Katherine's established character

Katherine is set up to be capable and strong-minded. Interactions with her at Trosky/Suchdol prove that she can pick pockets, kill men, spy on important conversations, steal items and help prepare for sieges.

In the conversation with Peter of Pisek at Suchdol, Katherine participates on a fairly equal level with Henry and Zizka, even interrupting them to stop them saying something inopportune or fix what's already been said. She chats with the combat master of Suchdol and clearly knows about sieges and fighting forces: she doesn't think much of his men and berates him about the crumbling walls and towers.

During her sidequest, Katherine is absolutely on the side of killing the perpetrator. "I'd enjoy the idea of her burning in Hell … What would you say if I kept telling you to forget about Sigismund, about revenge?" Henry can ask if revenge and justice are the same to her, and she doesn't disagree.

When you talk to Katherine in the bath at the camp, she has no real problem with the danger of being in the camp or the danger of the plan itself.

Up to this point, Katherine acts as if she's a hardened veteran. She's not traumatised by the deaths of named characters at Nebakov; she outright celebrates Mikesh's death, and she only softens her statement that Klara is dead when Henry is horrified by it. She's not afraid of anything and insists she can take care of herself. She's bloodthirsty and willing to kill personally in her sidequest. She's not flustered by Zizka and Henry's torture. She has nothing to say about Henry breaking into Maleshov alone to rescue Hans, which is basically a suicide mission. I think this is a fairly cohesive character concept: she's hardened by war, she wants revenge, she kills easily and flirts easily but doesn't let anyone get close to her except Zizka.

Katherine and Maleshov

But then there's a sudden change. When talking about sieging Maleshov, Katherine is completely different. She's visibly upset and opposes the action:

Henry: What's the matter? You didn't mind what we were doing until now. And all of a sudden… Katherine: Until now we chose our foe, one we stood a chance against, and engaged them when we had an edge! Katherine: And for some time now we've been getting into wilder and wilder enterprises! But go, if you "must". And try not to die there, damn it!

So the game wants to argue that this change is because Maleshov is far more dangerous than previous activities like Nebakov. But to the player this probably doesn't ring true. Maleshov is a planned attack which results in the forgettable loss of some no-name mercenaries. Maleshov is not a particularly long or difficult gameplay challenge. Nebakov, on the other hand, was a difficult situation which resulted in the loss of named NPCs, Hans almost being killed and then captured, and Zizka/Henry/Godwin being tortured. But Katherine, while saddened by some deaths at Nebakov, also takes them in stride as part of the life she's chosen: "You have to live every day like it's going to be your last. That's all you can do in our trade." She only starts opposing plans and worrying about people being killed starting with Maleshov.

The real explanation is, I guess, given at the end of the same conversation.

Katherine: I don't know what you want. I can't figure you out. Henry: That makes two of us. What's changed? We've been fighting the whole time. Katherine: Nothing's changed. Except that with every passing day you're risking more and more. Just… just try not to get killed, Henry.

So apparently we have to believe that Katherine has had a complete change from being a tough woman who's been in multiple combat situations to being a scared crying mom figure because… she has a crush on Henry.

Men and violence

It's also at this point that she starts turning into a generic female character who complains about men and violence.

Henry: We must defeat and capture von Bergow. Katherine: Aye, there's always some "we must" with you fellahs!

Katherine: Men, men! As if everything revolved around you! Henry: There's a war on. We have to fight. Katherine: Have to? You have to keep killing?

This pretty much comes out of the blue and continues for the rest of the game. It's completely understandable why Katherine would hate men, but she hasn't expressed it until this point and never explains why she's voluntarily hanging out with a band of men. It made sense when her character was highly motivated by revenge; she was willing to stay with Zizka's band to achieve that revenge. But now that she suddenly hates killing and revenge… why is she here? And why is she acting like war and violence is men's silly business, when she was enthusiastically participating a minute ago?

(Klara, interestingly, has some very similar dialogue about silly men and their wars. Same writer, or just an easy hackneyed line to grab when you don't know what your female character should say?)

Frustratingly, you can ask Katherine why she's here ("I keep wondering why a woman like you tags along with blokes like us…"), but she refuses to answer. Henry can try to bond with her by suggesting that it's because she's the same as him: he has nothing left and the Pack is his family now. You don't get a rep decrease for this like you do from saying she's here for "no reason", but Katherine still gets angry, insults the Pack ("Murderers, drunks, fornicators and gamblers led by the Devil himself…"), and finally says "Look, I'm simply here. Does it bother you? Would you prefer if I wasn't here?".

Why do the writers shy away from having her talk about revenge here? Obviously they don't want Katherine to spill the beans about her backstory until the end of the game, but where is the bloodthirstiness she displays in her sidequest, the hardness she displays in Trosky? This dialogue also implies that Henry is right (and that Katherine just doesn't like this description of her), but bearing in mind that the Pack already dissipated yet Katherine still stayed with Zizka and even opposed getting some of the Pack back, I still find this explanation weirdly lacking. I felt that this conversation was a cop-out where the writers couldn't give a coherent answer or perhaps felt uncomfortable giving a (romanceable) woman a violent motivation so just avoided the question instead.

In the post-game conversations, Katherine is conflicted about Brabant: Henry: I killed Brabant. Katherine: Good. Henry: Good? Katherine: It's good he paid for what he did. It's good he can't harm anyone again. Katherine: But I'm sad for every horrible deed we do to put right other horrible deeds. It's wrong. Katherine: Even so, I think there was no other option.

Compare this to the dialogue in her sidequest:

Henry: So, do you still have no regrets about how things turned out? Katherine: Why should I have? That bitch deserved what she got. And she even thought what she did was a righteous thing! It makes me want to cry. And kill her again! … Katherine: I know very well killing her was against the law, but also just. Henry: But what if…? Katherine: There's no buts here. And it wasn't a mistake. I'd kill her again in a flash! Henry: If you're so sure about it… Katherine: I'm well aware of the kind of justice you can expect in this world. Katherine: You've killed a lot of people too. Can you be so sure that all of them deserved it? Well, I'm sure about this one!

If Katherine had a consistent character concept, she ought to have similar reactions to both Brabant and the sidequest murderer. If Katherine is supposed to have had a change of heart somewhere during the course of the game, they needed to actually show some events that plausibly caused that!

Is Katherine a medic?

Near the end, the game apparently forgets about Katherine's established skills and relegates her to sitting around being guarded or to the infirmary at Suchdol. I've seen several fans recently refer to her as a combat medic/healer/nurse as if that's her main role in the game. In fact she seems to have no specialised knowledge about medical care - she isn't involved with, say, healing Zizka's eye or torture wounds, and in the infirmary she can only bandage Henry, tell him to make his own healing decoction, or tell him that she has decoctions made by Musa.

By Suchdol, what has happened to her knowing about siegecraft? What happened to her being able to actively spy and get into places she's not supposed to be? What happened to her being able and willing to kill? What happened to her being a stealth skill teacher? Why can't she, for example, give Henry advice about infiltrating Sigismund's camp or offer him poisons to help? Instead she's stuck crying about it in the infirmary!

In short: Liberation Theology is the family of theologies which hold that God is concerned with the material liberation of the poor and oppressed, and the inauguration of a stateless, classless, moneyless Kingdom of God.

"Wait! That sounds like communism!" Hell yeah it does. You know how leftists always want you to read a bunch of books and a million zines? Liberation theology is also like that, but I'll try to keep this as succinct as possible.

Liberation theology was first and most comprehensively articulated in Catholic Latin America in the 20th century, but it is not restricted to that context. There are Black, African-American, and Pan-African liberation theologies. There are Indigenous, Native American, and First Nations liberation theologies. There are Palestinian and Dalit liberation theologies. There are queer, trans, and feminist liberation theologies. There are Marxist-Leninist, anarchist, and antifascist liberation theologies. There are Protestant and Orthodox versions of liberation theology. There are also non-Christian religions with ideologies similar to liberation theology, but I am not equipped to comment on those.

Liberation theology is also found throughout the history of Christian belief and practice and it is not anachronistic for the Middle Ages, despite a poverty of documentation. The English Peasants' Revolt of 1381 is one example of an event fueled by a liberationist Christian worldview.

My go-to resource for people who want to get deeper into liberation theology is The Liberation Theology Podcast. He focuses on the Catholic and Latin-American versions of liberation theology, but he emphasizes solidarity with all oppressed people and sometimes has guests with other lenses. (Since his ordination to the priesthood, he has been spending less time making podcast episodes and more time leading demonstrations outside ICE detentions.)

Here are some of the important beliefs which are contained within liberation theologies:

Inequality is a fact of life in a sinful, fallen world, but it is not the will of God.

It is the will of God that Christians should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, minister to the sick and imprisoned, and reach across cultural and ethnic boundaries in the service of one's neighbor.

It is the will of God that rich Christians should divest themselves of their wealth in the service of the poor.

The crucifixion of Jesus was an unjust act of state violence against an innocent man.

Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus is God and went willingly to his death for the salvation of humankind. Christian orthodoxy also holds that Jesus rose from the dead after three days. Because these points cannot be explained by naturalistic means, they are considered "holy mysteries," and are meant to be explored and meditated upon for deeper meanings.

In the absence of direct encounters with Jesus, we encounter God most acutely through encounters with the "crucified people" in our own societies. That is, the people who are oppressed, exploited, tortured, and killed through state, colonial, religious, and societal violence.

Hold on! If liberation theology is so great, why isn't the Kingdom of God here yet? If medieval peasants believed in a liberating God, why did they not simply overthrow their feudal overlords? If Christian belief can be so freeing, why can the Church be so oppressive?

Great questions! Speaking of which, why hasn't your Marxist reading group ended capitalism yet?

I jest, but there are lots of material explanations for why "the God of the poor" is not really the same God that is reflected in the institutions of the rich and powerful.

The fusion of Church and State leads to a society where the Church wields State violence, and the State marginalizes those who do not submit to the Church. In a society where churches are founded, funded, governed, and maintained by moneyed interests, the perspectives of the poor are marginalized in favor of the priorities and philosophies of rich donors. In a society where most people are illiterate, decentralized subsistence farmers, it is nigh-impossible for them to achieve the critical mass necessary for a proper revolution. Perhaps worst of all, if the common people understand that they are being oppressed and exploited, it is the natural agenda of feudal and bourgeois property owners to blame outsiders, foreigners, and nonconformists (usually Jews) instead of letting the common people band together and take control of feudal and bourgeois property.

Under these conditions, faith becomes what Marx (in)famously called the "opiate of the masses." This is erroneously interpreted as "something that keeps people stupid and compliant," and more correctly interpreted as "something that eases people's pain in the absence of a real cure for what ails them."

Thus, a medieval peasant might only be able to find their liberation in the songs, festivals, incense, rituals, beautiful windows and frescoes, supportive community, and messages of hope they find in their church. The pain and grief of poverty, hunger, oppression, and death might be eased by a vision of an afterlife where such things no longer exist.

It's also important to note that the liberation theology of a medieval peasant would not necessarily be "woke" in a 21st-century leftist sense, and would not map perfectly to anything we believe now. People's beliefs arise from their material conditions, and the way they articulate those beliefs can seem very alien. Nevertheless, we have examples of medieval people decrying their oppression in the name of God, and ancient fixtures of Christian liturgies which promise the triumph of the poor in the Kingdom of God.

So what does this mean for KCD fan creators?

This is something you can explore in many different ways, but this should get you started. A question you will want to ask when you are getting into the religious mind of a character is "where does this character find their liberation?"

Where does Henry find his liberation? That really depends on how you play your Henry. Does he find it in the blacksmiths' guild? Does he find it in his romantic relationships? Does he find it in righteous justice? (Remember, killing is still a sin in liberationist Christianity.)

Where does Hans find his liberation? People from rich and powerful backgrounds can still seek liberation through God. We know that Hans prays to the Virgin Mary and is something of an idealist. What is he looking for?

Where does Theresa find her liberation? Who is oppressing her? How does she pray? What does she pray for?

Where does Godwin find his liberation? How does his background (as a nobleman, and then as a mercenary) inform his vocation as a priest? What does his unorthodox spirituality and marginal relationship to the Church say about his relationship to God?

Who/what is the God of Otto von Bergow, Istvan Toth, and Markvart von Aulitz? What do they worship instead of the liberating God of the poor?