fleurdelucienne

[fleurdelucienne]

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.

[fleurdelucienne]

Feeling ready to chug some wine out of these, Hans Capon-style. hbu?

KCD Tankards. Ceramic (porcelain). 2025.

Second round of these ceramic tankards, and this time I made some in both the style of KCD1 and KCD2. Was nervous about the KCD2 ones, but I’m happy with the finished product that came out of the kiln this morning!

People are out here feeling inspired to create and share their art and that is such a win for the whole community. I’m a big believer in “art begets art” and KCD feels like a work of art to me in so many ways. Art-making (in any medium) can be such fuel for life & living, but it can be lonely, too. Shared inspiration is such a balm for that.

The incredible quality of fics, illustrations, cosplay, textile arts, critical analysis, etc. has kept me invested in my own artistic inspiration even though, recently, that’s especially been a challenge. I’m grateful that people feel brave enough to share their art, when it can feel soooo vulnerable to put it out there. I don’t think I would’ve been inspired or motivated to make these if I hadn’t started seeing Hansry and all the other KCD fanart. It all allowed me to challenge my own definition of “fan art” to expand into my ceramic art, and it gave me a really fun challenge that pushed & expanded my skills, honestly. I suppose, in the end, it’s not only about finding safe spaces for shared inspiration and working hard to create your own peace within that space, but trying to foster & cultivate those spaces too.

[fleurdelucienne]

Not me primarily using my liberal arts education to critically analyze romantic relationships between the men in a video game about 15th century Bohemia.

[fleurdelucienne]

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.

[fleurdelucienne]

the silliest lads in all of bohemia

[fleurdelucienne]

Yeah but how could Henry’s story be finished if Erik is dogging his every step and Istvan is haunting his nightmares and why does that sound like the exact game that I want to play next, huh?

[fleurdelucienne]

I want to talk about Erik. Recently, I keep seeing “Erik doesn’t deserve to be redeemed!” alongside “You can just like Erik as a character and not feel like he needs to be redeemed!” And I just have to say, as always, people can enjoy the characters and game as they please (and those are totally valid opinions!), but there is nothing wrong with the fact that people LOVE a redemption story.

I’m not here to claim that Erik’s actions are justifiable ones. Leading the pogrom in the Jewish quarter is a truly despicable act. Killing that dog? Horrifying. But, my question in response is this: are Henry’s actions truly justifiable?

I know there are folks who very much see Henry’s story as one that is “morally just”…but is that just because we are experiencing it through his eyes? The game is set up for you to kill a LOT of people. I just finished a “0 civilian kill” playthrough of KCD2 and let me tell you, the game does not make it an easy thing to do. You can read more of my thoughts on THAT here. I bring that up because it’s absurd to think that Henry’s hands are at all clean (like Erik appropriately points out before their duel). While playing this game, it’s so easy to think “oh, I had to do that because I picked the right side!” But does brutality ever have a right side?

This question is relevant to the point I want to make here: I believe people love redemption stories because we love complex characters. We understand and experience our own complexity, so experiencing stories about multi-faceted individuals makes them seem more real and alive. I think that’s why we all love Henry so much. So, yes, Erik is a ruthless and violent character, but that is not the only thing the story shows him to be.

Erik wouldn’t work as a narrative foil to Henry if he was fully unsympathetic. And to me, Erik’s story has much more tragedy to it than Henry’s. Like Henry, he lost his family and his home, but we don’t get much sense what his life was truly like before that point. Was Erik manipulated by Istvan into thinking it was for the best that he killed his parents? Or was his life truly unhappy before Istvan? We have no reliable source on this subject. But regardless, he did not find the type of community, friendship, and (ultimately) family that Henry did after his traumatic loss. Erik had 1) Istvan, and 2) the life that Istvan built for him and molded him into living. So of course losing the man that his life grew to revolve around sends him fully over the edge.

I think the potential of a redemption story for Erik is appealing to people because behind the violence and rage and ruthlessness, we are shown glimmers of this hurt and traumatized young man who loses everything twice over. He is full of genuine concern, urgency and care when he liberates Istvan from the dungeon in Nebakov. We get to experience a quiet moment of tenderness when he says goodbye to Istvan at Trosky. And, ultimately, it is grief from the loss of Istvan that sends him into his deepest point of rage and desperation. The raw emotion in the scene where he learns of Istvan’s death makes it one of the most powerful in the game, in my opinion (and Jim High’s mocap and VA performance in this game is truly exceptional).

In the duel against Henry, he expresses “He meant the world to me!” about Istvan, which is more than Henry ever really explicitly gets from Istvan about Erik. These moments humanize Erik and provide these fleeting glimpses of the love, devotion, and (ultimately) grief within him, which all add more nuance and depth to his character. Additionally, when Henry can remind him that Istvan killed his parents, there is an undertone of desperation and denial that leads me to believe he has some awareness and honesty within himself about Istvan and the nature of their relationship.

I feel the desire for redemption for Erik is invested in those moments of humanity laid bare.

Is Erik too far gone for redemption? Perhaps. But could those glimmers of humanity finally break through to that boy in him that is so clearly capable of love and grief? Perhaps. People also seem to forget there are many paths to redemption. It doesn’t have to be some schlocky, half-cooked way for Erik to join forces with Henry. To cite two incredibly obvious examples from other popular works of fiction - both Boromir from Lord of the Rings and Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader from Star Wars were only redeemed in death, but that made their respective redemptions feel no less satisfying or unearned despite previous evils committed by those characters. Redemption isn’t about ignoring, erasing, or excusing past behavior. It’s about the multi-faceted nature of humans, and the way we love to believe that it’s never too late to change.

Erik will never be Henry. People aren’t necessarily trying to make him into Henry. That’s not the point. The desire for redemption is one that is rejecting a certain cynicism about humanity as well as a strict good/evil dichotomy within people, which I don’t think is a bad thing.

[fleurdelucienne]

No matter what Henry tells to Godwin and Žižka about killing Istvan, no matter if he says "It felt great" or if he says "he doesn't feel any better", later when he's in the dream confronted by his father Henry claims it did feel good.

And you can see his father as a ghost or just manifestation of Henry's consciousness and you can see his words as denial triggered by confrontation or his true dark and vengeful feelings showing.

But I find it so intriguing that he will always claim in that moment that he enjoyed killing Istvan.

[fleurdelucienne]

I just finished a “0 civilian kill” playthrough of KCD2 and let me tell you, it is not straightforward thing to do. Certain quest outcomes, even ones where you feel like you’re being a “good guy” basically REQUIRE you to kill characters that are classified as civilians. So, to keep your kill count at 0, you end up having to cheese it with poison arrows or using npcs you’re fighting with to finish people off.

The point of mentioning this? Henry’s story can so easily lead us to a place where we believe what we are doing is wholly justified while our adversaries are committing wholly unjustified acts of violence. However, when you face off with your two greatest adversaries (Istvan Toth and Markvart Von Aulitz) you are also forced to face the fact that Henry truly is not so different from these two men. I’ve seen some people claim something like “you just got speech level 30-ed, bro” when you bring up the fact that much of what these two “villains” say is very true, but in my experience of the game, that attitude involves some level of delusion concerning how truly bloody Henry’s hands are, as well as the part he plays in the horrors of war.

It’s very telling, in my opinion, that the quests that end up basically requiring you to kill civilians are mostly just a matter of what side you picked and whether you followed through on your word. Here are three examples that especially stuck out to me:

In the side quest “Ransom,” if you follow through with the whole quest and help Jan of Suchotlesky try to find his brother/retrieve his brother’s body, you have to kill Laszlo Farkas and his men.

During “For Victory” Zizka’s men in Nebakov gorge count as civilians when you are riding to Nebakov with Von Bergow’s men.

And, the worst one (in my opinion): the beggars/ruffians at Ruthard palace when you and Rosa reach it through the underground during “Oratores.”

The last one left the worst taste in my mouth partially because of Rosa’s attitude about it (though I understand her perspective is understandable in the context of her upbringing, this is just one of MANY Rosa thoughts I’ll save for another time), but also because you can’t talk your way out of this violent confrontation. That seems SO incongruent with other similar situations that Henry can easily talk, threaten, or intimidate his way out of, especially given his relative skill level at that stage of the main quest. However, all three of these outcomes help reinforce a theme that comes up throughout KCD - Henry is constantly getting blood on his hands in service of others. And, especially in service of nobles. Which is EXACTLY what Istvan is trying to tell him in Trosky before you kill him. For this reason, I believe the difficulty in sparing civilians is 100% intentional game design. On one hand, Henry aligns himself with individuals he believes are good and just, but on the other hand, he repeatedly commits unspeakable acts of violence in their names.

I would recommend trying a 0 civilian kill playthrough for anyone who likes a bit of a problem-solving challenge, but ALSO because it really highlights how easy it is submit to casual violence because you feel you’re on the “right side.” Without some amount of care and diligence, you end up defaulting to this violent autopilot before you realize what just transpired, check your statistics to see that you indeed killed a civilian, and then have to reload a save. Don’t get me wrong, it was a pain in the ass sometimes, but it very much altered my perspective on many aspects of the story in a way I absolutely appreciated in the end.

[fleurdelucienne]

Me: Maybe this playthrough will be crime free...

My Henry:

[fleurdelucienne]

Yeah but what if we could SPARE HIM?!

The Von Aulitz confrontation is truly incredible, and this scene with Istvan is actually my favorite in the whole game. But. But! I wonder what would’ve happened if Henry had confronted Istvan later in his journey. If he had found and spoken to Von Aulitz in the Prauger’s camp before he ever chased down Istvan. Would Henry always kill him? What would be the consequences if he didn’t? It’s so interesting to me that there is no choice at this point in the story, except in the way you kill him. I understand why, narratively. I understand how fresh the events at Vranik and Talmberg are for Henry. I also understand that Von Aulitz is different since he will die regardless of the action Henry takes.

SO, perhaps I’m just greedy for more of the fascinating dynamic between Henry and Istvan. I find it so well-written and acted in KCD2. When my brother told me he just instantly killed Istvan dishonorably, I was HORRIFIED. Because I love the conversation you can have with Istvan - you can uncover more vulnerability and humanity here than in any other interaction Henry has with him.

I like to imagine a KCD3 that takes place in the near future (freeing Wenceslas style), and features a Henry who is still relentlessly haunted by Istvan in his nightmares. The dream sequences in KCD are so good and I believe that Henry still has some intense reckoning and reconciliation to do with his conscience, his darker urges, and the reality of all the choices he’s made. The specter of Istvan so poetically embodies that struggle.

[fleurdelucienne]

…

Ummmm…excuse me, what?! TOO SOON, Radzig.

[fleurdelucienne]

First of all, I want to admit that I LOVE it when a piece of media subverts expectations. Like, YES, surprise me! Change my perspective on something! That being said, I think it would’ve been so much more interesting if Warhorse didn’t make Katherine romanceable in KCD2.

To all the Hansry detractors that decry “why can’t men just be close friends without being gay?!” My response is “Why can’t men and women just be close friends without inserting the expectation of a romantic relationship?” Of course, this is all acknowledging that so many of the choices in an RPG are fully optional, and, as always, I’m so happy for people to make their choices. And I’m happy for there to be multiple options (both men and women!) for Henry to romance. However, there is such an overriding trope (especially in video games) of women serving the narrative purpose of being conquests for men, or, at the very least, objects of their romantic affection. Warhorse already subverted expectations with the Hans romance, and I think there would’ve been a certain aspect of artistic bravery if they didn’t submit to this trope with Katherine.

Katherine serves an interesting role in the Devil’s Pack, and is capable of gathering intelligence and carrying out missions in way no one else can, specifically because of overriding gender roles in this particular historical context. In my option, that provides a very interesting commentary on those very gender roles - by playing into ideas of women’s place, purpose, and limitations, Katherine serves to narratively disprove those very notions. Additionally, Zizka/Henry would not have been successful (or even lived?) at multiple pivotal story points without her.

If you don’t complete The Fifth Commandment quest and lock yourself out of the romance, Henry can still talk to her in Suchdol before he and Samuel set out to try to get a message to Jobst. And the conversation is such a beautiful and vulnerable one about the grief and loss they have in common. AND it makes Zizka spilling the beans to Henry about Katherine’s past somewhat more palatable in that way (though I still don’t love it) - instead of a prelude to a sexual encounter, it provides an opportunity to deepen a friendship and share the burden of pain and loss they both carry. And ALL of this allows Katherine to stand as an interesting character on her own, and we are honestly rather starved of non-romanceable women like that in KCD2.

The Hans romance is partly so incredible because it DID subvert expectations. If you view the story through the lens of their relationship as an increasingly romantic one, it changes the tone, it adds subtext, and generates a beautiful through line that enhances the story. AND, because they knew they were subverting expectations, especially of a large portion of their player base, they knew they had to do it well. And they truly knocked it out of the park imo. It’s one of the best game romances I’ve ever experienced. But that’s not the case with Katherine, and perhaps that’s why the writing surround the romance feels so lazy and clumsy. Zizka’s (vaguely inappropriate) trauma dump makes the whole thing feel rushed and uncomfortable, so it ultimately feels like an afterthought. And Katherine really deserved better.

[fleurdelucienne]

KCD Memes

[fleurdelucienne]

This game is absolutely gorgeous.

[fleurdelucienne]

[fleurdelucienne]

Look, I absolutely adore Theresa as a character, and the Woman’s Lot DLC gave her so much depth and humanity, but I really don’t see her as an endgame for Henry (and she sort of seems to acknowledge this in KCD1, too!). I’m very happy for everyone to play KCD2 however they want, but I so tire of the Theresa loyalists/truthers who are CONVINCED that Henry would’ve stayed true to her and who eschew the romance options in KCD2 as a result.

Their romance is completely optional in KCD1 and has such a “puppy love” vibe to it that feels very steeped in their trauma, immaturity, and lack of life experience. Which is perfect for Henry’s development as a person, warrior, etc. at that time. KCD1 Henry IS bashful Henry. I never tire of the delivery of the line “I’d like to, uh, order something?” at the Bathhouses in the first game. 😂 And hell, Henry also has to be told by Nightingale to court her?

Compare that to KCD2 Henry, who is so much more confident, seems so settled in himself, and has experienced so much growth in a short period of time (though under duress as it may have been). I think that’s why part of the reason the Hans romance hits so hard - it feels like something Henry has grown into and actually wants. And it plays out over a much longer timeline than any other romance, which gives it that delicious slow burn we all love. He knows he cares for Hans, and we see the ways in which he tries to communicate this to Hans in increasingly emphatic ways throughout the entire course of the main quest.

And then, when it finally culminates, it feels like a deeply mature and meaningful love, and one that is truly chosen not because it was born out of mere circumstance and ideas of romance and courtship (how all the female romance options feel to me across both games), but because of a deep love and respect between two people. It’s SUPER wild to me that Hansry detractors claim it “came out of nowhere” when it has the most groundwork of any romance. It is also baffling to me how those complaints co-exist with how easy it is for Henry to accidentally sleep with women when it isn’t explicitly clear in the dialogue (Lady Stephanie? Klara?).

Anyway, the point of this manifesto that no one asked for is - the Hans romance works so well and stirs up such incredible feelings because of how well and how intentionally it is written. It adds nuance and subtext to other elements of the story and honestly makes the game BETTER through its inclusion. The narrative payoff is so incredible and moving because it is so well-earned. And while Warhorse did create a secret ending for the Theresa loyalists, I don’t believe her romance was written to have the same impact. And, to me, her place in the story, while important, isn’t necessarily to be Henry’s one true love. If that’s how you see it, great, but I also feel like it’s a disservice to Theresa’s bravery and tenacity to just imagine a future where she just settles down with Henry by default. I could go on for several more paragraphs about how Warhorse writes women, but that is a different manifesto that I’ll save for another time.