I think about this specific moment a LOT. There is something in Henry's voice that tugs at my heart - a sadness, or even a resignation that Jobst does not and could never understand.
In the preceding conversation, if you pick the bottom dialogue option of these two...
...this is the THIRD time he tells Jobst that he made a promise to keep Hans safe (and even if you pick the top option, it's still the second time). There's even what feels like touch of desperation here, Henry not knowing where Hans is, and probably feeling like he failed. But it's so telling here that he never says a word about duty, or service, or mention the mission given to him by Hanush or Radzig with regards to Hans, just that he made a promise. Not an oath, not bound by duty. So all I can think about when I hear Henry say “I made a promise” is what he told Hans at Trosky in the very first romance dialogue:
“Arthur Morgan would be bad at sex” this, “Arthur Morgan would cum immediately” that.
But WHAT ABOUT Arthur Morgan losing his erection from nerves?! From the vulnerability of it all, the perceived scrutiny, from actually being seen and witnessed and held for the first time in god knows how long.
Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about how “Hans kissed first” and how my favorite Hansry head cannon is that they both were aware of their feelings for one another, but Henry had fully accepted the fact that these were feelings he likely will never act on, due not only to historical context and the implications and consequences therein related to homosexuality/social status/etc., but also the fact that he absolutely treasures his friendship with Hans. And to try to act on his feelings but have something go wrong (they’re not reciprocated, they’re outed/found out, the romance goes wrong, etc), he could lose his “family” all over again. And! He hadn’t gotten enough back from Hans to have any explicit idea that his feelings were even remotely reciprocated. I’m sure he had an awareness that the likelihood of Hans feeling the same way was so infinitesimally small, so he had completely written off the possibility.
It always felt to me like Henry was desperate for Hans to understand that he loved him, even though he never expected anything in return. He finds these increasingly emphatic ways to express his feelings to Hans, but, to me, it does’t ever feel like a prelude to him trying to make a move. There’s a beautiful and exquisite tension in that unrequited longing, and I think that’s why Hansry feels more both impactful and more like a true love story than the other romances in either game. In that context, the Hans-kisses-Henry-first thing is just *perfection* because it subverts the RPG romance mechanic in a way that feels so right.
Something new struck me when thinking about Hans on the gallows at Trosky. And it's rooted in the idea that the relationship between Henry and Hans feels so real and grounded because they are such incredible complements to one another, particularly in regard to courage/selflessness vs. selfishness/self-indulgence. This might seem like a bit of a birdwalk, so bear with me...
The first time that Hans speaks during this WHOLE sequence is at this point, after Henry interjects. From the time he is taken from his cell and led to the gallows, he doesn't speak a word. And we can guess the things he's feeling - guilt, shame, shock, anguish, and like all hope is lost. But Henry? Henry never gave up on Hans, or on saving his life. And Hans's demeanor shifts completely and immediately after Henry appears with Captain Thomas - he FINALLY finds the strength, courage, and resolve to speak up for himself.
Moving much later in the story, to the siege of Suchdol, I've seen a lot of comparisons between KCD1 Hans volunteering Henry during the Talmberg night raid and KCD2 Hans volunteering to go with Sam and Henry to try to reach Jobst to bring reinforcements:
But I think it's important not to forget that before Sam and Henry volunteer, Hans merely says:
So even at this stage in the story, Henry's bravery and selflessness is still what is inspiring Hans to find his own courage.
That is beautiful on its own, but I feel it's only half of a very important exchange between the two of them. Because though it may be easy to criticize Hans's frivolity and self-indulgence, I think those traits are a perfect counter-balance for Henry, who is perpetually self-sacrificing to help those around him. And sure enough, in the very next scene, after Hans recounts the tale of Lancelot and Galehaut, Henry reassures him that he'll be back and stands up to leave, clearly conflicted concerning his focus on the mission, his feelings for Hans, and the implication of everything that is hanging in the air. But it's Hans who can't let his feelings go unexpressed at this point, no matter what is at stake. This feels like the very best kind of selfishness, to me. Because while it was Henry’s emotional courage that created this space of vulnerability in the first place, it’s Hans's selfishness in that moment that allows them to finally act on their feelings.
I'm currently obsessed with this idea that Istvan and Erik bring out the worst in Henry, while Hans repeatedly brings out the best in him.
In my view, nowhere is Henry more hateful, cruel, and impulsive than when he is facing off against Istvan and Erik. Of course this makes a lot of sense - his experiences at Vranik and Talmberg would still be quite fresh for him. And, Istvan particularly loves goading Henry on. He taunts Henry with Radzig's/Martin's sword both the last time Henry sees him in KCD1 and the first time Henry comes face to face with him in KCD2. So, I'm not saying that it is surprising or even unearned that Istvan (and subsequently Erik) stir up these feelings in Henry, but I do think that this is part of a huge thematic aspect of both Henry's journey and his relationship with Hans.
KCD can be so unserious, funny, and lighthearted at times that it's easy to forget that the deep trauma and the events of the first game are still so fresh for Henry. I believe his shame of having run from Skalitz plants this seed of fear that he will give up his agency and his power if he turns away from his adversaries. In my eyes, this fear gets folded into his desire for revenge and can so quickly twist his focus and his motivations. But, at the same time, there is such a beautiful, blossoming foil to these tendencies in Henry: Hans.
In KCD2, you can, of course, immediately kill Istvan once you reach him in the tower in Trosky. But Istvan is so charismatic and compelling in a certain way that I, personally, couldn't pass up the chance to talk to him. If you choose to have a conversation with him, you can threaten Erik's life and intimidate Istvan into begging Henry to spare him. This is so interesting to me at this point in the story because it does feel like Erik, while not innocent by any means, is mostly collateral damage in this adversarial relationship that Henry and Istvan have. The option to threaten Erik, especially when you have Istvan cornered with really no hope of escape, feels like sheer hate, cruelty, and merely for the pleasure of watching Istvan grovel. If you kill him dishonorably at this point, his line "So what's it going to be? A fair fight? ...or are you finally going to learn?" hits SO hard - has Henry's hate and thirst for revenge twisted him into becoming not so unlike his adversaries?
As the story progresses, Erik becomes the recipient of this cruelty as he transforms into much more than "evil-by-association." At every opportunity, Henry reminds that he killed Istvan and that he would jump at the chance to do the same to Erik. I don't believe Henry would meet Erik for a duel if he wasn't intent on continuing to watch Erik suffer. Again, there are lots of reasons why this is the case, including the horrors of Erik's actions and choices in the latter part of the game. Additionally, I do know the duel is a fully optional confrontation (and Hans even tells Henry he wishes he wouldn't accept), but I feel the game and the narrative was designed to make you really want to accept, despite it being something that honestly feels like a very selfish and indulgent choice. Beforehand, Zizka advises Henry how helpful it can be to taunt your opponent to get them off balance, so it might be easy enough to write off these choices of Henry's as battle tactics, but, personally? I don't believe it's that simple. It truly feels like he wants to hurt Erik, he wants him to feel the pain of his grief and loss and remind him that it was Henry who caused it. He wants Erik to feel like he's nothing. Again, you don't have to choose these dialogue options. You could just jump into the fight, but once again, I feel like the narrative so easily guides you to engage in this way.
On the flip side of all this, I contend that never is Henry more focused, determined, and selfless than when it comes to Hans. Even in their divorce era, Henry is constantly asking folks all over Trosky if they've seen him. We've all experienced those bells tolling, counting down to Hans's planned execution while Henry is frantically trying to find a way to save Captain Thomas's life so he can prevent the execution. He later goes to great lengths to assist the Ruthards with collecting blackmail material on Ulrich Vavak just so he can rescue Hans while he is being told more than once that there's sort of no reason to do so. In both of these instances, he is helping not only Hans, but his actions save lives and/or assist his allies in not-insignificant ways.
And let's not forget the timing of the culmination of their romance storyline - the last thing that Henry does before heading into the Praguers camp is to say goodbye to Hans. At this point, his friendship with Hans has already become so centered in his life, that even if Hans didn't kiss him, it feels like Hans is this galvanizing force for Henry's drive to set off on what is essentially suicide mission. However, I feel like it's SO meaningful that after he and Hans finally make their feelings for one another clear (and act on them in such a powerful and beautiful way), finding and killing Markvart Von Aulitz becomes an optional part of the story. This is wild to me especially in light of the fact that getting revenge against Von Aulitz is a main quest for the ENTIRETY of KCD1. And, yes, I know most players probably still seek out Von Aulitz and then make choices from there about how he dies. But at that point, revenge transforms from Henry's primary motivation into an optional part of a quest undertaken for the greater good. And THAT is both beautiful game design and storytelling.
Istvan has so many iconic and memorable lines in KCD2, but one that stands out is "Revenge doesn't give a life meaning, it's just childish nonsense. It won't feed you. You can't fuck it." And, to me, this is one of the greatest and most poignant truths in the game. In my experience of Henry's story, it is ultimately Hans that gives him that meaning, motivation, and a reason to turn away from the darkest tendencies within himself.
I finally thought of compelling (to me) premise for the final installment in my low honor Arthur x reader trilogy but it might be too bleak and devastating? Does anyone like their reader insert smut to be gut-wrenching? Or is it just me? 😅
In the year of our cowpoke 2025, I’m astonished at the amount of Mary Linton hate that I still see. I think the reason her and Arthur's story works so well is because it is intended to be a tragic love story. It's a tale of two people who, in the deepest part of their hearts, want to share a life together, but in the end there too many barriers and too many conflicting priorities.
Folks love to say how Mary "uses" Arthur, or emotionally manipulates him, etc. and I see that both as a misunderstanding and misogynistic mischaracterization. First of all, she does not twist Arthur’s arm into helping her and she doesn’t make any false promises of something in return (in fact, Arthur meets with and helps her very willingly if you complete her missions, but said missions are also 100% optional). Her desire to see him comes across as absolutely genuine. Also, it's 1899 and she is a widow with seemingly no reasonable support system. So, when she is in dire need, she asks Arthur for help because she knows she can trust him. Considering the very evident love and care that exists between them, even years after they parted ways, I don't think this is an unreasonable choice for her to make. And, it may have felt like her only choice, given her situation. Of course their scenes together reveal some tension, as well as some sore feelings, but no true bitterness or anything even approaching disdain or hatred. I've noticed the Mary detractors love to quote:
...but the context and delivery of this line is heavy with hesitation, longing, and hope that is tangled with her past heartache and realistic assessment of Arthur. I do not find any cruelty in this moment of emotional honesty. And Arthur's stoic reaction to this statement seems to show that he does not necessarily dispute this.
If one is Mary’s sins is not wishing to run away from her life to be with Arthur and join an outlaw gang, then Arthur is certainly guilty of the inverse. One (or both of them) would’ve had to give up the entirety of the life they each knew to make a life together. For Mary to do so, at a time in which women had limited social and economic mobility, would’ve been an immense risk. Not to mention Arthur’s line of work putting him in constant danger and potentially leaving her without him and still on the run from the law with the gang. It seems quite obvious she was deeply in love with Arthur, but she was trying to make a difficult yet wise choice for herself, and I find it quite hard to blame her for that.
Additionally it is obvious that they BOTH hold out hope and desire for a reality in which they can be together. I believe they both harbor deep regrets over how their relationship ended, and neither of them ever fell out of love in the years since they parted. Indeed, Arthur's journal for the Mary missions reads as deeply lovesick, and I'll never get over this:
When Mary suggests they run away together in Saint Denis, you can tell she means it. And even though she senses Arthur may likely never follow through, she still holds out hope until she realizes the reality of Arthur's situation from the newspapers. Tragically, Arthur is too conflicted and pulled in too many directions at that point, and his response makes this all too clear. To suggest that Mary is a "buzzkill" or a "snob" or manipulative just because she is honest with Arthur about 1) her feelings, 2) her assessment of him and his priorities, and 3) even her disappointment feels truly absurd to me. I would even counter that her forthright nature is something that likely drew Arthur to her, given his apparent distaste for acting and subterfuge.
Finally, I think it is silly to ignore the narrative impact of Arthur’s relationship with Mary from his perspective. He harbors no blame or anger upon receiving Mary’s final letter. In fact, at the end of his journey, in the face of all the betrayal, chaos, and death, it ends up being Mary that inspires Arthur to write in his journal:
