the obvious 'good ending' as per the beacon's alignment would be for the humans to live and the vampires to die having turned no one, but that feels a little bit too easy considering abolish is the one looping around. although killing two people who might not have been revealed to be vampires yet would bring a lot of heat onto him. idk, what do y'all think?

like, would having the townsfolk be more accepting of avid's ideas lead him to calm down a little bit and unpack his trauma, realizing that elle being killed by a stake doesn't mean she had to be a vampire and easing up on them a little? or would it just fuel his and ren's hatred of the supernatural even more, knowing that people believe them about these things?

pyro's turning week 1 (I view every episode as roughly a week's time) was so pivotal to the story, the domino effect of him not dying is truly endless. any direct intervention would likely make scott a lot more hostile right off the bat, which isn't good for anyone involved, but indirectly keeping pyro away would likely only lead to shelby being turned first instead.

That might just be me being pedantic though

Yesyes that's what my thought process was

But I also feel like it wouldn't be fair for gempearl fan to look up gempearl and only being met with stupid silly platonic shenanigans so I dunno 🤔

This one for example feels more like shinyduo than gempearl, but it's badly drawn... so I'm putting this here and not my daily shinyduo blog

Ok but I shall now get on with it:

People (especially here) treat Erid as some sort of incredibly socially-progressive utopia without any human “flaws” and that they “wouldnt do that to grace”

I’ve seen people claim that Grace felt more at home on Erid than he did on earth because Eridians are simply more accepting, more peaceful, more open-minded than humans. I really disagree. One of my personal takeaways from PHM is basically that “people are alike all over” (except unironically). Except for the ways they would be different, they aren’t (that sounds really stupid but it makes sense).

aka, Jack is fine, actually

The main reason why I dislike the idea of RDR3 with Jack as the protagonist (or even just Jack as a major character) is the high possibility that he'd have to die.

RDR has always had that strong Redemption-With-Death thing, and that's fine. It works really well in the case of Arthur, lesser so with John but I more-or-less get the idea behind it. RDR has it's protagonists' redemptions concluded with them dying. And I just... have no interest in seeing Jack die?

Mainly because it's a super unsatisfying conclusion to the Marston story. Both games have this concept of fighting so the Marstons can make it (in RDR1 that's pretty much John's only motivator, in RDR2 it's a huge factor in chapter 6) and I feel like having Jack die would almost invalidate that in a way? We've fought so hard to let this family, and Jack especially, make it out, and then... he's just gonna die, too? Idk, it feels unsatisfying! At least John's and Arthur's deaths, while pretty grim to play, were earned by the story, but I just can't see how killing Jack would be justified after all the hell we've gone through so he lives.

And in all honesty? I don't think Jack's "doomed" by the story, so to speak. The 1914 section is lonely and depressing and you're playing as a recently orphaned teenager who's bitter and violent and angry at the world. Can you blame the guy? He has not known stability his whole life, he didn't have a house until he was twelve, he was kidnapped by the government at sixteen, they killed his dad and his uncle and indirectly his mom and he sought revenge and he deeply regrets it. And he's not even 20.

This doesn't mean that he's a tragic hero or whatevs who's doomed to die horribly, he's a kid and he’s never known stability and he’s never been truly comfortable with his lot in life and as soon as he was, they killed his dad!!

He's going to be angry and violent!! Him seeking out revenge on the guy, who need I repeat, killed his dad, doesn't really imply Rockstar need to put him down like a dog. Is Jack killing Ross him falling back into the cycle of violence? Yes, yes it is, and I think a satisfying conclusion would be Jack struggling and failing but retrying to right himself and become the person he once wanted to be. That feels way more fitting to me.

Because I feel like we all get bogged down with Jack's whole 1914 depression and cycle of violence arc, and we kind of forget that without the 1914 section, Jack's story has primarily been about hope and love and innocence and breaking cycles. Jack has always been associated with hope and ESPECIALLY the breaking of cycles. Back in RDR1 we wouldn't have John and Abigail discussing how he was going to do something better than them otherwise. And yeah, there's the whole contradiction that Jack does end up falling down that path, which is tragic and it's sad— but I just don't see how that means that's the rest of Jack's future right there.

He's not doomed. He’s NINETEEN YEARS OLD. He has time to right his wrongs.

And RDR2 has always been much more of a hopeful game than RDR1, whether that's just in-universe, or because of the timeline or if it's Rockstar wanting to take the series in a different direction, I don't know. But RDR1 was cynical as hell whereas the sequel is such a tonal shift, it makes me think that the series has gone in a much less pessimistic direction. And RDR2 is full of hope as a theme and it's associated SO much with Jack:

The most common greet-greet-greet dialogue I get with the kid is the "Don't turn into to me" one. There's so many discussions of the gang hoping Jack won't turn out like them, and I feel like that's gotta be deeper than the writers giving a depressed nudge to the audience who know how Jack's story "ends".

That journal entry after Fisher of Men where Arthur discusses how Jack could find something better and move on with his life doesn't seem to be there for the sole purpose of dramatic irony, that doesn't fit with the tone Rockstar is going with at this part of the story. (There is absolutely place for dramatic irony in RDR2— the whole plot with Arthur, Dutch, and John relies on us knowing the first game.) But I never felt like Jack's RDR2 story relied on us knowing how he ended up. RDR2 is Pro-Jack as hell.

AND!!! Red Dead Redemption as a series has always had us looking out for Jack. The bulk of RDR1 is us doing stuff to bring him home. RDR2 has a lot of us doing stuff to bring him to safety. Rockstar may be bitter bastards, but they’re not so bleak as to kill off the kid the whole game is about looking after.

Jack is meant to be the one who breaks the cycle, and I don't think him killing Ross in RDR1 and becoming an outlaw at only 19 with literally his whole life ahead of him and pre-established other goals and aspirations that are mentioned ALL THE TIME means he's doomed by the narrative to die young like those who came before him.