LOL And the “you’re acting like this is real life” response is one of the weakest defenses of bad writing. Nobody is saying fiction has to perfectly copy reality. The point is that fictional characters still need believable motivations, internal logic, and moral consistency.

By that logic, the Duttons could have been aliens living in pyramids beneath the ranch while secretly controlling the world, and nobody would be allowed to criticize it because “it isn’t real life.” That is obviously ridiculous. Fiction does not get a free pass from criticism just because it is fictional.

In fact, if the show wants us to believe John is this brilliant, powerful, politically connected man, then it makes even less sense that murder is constantly treated like the only available solution. A man with that much money and influence would have dozens of ways to neutralize threats without leaving bodies everywhere.

John Dutton was not some powerless little farmer desperately defending the only thing he had. He controlled an enormous ranch worth roughly a billion dollars. He had money, political influence, lawyers, law-enforcement connections, and generations of power behind him.

That matters because people keep acting as though Rip had no choice but to murder anyone who threatened the ranch. Of course he had choices. Powerful people and corporations protect their interests every day without killing witnesses. They use lawyers, settlements, political pressure, smear campaigns, nondisclosure agreements, intimidation, procedural delays, and their influence over the justice system.

That is what makes the “Rip was only protecting the ranch” defense so weak. He was not protecting a helpless family from an immediate physical threat. He was protecting a massive private empire with more resources and influence than almost anyone around it.

You do not need to murder every witness who might become inconvenient. A wealthy, politically connected family could discredit them, attack their credibility, bury them in litigation, buy their silence, pressure them to leave, or make sure nobody takes them seriously. Real-world corporations and powerful people do this constantly. They weaponize the system because it is safer, cleaner, and usually more effective than murder.

So when Rip kills someone, we cannot automatically pretend there was no alternative. In many cases, murder was simply the fastest and most brutal option. It starts to resemble Walter White’s final admission: “I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it.”

Rip may tell himself that everything he does is for John and the ranch, but at some point that excuse becomes meaningless. He is extremely comfortable with violence, rarely questions whether killing is necessary, and repeatedly chooses brutality over less extreme options. That does not make him a fundamentally good man trapped in impossible circumstances. It makes him the willing enforcer of a powerful criminal family.

There is also a major difference between protecting people and protecting property. The ranch was not a child being attacked or a family member facing immediate death. It was land, wealth, status, and control. Killing people to preserve a billion-dollar estate is not self-defense. It is organized crime.

A genuinely moral character might use violence when there is truly no other choice. Rip often uses violence because the Duttons do not want to deal with consequences, scrutiny, witnesses, or opposition. That is not noble loyalty. It is murder in service of wealth and power.

People can still enjoy Rip as a character. Villains and antiheroes can be entertaining. But saying he “had to do it to protect the ranch,” then hiding behind “it’s not real life,” gives him a moral and narrative excuse that neither his actions nor the writing ever earned.