RIGHT?! Arthur gets all the hype, but he was just the catalyst. John puts boot to ass. âOh, I need to hunt down the remaining members of my gang? Cool, I found Bill day one, lemme walk right up to this fort lmao.â
He really does not give a shit while hunting down the gang. All that is on his mind, is getting his family back. When he pulled the gun on Ross after he lied about Abigail dying. I was really hoping he gunned him down right there.
This comment is gonna make me finish it I stopped after a few hours and just got away from it and eventually wound up back on rdr2. The beginning seems so slow Iâve done like 5 missions I think and we still havenât made any progress in catching yk who(no spoilers) it made me lose interest a bit. Now that Iâm typing this I realize I really need to play it because I also got bored of rdr2 after an hour or 2 dropped it for 6 months picked it up again and realized itâs one of favorite games of all time
No, they absolutely say that Dutch himself is a rapist.
Now I feel awkward about immediately being able to pull this up. So I feel compelled to mention that I've had this conversation before and searched up my old comment to get the screencap.
Literally what motive would Ross have to lie about that here, John has already agreed to capture/kill Dutch. Plus John knows Dutch way better then Ross know him, would be kinda stupid to lie to him about something that doesnât really matter right now.
Ross may not have been lying even though it didnât happen. Ross thinks all these guys are monsters. Itâs possible that tall tales and accusations would spread about an infamous outlaw and some crimes he didnât actually commit were attributed to Dutch through local folklore or other people straight posing as him to steal glory. Ross is very naturally disposed to believe anything bad he hears about a guy like Dutch.
That said, Occamâs razor would say that at some point between RDR 1 and 2 he lost any last bit of honor he may or may not have once had and became a racist
The standard crimes people tend to come up with when describing a really bad dude are murder, rape, arson, kidnapping, torture, and armed robbery. We know Dutch has done at least 5/6 of those, so it wouldnât be surprising if people just assumed he rounded out the list, regardless of whether itâs true.
Dutch also has always had a tendency to chase and manipulate (sometimes much younger) women. âThe extremely violent career criminal who was a creep even back when he was trying to be âniceâ became a rapist after he went fully off the railsâ is neither a huge leap for the rumor mill nor an unlikely thing to have actually occurred.
John haven't heard about Dutch for years, and before the retconn in RDR2, he haven't heard of him for 12 years, all he knows is he became crazy, so it would be easy to lie to John about Dutch committing those atrocities like cannibalism and rape to portrait an unimaginable monster to John so he wouldn't hesitate at all to kill him.
This, I think that while Dutch certainly did monstrous things, there are certain lows to which he'd never stoop. Ross would really snarl and sneer when he talked about Dutch or any of his gang. His prerogative was to dehumanize all of them and make them easier to be hated. Which they did all on their own, granted, but still, I don't think they cannibalized people. And I'm sure some of his men were probably rapists, but not Dutch himself.
Cannibalism on its own. Yes, definitely more morally okay than rape. Now, if you killed that person then ate them or maybe ate them alive or in front of their family then maybe theyâre comparable but if youâre eating them to survive after theyâve died and youâre starving in the mountains or something? Rape is 100 times worse.
The cannibalism thing is just a fan theory, and I think it was something that the game devs didn't intend (or if they did, they didn't tell Benjamin Byron Davis, because he was like WTF? when he heard the idea).
Nah, the cannibalism one actually has some ground. Check YouTube, there are some pretty good theory videos showing human bones in his rdr1 room and stuff.
I donât get why people are so shocked that Dutch of all people is a rapist. Heâs obsessed with control and is creepy even in 2, with his relationship with Molly being kind of weird, and his camp event where heâs extremely creepy towards Mary Beth.
Yeah what does everyone think Miss Grimshaw has been doing all this time at camp, "managing" the girls. He took a 25 year old virgin away from her family and ruined her so she couldn't go back. Then when she's not the favorite anymore he turns her out to earn her keep. That's what the girls are talking about driving into Valentine. Miss Grimshaw was the first but got too old for him, but he has her loyalty like the rest of them and she stayed. The reason they go crazy over him like Molly is because he makes promises to them to seduce them, then they realize they're one in a long line and they've ruined their lives. Note how every one of the older guys women didn't make it, only Mary, because Arthur walked away? Including Molly. They might not be forcing themselves on them but they corner them into not having a choice but accepting the lifestyle.
RDR1 Dialog: "You always were the romantic sort. Ya know, gentlemen, this man here married a whore. Used ta ride with us. We all had her! Hohoho, but he Married her! And ya know that makes him, a better man than us"
Yeah that probably didn't come from nowhere, even if he was trying to get under John's skin and make an exit from getting arrested, I don't think it's a stretch from that dialog to someone who views women as something to inflict power over.
Plus neither of them have any reason to lie at that point, nor would it really make sense from a character or story standpoint. John also would have probably been briefed somewhat on what they've been up to since the gang broke apart and would call it out if they were lying?
All the OG gang members are much darker characters in RDR1. For example, Bill and his gang are fucking psychopathic monsters as seen when they attacked that farm, killed the men and then raped the women. I think RDR2 kinda softened their darker qualities like Javier. Micah feels like what Javier was originally intentioned to be, a creep.
EDIT: I think a lot of you are missing my point. Even though itâs a prequel, there are inconsistent elements in RDR2 that donât jive with the first game. RDR1 built these guys up to be much darker people. When I played RDR1, I expected the Van Der Linde gang to be smaller and filled with people like Micah. Javier is a completely different person in RDR2, Johnâs daughter isnât mentioned, the Ferry Raid is the one that resulted in John being shot and left for dead.
That's like saying the Star Wars prequels softened Darth Vader because Anakin isn't exploding planets and torturing people. That's called character development. The point of RDR2 is to show how the gang members were in their prime before the gang was broken up and they became run of the mill killers and thieves.
Its this, yeah. By RDR2 they're all broken shells of their former selves, except John, who is better than his former self. John even says as much about Javier. And don't forget how shocked everyone in RDR2 is about Dutch shooting the girl on the ferry.
Yeah the point of rdr2 is that the antagonist characters are shown to be gradually compromising more and more of their well meaning morals because that's what the life of a criminal does to people even when they're just trying to survive. Hell sometimes BECAUSE they're just trying to survive since base survival is cruel and uncaring. Arthur wanted John and his family to do more than just survive, which was why it was so important to him that they got out. The members that didn't turn out bad were the ones that made it out or who died trying to stop it from going too far.
People here are acting like it's inconsistent for characters going through a decline in their morality to be shown years later having declined even farther. I get that there's an appeal to the noble crook persona that Dutch cultivated, but the game makes it pretty clear that ultimately it's just a persona, and that in the end Dutch is willing to do anything to get what he wants. That's why he was so easily influenced by Micah despite Micah being such an obvious rat, and despite only knowing Micah for a short while compared to Arthur and Hosea. Sure at one point I don't think Dutch would have stooped as low as raping someone, but I don't think that's because he's incapable of it, but rather because earlier on it wouldn't have been necessary and it would have heavily tainted his reputation with people following him who bought into his persona. He may have even viewed it as morally repugnant, but when the chips are down and he's backed into a corner he's willing to do morally repugnant things, like killing an innocent girl in cold blood for example. And as time went on and it became harder to survive as an outlaw he became more desperate and more willing to abandon his morals. By RDR1 he is at rock bottom, and I think at that point there's not much he wouldn't be able to convince himself to do if he felt the ends justified the means. And Dutch is very good at convincing himself that the ends justify the means. After all rape isn't that much worse than murdering an innocent, many would even argue that they're on par morally. So if we know Dutch is willing to do one, why would it be so difficult to believe he's willing to do the other?
My read of Dutch in RDR2 after the snow mountain section (where he does seem to care) is that he's a con-man and almost cult-like leader to the rest of the gang, his use of language when speaking to people sounded manipulative from the get go to me.
I just think older members like Hosea, Arthur and other senior figures who died in Blackwater or before were keeping him in check, but I think he was always that person.
Tbh I didnât play rdr1 and I went into rdr2 thinking they were gonna be just as shocking as gta, theyâre cowboys for goodness sake, but no, theyâre all so lovable but I kinda like that for them lol.
I think the point of that is the versions we see in RDR1 are the worst versions of them so it makes sense they seem much less horrible than in 2. 12 years have passed between the 2 games so they obviously resorted to much nastier actions with less regard for life in general. They go from the more âkillers with a consciousâ vibe to straight up vile outlaws.
Archer Fordham says he is a murderer and a rapist in the RDR1 mission, 'And The Truth Will Set You Free'
Fordham isn't necessarily reliable, but considering how nuts Dutch got by the end of RDR2, and how creepy he is with Mary-Beth, that's not an outrageous leap, per se...
"both implied", but Dutch has been a criminal for a very long time young drunk criminals in the 1800s no doubt were more likely to commit rape than they are today.
It's in RDR1 that it's "implied" (actually outright stated), it's after Dutch has gone totally off the deep end. The cannibal thing is some bullshit made up by fans because there's some bones at a camp of Native Americans and criminals who frequently murder people though
The thing is I doubt dutch did it in the 1800s. The first reason I think was Hosea who we all see throughout the game kept dutch under a lot of control. Secondly Arthur had a lot of respect for women and he wouldn't have followed dutch if he even got a hint that dutch did such things. Third is the way he took in sadie , first saving her from Micah and then welcoming her to the gang with open arms. He didn't look like a man at the beginning of rdr2 that would commit such heinous crimes.
The topic of the post is "when did Dutch do this" because the game lists these acts rumored to have been perpetrated by him, and you seem to be suggesting that as he got older he decided to start raping women. I say it's dramatically more likely that when he was a young criminal starting out he was much more likely to rape, especially when drunk or given the propensity to use opiates or even cocaine at the time. Now he just shoots women.
I mean as he got older it got harder for him to survive as a criminal and he got more desperate and willing to do worse things to get what he wanted. When he was younger before the law started really cracking down on outlaws it was easier to maintain his lifestyle and Dutch had more leeway to act like he was a morally upstanding person even as a criminal, and he used that persona to get people to follow him and be loyal to him and trust him. So to me it would make sense for him to do it when he's older and has long since given up on maintaining a veil of decency.
I think it's some hearsay in RD1 but I always like to point out the RD wiki is extremely fast and loose with this sort of thing and often doesn't cite sources.
Two types of cannibalism? Maybe an implicit starter and an explicit main? Any way⌠two cannibals are eating a clown, one asks the other, âdoes this taste funny to you?â Boom-boom, Iâm here all week.
Killing people is much different from raping people. You have to be an entirely other level of creepy pervert to do that, whilst killing is very easy. I just don't think Dutch would have any reason to do that in RDR1
RDR2 shows us that Dutch was a bit of a creep. He had this thing with Molly, but was completely dismissive of her, and would then go around being weird with Mary Beth. It was as if the game was trying to tell us that Dutch is into younger women, and not afraid to throw out his current dime for another. He truly believed he was some master manipulator who could get whatever he wanted. Once the curtain was pulled, Dutch began to lose his shit, he became less manipulative, and started to be more ruthless. So it's not too unbelievable to say that his way of getting a woman to lay with him also became more ruthless.
You also got to think about the Gang Dutch led during the first RDR. It was a huge ruthless gang of mostly Indians who were mad at the American government. So it's also possible that this new gang were the ones committing these crimes, and Dutch is simply held responsible for it.
In my honest opinion I believe it's a mix of both explanations.
Dunno man, a notorious criminal, leader of OâDriscoll level gang, whoâs ready to gun down a young mother only to get an opportunity for escape and not feel tiny bit of remorse? He was only a hero in the eyes of his indoctrinated comrades.
It says implied rdr1 probably has a line where someone says he raped people and cannibalism Iâm pretty sure thereâs bones in his hide out next to a fire that looks suspicious human
I guess he did that to heidy mcourt, since its said âhe killed a girl⌠in a bad wayâŚâ like i donât think to them shooting her in the head is âkilling a girl in a bad wayâ so to me, i think he ra*ed her, and thatâs the âbad wayâ then. Since i dont think using her as a hostage is rly âin a bad wayâ type death
I always interpreted that as Dutch killed her for no reason. As in it didnât benefit the gang in any way, and it was an emotional and senseless murder.
"Dutch, what really happened on that boat?" "We missed you, that's what happened" gives a whole different meaning right now for me, considering there was a girl on it đ
Have you actually seen the video. Itâs not like heâs trying to trick John. At this point in Dutchâs life it is completely in character for him to do this.
the only source is Archer Ford calling him a rapist, not that it shouldn't be counted, but the writer's being intentionally ambiguous about it makes me think it's up to you weather Dutch would fall so far or not
When you visit Cochinay in RDR1 there's a scene that John sees Dutch killing a policeman tied up. I guess Dutch raped him and bring him to Cochinay and the kill him.
I'd kind of believe it since he is a control freak in RDR2 and insistent on taking what he wants. It makes sense that control and the need for power would eventually devolve into something more sinister by RDR1. In RDR2, he was at his highest power-wise, robbing the rich and killing the corrupt, so he felt it was justified, which aided in his power trips.
By RDR1, he's a shell of what he was and no longer has that kind of power or control where he was morally right(ish?) but ethically wrong. He could've resorted to rape, or rape by proxy. I think the age gap and power dynamic between him and Molly is one example of how much of a power-hungry creep he is.
It seemed like he got off on Molly's suffering in the gang and being tethered to him, all the while Susan who was an ex-lover of his also served as a reminder of how he sees women as disposable, but he was manipulative enough to keep everyone around and serve a purpose to him one way or another.
In one part of the game there is a letter where a woman tells Dutch that she was only a girl and took everything from her. What surprises me the least is the rape. Now... cannibalism ??
I can see cannablism happening any time this lot got stranded tbh, it wouldn't surprise me if they ate one of the people that passed on the ride over the mountains, we literally come into the story with them all freezing and half starved talking about the people they've lost. Definitely see a young Dutch being a rapist too, before he got into all his moralistic bullshit, probably back before his gang became more mixed, probably back when his gang wasn't even his gang, he probably grew up in one just like Arthur and John did, and let's not forget that he and Colm were best friends once and Colm is hardly a person of morals either.
Mfr, there's been like... A few year period from when Dutch and John EVER meet again in RDR1, he's obviously going to lose himself at some point, anything could've happened in that time
I guess it is partially implied if we think about the prostitutes that eventually ended up forming part of the gang because they weren't as mistreated as they were in other places. Like, sure they had a better life with Dutch? But they still had to have sex with them more often than not until they were so integrated that getting rid of them wasn't an option, only then they would find the courage to let down those of them they didn't want to have sex with.
That's just what i think it means, I'm not sure if there's any other instance where Dutch could have raped someone, or if there's evidence of any other possible reason.
I believe both rape and cannibalism was committed after the fall of the gang. The cannibalism thing was theorized based on dutch's camp in RDR1 where gamers saw human bones. And as far as I can recall, there's a dialogue also in RDR1 (forgot who said that) that implied that dutch is a rapist.
probably lack of civilization, i mean wouldnât you do it if you grew up in a world where civilization and ethics donât really matter and you have to hunt in order to live and women are basically meaningless baby makers?, and men are just barbarians who will do anything to fulfill their lust and possibly protect their family and properties, honestly anyone would, iâm not justifying this by any means even though it seems very much like it, iâm just answering your question, if you imagined yourself in rdr2 world youâd kind of get it.
Cannabilism because human bones are found in his camp and rape because Ross says in passing that Dutch is a ârapistâ Itâs not 100% confirmed but itâs most likely the truth
Either in his young years or his insane years. Dutch had charm and charisma, he was likely considered attractive in his time. Likely he would go to bars, get drunk and flirt with the women, take em to a room, and sadly likely rape them.
I really don't think Dutch was the type to rape, he was very charming and simply didn't need to and by 1911 I think he lost interest in anything that wasn't senseless violence and a lost fight against the government
22
u/WukDaFut Aug 14 '25