THIS THEORY IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY CRITICAL ROLE CAMPAIGN 2 SPOILERS!!! SHOW ONLY'S SCROLL AWAY!!!
As a long time cr2 fan I am LOVING the animated series- its so so fun! And the very Essek-centric sideplot has had me thinking of our favourite floaty fuck.
I've seen people talk about how Essek is acting less evil in the adaptation than he had been in the campaign, and after rewatching an Essek redemption supercut, I kind of agree. Do I think this is a bad move on the shows part? No. They're running with less run time to communicate the deep establishment of a relationship that had stretched on for months between Essek and the Nein. Changes are very much needed to make the redemption work with less time. In order to establish a precedence for redemption, it is easier to communicate some level of 'good' within the character.
I do however think that Essek should be a worse fucker to communicate the depth of his moral struggles later in the narrative. I do think, though, that something might happen in the following episodes to establish Essek as a more antagonistic force in the story. I did some digging, and Verrat (the Orc general Essek's been interacting with) is not in any of the supplementary material for campaign 2. Not in the campaign nor source book. A completely new inception.
I think that Essek will kill Verrat in the next episode. There is no way that Verrat will let go of the fact that Essek betrayed the Dynasty, and Essek will make a choice that I think will have him fully devolving into the character the Nein first met in the campaign. A self serving wizard obsessed with the discovery of knowledge.
In order to preserve Essek's role in the story, which is too significant to the wider narrative to massively change, Verrat cannot be present. Giving Essek an ally within the dynasty such as Verrat would negate the Nein's role in his character development, and allowing Verrat to live as an oppositional force to Essek would massively displace Essek from his narrative role in the Kryn arc. Therefore, Verrat's role in the story will come to an end- to showcase Essek's descent into evil.
I believe that Verrat was written to be murdered. More than that, I think Essek will kill Verrat without the prescence of the Beacon, to further cement the terrible and evil choices he makes.
Like Taelisin said with Gustav's death, its Chekhov's gun. Gustav could not have lived in the show because he has no further narrative use. Verrat is similar. Except where Gustav is a broken gun, Verrat is a loaded firearm. He is far too involved and powerful to be allowed to live, lest he cause ripples that would fundamentally change Essek's entire narrative. So, he has to die.
