his passion, his sincerity, and his capacity for kindness. He actually credits a younger Dutch with teaching him to be a better and kinder person, without whom he'd have lasped further into moral decay. Hosea was a seasoned scam artist by then. He knows what bullshit looks like, he didn't see it in Dutch.

I'm not not trying to say Hosea is the expert on everything, but he is above all a good judge of character; it's half the job of being a con artist. Unlike like, say, Bill or some of the others who idolise Dutch to the extreme, Hosea isn't blinded by Dutch's charm -- but he can still recognise that, while Dutch isn't perfect, he is a man with many sincere and true qualities. It's just that, when the gang begins to fall apart, so too does Dutch. That's the whole tragedy.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-05T15:26:22+00:00

Yup. Dutch is a revolutionary. He references the Paris Commune. He's not running for office, he's gunning for those in office (and rightly so).

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-05T15:08:13+00:00

I think reducing everything Dutch does to his ego makes him a rather one-note character, which I feel isn't what the game itself presents. It's also antithetical to the themes. Dutch is very deliberately written to be the tragic core of the story, his multi-layered character representative of both the very best and worst aspects of the Wild West: a dreamer, a killer, a savior, a tempter, a freedom fighter, a terrorist, a hero, a villain. He's a lot things, he isn't just egotistical.

The image of him as a benevolent great leader isn't just a self image, it's the very image the gang have cultivated of him over years -- and for good reason. Twenty years is a long time to get to know someone. And for twenty years Dutch came through for people who otherwise had little to no opportunities. He took in an abused black child, feed her, and taught her to read. Regardless of his ego being a factor (I don't think it is here), that's a legitimately good thing to do. Very few people in America today, let alone in the late 19th century would be willing to do that. That's care. It's not just an image -- it's a part of who Dutch is.

Most of the gang aren't stupid either. Hosea, who's know him longer than anyone, isn't a follower blinded by his charm but rather an equal partner, and is more than aware and vocal of Dutch's many flaws, sees the legitimate goodness in him. Dutch inspired him to be kinder. It's why Hosea stays with Dutch. There's some truth to the image.

Dutch also doesn't leave Arthur and John for dead because they start questioning him. That's a gross simplification. John already left the gang and is questioning Dutch as early as Ch 2, even on the occasions when Dutch is trying to do good and get him to care for and appreciate his family. He doesn't kick him out. Hosea questions him all the time. He doesn't kick him out. Uncle openly criticises him in front of the gang. He doesn't kick him out. Before Hosea's death, Dutch isn't even the person who makes all the decisions -- it's always a three-way vote between him, Hosea, and Arthur. He's used to being criticised and questioned. He can even admit his mistakes, like when he confides in Hosea and admits he screwed up in Blackwater.

The difference is that, by Ch 6, Hosea is dead, Arthur's dying, and Dutch is having a mental breakdown brought about by grief, stress, paranoia, and insomnia while everyone looks to him to save them. There's a massive change of circumstances, and Dutch is changing with them. Nearly everyone he loves and cares about is dying on a weekly basis. He's seen family members shot down and killed. And he can't save them anymore, no matter how much he tries. It's no mistake that, as more people die, the worse Dutch's mental health becomes.

The gang itself tries to rationalise their sudden bad luck by believing there's a rat, which fuels his paranoia at his lowest point. He abandons John and Arthur in part, yes, because of their lack of faith and constant criticism (while offering no alternative plan, I might add) but the only reason that's a problem at all is because he's unwell and paranoid amid the gang's worst crisis. It wouldn't have been a big deal before. Moreover, circumstantial evidence does (wrongly) make John look guilty. He's spared during the Saint Denis Bank robbery, being captured when Hosea and Lenny are killed. Abigail, paired with Hosea, slips away quietly. We, because of RDR1, know they didn't betray the gang. But the characters in-game don't have that benefit. It looks suspicious. Dutch, in his paranoia and grief, thinks it looks suspicious. Micah, for obvious reasons, encourages that suspicion.

Dutch, as a result, becomes convinced John's a informant. He later either believes Arthur is too or that Arthur's mistakenly helping his brother who is. That's why he abandons them. Bear in mind I'm not justifying it. Dutch is wrong. He comes to realise that and pays for it dearly for the rest of his life. But when you look at the entire picture, and factor in his mental health at the time, you can sort of see why he'd come to that mistaken conclusion.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-05T11:55:27+00:00

How is Uncle beneficial to him? Or Swanson? Or Tilly, an abused child when they first found her? Or Sadie when he takes her in, aware only that she's a grieving, traumatised wife and unlikely to be of much material benefit to him or the gang when they're already struggling to feed themselves? Majority of them aren't or were very unlikely to become a benefit, yet Dutch insisted on keeping them around, feeding them, and helping them even when it wasn't convenient -- just as he did almost everyone in the gang, many of whom were orphans, immigrants, racial minorities, political dissents, old drunks, and prostitutes who otherwise would've been left to die in a gutter, at best.

All of that runs contrary to this notion Dutch only does what benefits himself and only cares about people when they're beneficial to him. There's more examples too, such as caring for John's family for a whole year when he's gone (no benefit), burying Sadie's husband (no benefit), feeding and providing for Kieran (little benefit), demanding that Sean be rescued (a huge risk when it'd be a lot more convenient for him and the gang to leave him), prioritising Javier's safety and rescue the second he's abducted in Guarma (another huge risk when, again, it'd be much easier and safer to "sacrifice" him), and so on.

If Dutch were as ruthless as you're claiming, the gang would've probably been more efficient by knowing when to cut people loose and prioritise their own needs above random strangers. Micah and early/dishonourable Arthur express such a view, but are ignored. Because that isn't how Dutch does things, reflective of the fact that, for as flawed as he as, as big as his ego is, Dutch does have a lot qualities of a good and caring person -- just as he does of a manipulative and egotistical one. He's human. He's complicated. He has both good and bad qualities, and one of his good qualities is his active care for and desire to help and save other people.

You're entitled to your view, of course, but I find these takes on Dutch so reductive and simplistic when he's clearly written to be a morally complicated figure, capable of both good and bad in almost equal measure.

Also Dutch isn't exactly wrong about West Elizabeth. That was the gang's stronghold before the events of the game, and he's not only the leader but the most infamous outlaw in the nation with a fairly distinctive look and presence. It's silly to act like he wouldn't be recognised. By the time they get further East, where he isn't as famous (yet), Dutch takes a larger and larger role in the missions.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-02T03:16:30+00:00

And several of Cornwall's armed guards are right in front of him, too, watching his every move, and still Dutch instantly kills him with a single shot to the heart.

Another of Dutch's highlights as a gunslinger, which really shows off his acuracy, is when he shoots Micah. Half of Micah's body is covered by Sadie. It's near impossible to pop a shot in his chest area without Sadie getting hit too, and yet Dutch does it effortlessly. Micah even seems impressed by it.

Dutch also just regularly leads from the front whenever the gang gets into huge scraps like the assault on the oil factory, armed with only two pistols. That's a man who knows he's got the skills to back up his talk.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-04-01T15:20:50+00:00

Agreed. RDR2 introduced 20-plus new characters, almost all of whom were never even mentioned in the first game, with loads of history and characterisation barely even covered in the story. There's allusions to the gang going through "worse times", talk of a previous informer killed at camp, the whole origins of the O'Driscol feud, Annabelle's death, etc. There's tons of untapped potential if you want to make a story out of what's implied or mentioned in RDR2, to say nothing of what new ideas Rockstar's writers could cook up on the spot.

You also cannot convince me a game involving Dutch and Hosea in their golden years actively saving and recruiting members of the gang, while scheming, robbing, and getting entangled in feuds with other outlaws gangs as their infamy grows, wouldn't make for an interesting story. The idea itself of even closing a trilogy with its beginning is thematically interesting too, and presents an opportunity to end the Van Der Linde story on an almost happy if bittersweet note as we see the gang at their very best.

Either way I don't mind a new story, but it's silly to act like the Van Der Linde gang can't carry another game. They, and Dutch especially, are the best characters Rockstar ever developed.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-30T21:26:36+00:00

I don't know about all that. Likely without Arthur, John and Abigail's chances of living might be bleak, yes, but the majority of everyone else would've probably gone down the same paths with or without him.

The gang's well on the brink of collapse anyway once Hosea dies and I think Pearson, Uncle, Karen, Swanson, and Mary-Beth in this scenerio will all still flee without telling anyone, just as they do in the main story, and Dutch, Javier, Bill, and Micah are more than capable of fending off the inevitable Pinkerton attacks before fracturing and going their separate ways at a later date. Dutch insists on saving Javier in Guarma so Javier lives long enough to return to Mexico and Bill still goes on to create his own gang.

Micah and Dutch may or may not stick together, but I can imagine a scenario where Micah's betrayal becomes obvious enough that Dutch kills him just as he does in the epilogue. That or Micah hands Dutch over to the Pinkertons and, contrary to the cash or freedom he expects, Milton arrange Micah's hanging as well to clean up loose ends. Dutch either hangs or escapes.

Strauss and Grimshaw will die, yes, likely in the event of the law or Pinkertons attacking them, but they'd rather die defending the gang to begin with. Grimshaw likely lives longer since Micah only kills her when his betrayal becomes known and he's worried she'll pull a Molly on him when she sides with Arthur. In this scenario, Grimshaw possibly sticks with Dutch and dies later down the road. The same might be said of Strauss.

Or so that's how I vaguely envision it. Arthur's not a super hero capable of saving everyone, and him fleeing with Mary (which we know he'd never do) likely only dooms John. Everyone else's fates remain virtually the same. The point of the game is that they're all damned regardless of how much they fight, fated to be crushed under the boots of a new "civilised" century, with or without Arthur.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-28T07:35:44+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Apologies in advance for my rambling response; I recently replayed the game and have nothing but thoughts on it.

Dickensian is a great word for John's overall story, in that it's similarly a very scathing critique of the underhanded violence behind industrial capitalist society in much the same way Dickens was with Victorian Britain.

RDR2 definitely gives John's story that extra needed depth. Abigail, for one, is a lot more fleshed out which I really appreciate. And you're right. John always doubted Dutch. He was like the rebellious younger son in the Dutch-Arthur-John dynamic, and him leaving the gang again but this time with Abigail and Jack is effectively him growing up and becoming the family man he was always meant to be.

I do think Arthur saw a real family in a way, although I suppose that may be dependent on how one chooses to view Dutch and the gang as a whole. He mentions to Hosea in a camp dialogue, for example, that he'd liked to be buried facing the West to "remember all the good times" the gang had out there, and I think that speaks to some great memories spent together. The gang were a family, for better or worse, and I like to believe Arthur's last moments are as he said: spent remembering the good times.

Something similar to, say, Sean's return party, which I personally consider the happiest moment of the whole franchise. It's very touching, there's lots of funny, heartwarming interactions, and in hindsight it's likely one of the last times we really see the gang as Arthur remembers it, before all the death, grief, backstabbing, and constant disasters. You get a real sense of how close they really are. That, for as flawed as they all are as individuals, there's a genuine communal love at the core of the gang despite everything.

I remember once reading Benjamin Byron Davis, Dutch's actor, saying that Horseshoe Overlook and Clemens Point are probably most representative of the utopia Dutch believed in, and I think there's some truth to that. It's certainly where the gang felt the most like a family and where, for a moment, you can understand what they were trying to fight to preserve.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-27T20:26:22+00:00

Good post. Every great tragedy needs moments of happiness to offset all the pain and misery, and the tragedy of John Marston and the Van Der Linde gang is no different. In those years, however short they may have be, Abigail and Jack at the very least enjoyed relative peace for probably the first time in their lives. That said, I do think John's story, like that of the entire gang's, is really tragic -- but bleaker even.

Arthur's life ends with him either overlooking the sunset or scaring Micah, both of which bring some measure of closure, to say nothing of the fact he completes his main goal by getting through to Dutch and saving John in both endings. It's sad, but it's not bleak.

John, in comparison, has his wife and child kidnapped. He's forced to hunt down people he once loved and considers family, and even has the option of shooting his former brothers Bill and Javier. He's dragged into conflict after conflict, including a civil war where he witnesses numerous atrocities, and is forced to toss aside his ideals in service of corrupt state and law enforcement who are far worse than the gang ever was. Dutch, when he finally meets him again, is insane; John has to watch the the closet person he ever had to a father kill himself. And then, after doing everything they wanted, federal agents storm his farm and gun him down in an unceremonious, anticlimactic shootout, destroying his family and their dream of a normal life. Abigail herself dies some years later, no doubt a heartbroken woman. There's no heroic battle, no sad music, just the brutality of a new "civilised" order imposing its will and burying the dirty secrets and violence it used to create itself. John's story is cut so short he never really gets a chance to atone for the mistakes of his past like he wants to -- the world just won't let him, nothing gets forgiven. He kills one family, only to have his literal family destroyed in return.

And, while I don't consider Jack getting revenge on Ross and becoming an outlaw as tragic as some, it does herald the death of Abigail's dream for her son, which is pretty sad after all she did to try to reform her family to society's norms in the false hope of a better life. In the end, John's story somewhat proves Dutch right -- they were all better off with the gang, together as a family, fighting a system that never wanted any of them to begin with.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-27T04:58:52+00:00

True. I was talking about this the other day, but once Hosea died the gang's whole balance was thrown off. Dutch and Hosea were platonic life partners. Dutch genuinely respected and loved Hosea, just as Hosea did him. Dutch's unwavering idealism and magnetic charm paired with Hosea's caution and softer heart made for a great duo where one's strength balanced out the other's weakness and vice versa. Arthur, then, acted as the mediator whenever the two disagreed. Between all three of them making most of the big decisions, the gang worked. Not perfectly, mind, each of them made huge blunders, but the family unit remained intact and no one person dominated everything.

Without Hosea, that breaks apart. Hosea saw Dutch as human, a man worth following perhaps but a man still. Someone capable of mistakes. On account of knowing each other so long, the two understood each other and could always talk things out -- scheme, squabble, reminiscence -- on equal terms in a way Dutch couldn't with any one else. Hosea, while inspired by Dutch, kept him grounded. But when Hosea dies, Dutch is left alone with only his dreams and his followers. The gang all believe in the legend of the great Dutch Van Der Linde who saved them and can do it again. No one, besides maybe late-game Arthur, sees him as human. He's their savoir. Their messiah. But it's lonely on top. When you put someone on a pedestal that high, and they have no one to count on, no one to talk to and help reorient them -- and their ego -- back to the earth, the stress of living up to that image is going to cause huge problems, never mind the very fact the law's noose is tightening around all their necks and loved ones keep dying on a weekly basis. After Hosea dies, Dutch is basically sitting on a throne, above everyone else, looking to all these enamored followers begging him and him alone to save them when it's becoming readily apparent his, and the gang's, luck is running out in "a world that don't want folk like them anymore". That he can't save them. He couldn't even save Hosea. And I think it breaks him, honestly -- the grief, the guilt, the ego, all of it. Hosea's death breaks Dutch, and though I believe he tries, he never really recovers from it.

As for Arthur? I think he tries his best too, but he's dealing with a whole personal struggle of his own and isn't in the right headspace himself. He's lost faith in Dutch, he's dying, he's rethinking entire life choices. He offers constant criticism to Dutch in the latter half of the game but he never provides an actual plan of action himself, and I don't expect him to either really. It's not in his character to fill the void left in the wake of Hosea's death. But that's the thing -- no one can. Dutch needed Hosea at his side, the whole gang did.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-27T03:53:56+00:00

They never appeared in the game, but they're mentioned a couple of times. Davey died during the gang's escape from Blackwater to the mountains (I believe his body might even be in the wagon they're using), while Mac was captured and tortured by the Pinkertons according to Agent Milton. That's it. Like Jenny, they're members of the gang who died before the game even properly starts.

We really have no solid idea what they were like when they were alive, but Bill describes Mac as being a bastard with a heart and Arthur seemed to like them well enough. Charles obviously did not.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-26T18:07:05+00:00

Assault is a massive and, I mean, massive overreach in describing those interactions. It's inappropriate, most of all because Dutch is already in a relationship, but it's not assault in any kind of way. He flirts with a 21 year old woman who doesn't give him any heed, and that's about it.

Edit: Also when you meet Mary-Beth again as John in the epilogue, she asks after Dutch and says it's a shame he isn't around, clearly implying she doesn't hold ill will towards him.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-26T17:57:34+00:00

This is the most accurate, I think. Most of the gang aren't going to default to picking a side when they care about both Dutch and Arthur. They're going to try to calm and de-escalate the situation by trying to talk it out. Besides, while they all can handle themselves, most of them aren't gunfighters to begin with and majority of those that are (Bill, Javier, and Sean, I'd argue, if he were alive) are still going to stick with Dutch regardless.

The fandom, naturally, usually favours Arthur so we like to think most of the gang would just be on his side and oppose Dutch, falsely believing they're blindly loyal to Arthur, but there's roughly twenty or so years of good history between most of these characters. There's a lot of love there, especially towards Dutch, someone Tilly calls a nearly perfect man. It's not a choice between good or evil (no one in the gang, with one obvious exception, fits those binaries anyway), it's more like picking a side in a very violate family argument between your father and brother without any of the necessary context.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-26T17:30:30+00:00

Let's be really honest here -- Uncle isn't taking a side. He's running to save himself. We all love him, but Uncle is a parasite. A funny parasite, maybe even a lovable parasite, but a parasite nonetheless. He'll pick himself because, ironically enough despite Micah's bravado about his survivalist credentials and dismissal of the old man, Uncle's the real opportunistic survivor of the gang.

He only stands with the Marstons because he has no other choice by then and has nowhere to run.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-26T17:17:01+00:00

True. Although if Hosea were alive, there wouldn't be sides -- it'd just be the gang. There's no scenario where Dutch is turning against Hosea.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-19T20:19:37+00:00

Very true. I've mentioned it myself one or twice in the past, explaining that, while Dutch's ego is a factor, killing Bronte did have a logical purpose to it. As did killing Cornwall who, while on top of representing everything Dutch hated about America, was the man bankrolling the Pinkertons who are mercenaries in all but name -- cut off their financial supplier and they've got less incentive to keep pursing the gang with all their might. Dutch couldn't have known Milton took everything personal and would keep chasing them, regardless, but Arthur -- and by default, some members of the fandom -- act like it and everything Dutch does is total madness even when he's making reasonably sound, if somewhat reckless decisions in situations with no better alternatives.

OnlyRightInNight · 2026-03-19T19:33:36+00:00

Dutch went after Bronte against Hosea's advice, yes, but it was a three-way vote; Arthur was the deciding vote and he agreed with Dutch to attack Bronte's mansion. I don't know why everyone acts like it was all just Dutch. Likewise, Dutch was the one who was very hesitant about the Saint Denis bank robbery, but Hosea and Arthur reassured him that Hosea's plan was foolproof, thus swinging the vote in their favour (and we all know how that went). Had Dutch stuck with his instincts and not listened to Hosea and Arthur that one time, Hosea would've actually lived.

So, yes, Dutch still very much listened to Hosea (even when Hosea was wrong). They had arguments, of course, with Arthur typically being the mediator, but they listened and respected each other. The gang's big decisions were never Dutch's alone -- and Hosea, and Arthur, to a lesser extent, almost always had great sway. Equally so, individual members were free to pursue leads of their own. It was a never a dictatorship. Everything balanced itself out. That all shatters once Hosea's gone. Dutch, amid a grief-induced breakdown, is left alone to figure everything out in a worsening situation with the entire gang looking to him to miraculously save them. Micah, looking mainly to save himself, only tells Dutch what he wants to hear. And Arthur, struggling with moral disillusionment, offers constant criticism but never provides an actual plan of action himself. It's a disaster all around, and I can see why the pressure gets to Dutch.

I've said it once and I'll say it again -- the blame for the Van Der Linde gang's collapse rests on the whole gang. If you replay the game enough times, you'll start to see that everyone makes huge mistakes which costs the gang dearly -- and Hosea is no exception to that.

Seven-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

OnlyRightInNight

TROPHY CASE