I'll anchor the discussion around 1403, the approximate time of Kingdom Come: Deliverance, and cover political structure, social hierarchy, religion and thought, language and culture, as well as which in-game details have historical basis.

If we pin Kingdom Come: Deliverance strictly to 1403, then the real Bohemia was in a very interesting "in-between era":

Economically and culturally, it was still near the peak of prosperity left by the Golden Age of Charles IV in the 14th century, but politically it was already mired in internal Luxembourg dynasty struggles, aristocratic fragmentation, and religious crisis.

In other words, the game's feeling that "villages, castles, monasteries, and mining towns are still running orderly, but the whole country seems on the verge of trouble" is historically quite accurate.

I. First, let's clarify: what exactly was "Bohemia" in 1403?

Here, Bohemia is not simply a stand-in for the entire modern Czech Republic.

At that time, the core was the Kingdom of Bohemia, which was part of the Holy Roman Empire. The King of Bohemia was also a major prince of the Empire and, under the 1356 Golden Bull, one of the seven Prince-Electors.

The so-called "Lands of the Bohemian Crown" also included Moravia, as well as Silesia and Lusatia. In other words, it was a Central European kingdom with its own royal authority, nobility, and administrative traditions, while simultaneously embedded in the larger political system of the Holy Roman Empire.

By the mid-14th century, Charles IV had built Prague into a true European capital. Prague Castle, St. Vitus Cathedral, Charles Bridge, the New Town, and Charles University (founded in 1348) were all part of this nation-building effort.

So, the world of Kingdom Come: Deliverance is by no means a "backwater European state."

In 1403, Bohemia was actually at the center of Central European political, commercial, and cultural networks.

---

II. Politically: 1403 was a "complete mess"

This is the most important point for understanding the game.

1. Charles IV died, leaving a capable state, but his successor faced a huge political crisis

Charles IV died in 1378, and his son Wenceslas IV inherited the Bohemian throne.

But Wenceslas not only had to govern Bohemia; he also bore the title of "King of the Romans" within the Holy Roman Empire. His relationship with the imperial princes grew increasingly strained.

Eventually, in 1400, the Rhenish electors declared Wenceslas deposed as King of the Romans and elected Rupert (Elector Palatine) as the new King of the Romans.

So, by the time of the game, Wenceslas IV was no longer a strong monarch who could control the entire empire without hindrance.

But he was still:

King of Bohemia.

This is a crucial point.

---

2. An even more serious problem came from his own family

Wenceslas had a half-brother:

Sigismund of Luxembourg.

He was already King of Hungary and would later become Holy Roman Emperor.

In 1402, Sigismund captured Wenceslas and held him as a political hostage, trying to seize actual power in Bohemia. Wenceslas was taken to Austria and eventually imprisoned in Vienna.

So the real situation in 1403 was:

The nominal king, Wenceslas, was still alive, but his country was effectively being contested by different factions.

This is why the political backdrop at the start of Kingdom Come: Deliverance is so chaotic—it wasn't invented by the game just for dramatic effect.

---

3. The Bohemian nobility was not a monolith either

At that time, real control over local society wasn't just in the king's hands.

Powerful nobles possessed their own:

castles, villages, estates, judicial rights, armed forces, and political connections.

They could support the king or oppose him; they could even start armed conflicts themselves.

Wenceslas had already been captured and imprisoned by a group of nobles in 1394. After Sigismund recaptured the king in 1402, conflicts broke out between nobles who supported Wenceslas and those who opposed Sigismund.

So, Bohemia in 1403 was closer to:

Royal power + great nobles + lesser nobles + cities + the Church

all playing against each other, rather than a modern sense of "central government ruling the whole country."

This is why, in Kingdom Come: Deliverance, a minor lord's castle, a few knights, and a local garrison can all seem so important.

---

III. Why does the "sense of war" in the game feel so real?

Because very specific military actions actually took place in 1402–1403.

To consolidate his control over Bohemia, Sigismund led troops into the country and carried out military strikes against regions supporting Wenceslas.

Kuttenberg (Kutná Hora) was especially important, as it was one of Bohemia's most significant silver mining towns.

From late 1402 to early 1403, Sigismund's forces launched a military campaign against Kuttenberg, and the surrounding areas were plundered.

Therefore, the game's background is not:

"Some evil noble suddenly brought troops to burn down a village."

But a much more realistic situation:

Dynastic civil war and political struggle directly swept up ordinary villages.

For common people, this kind of war often wasn't about "grand battles" but rather:

Villages requisitioned for grain → Horses commandeered → Trade routes cut off → Soldiers looting → Refugees fleeing → Estate income falling → Castle defenses heightened.

This is precisely where Kingdom Come: Deliverance has its strongest historical feel.

---

IV. Culturally, it was actually a very prosperous era

This point is easily overshadowed by the game's war scenes.

Bohemia in 1403 was not "backward"

In fact, Prague in the latter half of the 14th century was one of the cultural centers of Central Europe.

During Charles IV's reign, artists from France, Italy, German lands, and Bohemia itself gathered there. Architecture, painting, sculpture, manuscript illumination, and goldsmithing were all highly developed.

During the reign of Wenceslas IV, an artistic tradition later called:

"Beautiful Style" (Schöner Stil)

emerged.

It is especially evident in religious paintings, sculptures, and luxurious illuminated manuscripts.

So what you see in the game:

Lofty Gothic churches, paintings, manuscripts, fine clothing, noble heraldry, frescoes...

is not an imagination of a "poor, backward Eastern European medieval world."

In reality, this region was quite wealthy and quite international at the time.

---

V. Language and culture: Don't simply interpret it as "Czechs vs. Germans"

This point deserves special attention.

Around 1400, Prague had a very pronounced Czech-German bilingual environment.

Urban commerce, aristocratic politics, the university, the Church, and immigration all created a complex linguistic structure. Merchants, craftsmen, and scholars from German lands were a long-standing presence in Bohemian cities.

And Charles University itself was an international university.

So the game's inclusion of:

• Czech names
• German names
• Latin
• Merchants and scholars from different regions

is consistent with the historical environment.

However, interpreting the entire society in terms of modern "ethnic conflict" would be an overreach.

At that time, people identified themselves according to:

territory, city, family, estate, religion, university faction, language

and the 19th–20th century concept of nation-states like "Czech nation" and "German nation" cannot be directly applied.

Nevertheless, tensions between language and politics were indeed becoming noticeable, and by 1409, they would erupt into a very serious political incident at Charles University.

---

VI. The most important cultural change: The Reformation was "already at the door"

If you remember only one cultural background point, I suggest this one:

Bohemia in 1403 was not yet the era of the Hussite Wars, but it was already the eve of the Hussite movement.

This is very important.

At that time, the Western Catholic Church was experiencing the severe Western Schism, with different popes in Rome and Avignon, and later even more complex papal competition.

Meanwhile, within Bohemian society, more and more people were criticizing the Church's wealth, corruption, and the moral state of the clergy.

The ideas of the English theologian John Wycliffe had also reached Prague.

---

And Jan Hus in 1403 was no longer a "future figure"

This is particularly interesting.

In 1403, the year the game takes place, Jan Hus was already active in Prague.

He had already entered the Charles University system and was subsequently preaching in Czech at the Bethlehem Chapel. The chapel itself was built specifically for Czech-language sermons, and Hus began serving as its main preacher in 1402.

Moreover, 1403 was precisely the year the debate over Wycliffe's ideas erupted at the University of Prague.

So, if you were to travel to the 1403 of Kingdom Come: Deliverance:

You might see people arguing in a village tavern in the morning over the lord's grain requisition,

see silver mine merchants doing business in town in the afternoon,

and hear Mass at church in the evening,

while at the University of Prague, a group of theologians were debating:

What should the Church really be? Should the clergy possess so much wealth? Which is more important, the Bible or Church tradition?

And six years later, the conflict would explode further.

---

VII. Economically: Why are "silver mines" so important in the game?

Because this is by no means a random background choice by the game's writers.

Kuttenberg was one of Europe's important centers of silver production.

The wealth from Bohemia's silver mines supported the royal treasury, and Kuttenberg later became the kingdom's extremely important royal mining city and minting center. The Prague groschen minted there was a long-standing influential currency in Central Europe.

This explains a very interesting phenomenon:

Why does a seemingly small Bohemian rural area have such a dense concentration of castles, churches, monasteries, and commercial activity?

One answer is:

It wasn't a remote backwater, but a wealthy agricultural-mining region integrated into the European economic network.

The game's "Skalitz (Stříbrná Skalice)" is also a real silver mining settlement, and this combination of "silver mine + small town + castle + local lord" has a strong historical basis.

---

VIII. What was ordinary life like?

The game captures this part quite well, but a slight correction is needed.

Society can roughly be imagined as a pyramid:

King

↓

High Nobility

↓

Local Nobility, Knights, Castle Lords

↓

Urban Wealthy Merchants, Guilds, Craftsmen

↓

Free Peasants, Tenants, and Peasants Subject to Lords

Of course, reality was much more complex than this.

Ordinary peasants were not "completely rightless slaves." The legal status varied greatly between different regions and estates, but they generally owed rent, labor, or other obligations to their lord and were subject to the lord's court and local authority.

And the life of urban residents was very different from that of peasants.

In a wealthy city:

Blacksmiths, bakers, brewers, tailors, butchers, merchants

actually belonged to an increasingly important urban society.

So when you see in Kingdom Come: Deliverance that "blacksmiths aren't slaves, merchants can be wealthy, cities have bathhouses, taverns, markets, and craftsmen," it is generally consistent with the social structure of that era.

---

IX. Religious life: It's not a matter of "believing or not believing," but that the entire society was religious

Modern people are particularly prone to misunderstanding this.

In 1403 Bohemia, there was no clear separation between "religious life" and "daily life" as we understand it today.

The Church controlled or was deeply involved in:

Birth, marriage, death, education, charity, festivals, the concept of time, legal ethics, and many social rituals.

Monasteries were not simply "places where monks lived."

They were also:

Landowners, employers, agricultural operators, centers of knowledge, scriptoria, and charitable institutions.

Charles University further illustrates that religion and knowledge were not two completely separate systems at the time. Theology itself was one of the highest academic fields. From its founding, Charles University had four faculties: Theology, Law, Medicine, and Arts.

---

X. So, what was the character of Bohemia in 1403?

I think it can be summed up in one sentence:

"Highly civilized, quite wealthy, but politically extremely unstable, and standing on the threshold of a great religious and social upheaval."

It was neither the "Dark Ages" of our imagination, nor a peaceful, prosperous paradise.

It was more like:

The afterglow of Charles IV's Golden Age + Luxembourg dynasty infighting + Holy Roman Empire power struggles + urban commercial development + the silver economy + the peak of Gothic culture + the eve of the Hussite Reformation.

So, the most interesting thing about Kingdom Come: Deliverance isn't really that "the Middle Ages are realistic," but that it chose a particularly good year:

1403 was one of the last few years before the storm truly broke.

Hus himself had not yet become a martyr; the Hussite Wars had not yet happened; Sigismund had not yet become the real king of Bohemia; but the ideological and political roots of all these later major events were already sprouting in this era. The cultural prosperity left by Charles IV had not yet disappeared.

A very interesting comparison

If you are currently playing Kingdom Come: Deliverance, there's another particularly interesting thing to discuss: Which of the game's characters like Hans Capon, Divish, Radzig Kobyla, Sigismund, Wenceslas, Jobst, etc., are real historical figures, and what was their actual situation in 1403? Comparing this makes the game suddenly much more fascinating.

If by "Johanka DLC" you mean the Johanka part of A Woman's Lot in Kingdom Come: Deliverance, titled The Madonna of Sasau, then it is actually the storyline in the entire first game that most directly touches on the "1403 Bohemian religious and social crisis".

And when viewed against the historical background we just discussed, it becomes much more interesting than simply understanding it as "helping a woman solve a problem."

1. Surface Story: Johanka begins to "see divine revelations"

After Skalitz is sacked, Johanka flees to the Sasau Monastery, where she tends to the wounded.

Soon after, she begins having very strange, even terrifying dreams, which she believes are revelations from God. Henry must investigate the people and places her dreams point to, eventually becoming involved in an investigation and trial concerning Johanka's religious statements. The official DLC description also clearly focuses on her "terrifying dreams" and the subsequent investigation.

But what's truly important is:

This is not a simple "supernatural event."

It is discussing a very real medieval issue:

Does an ordinary person have the right to directly interpret God's will?

---

2. It is actually about "Church authority vs. personal religious experience"

This directly connects to the 1403 Bohemian religious environment we discussed earlier.

At that time, an increasingly strong current of criticism against the Church was emerging in Bohemia, and Jan Hus was already active in Prague. A few years later, these contradictions would eventually develop into the Hussite movement and the Hussite Wars.

Johanka's story narrows this grand issue down to a single ordinary woman:

She believes she has received revelations from God.

The question then becomes:

• Who can judge whether she has truly received a revelation?
• Can ordinary people directly interpret the Bible and divine will?
• Can women publicly express religious opinions?
• If her statements challenge Church authority, who has the right to judge her?
• How much voice does a poor, ordinary woman have when facing the Church and local authorities?

So this storyline is essentially "personalizing" the ongoing crisis of religious authority.

---

3. Why specifically a "woman"?

This is where the DLC title A Woman's Lot becomes truly important.

Johanka is not a noblewoman, nor a university theologian.

She is just an ordinary woman, a caretaker of the sick.

And the moment she begins to make statements with religious significance, she immediately encounters a very real problem:

If an ordinary woman says, "God told me..."—how will society treat her?

Society's reaction might be completely different from that to a male theologian saying the same thing.

The game even brings Johanka's sexual conduct and personal morality into the trial.

Thus, the scrutiny she faces is not just:

"Are your theological views problematic?"

But gradually becomes:

"Are you, as a woman, someone worthy of belief and respect?"

This actually reveals a very important mechanism of medieval society:

Judgments about a woman's religious authority were often simultaneously mixed with judgments about her sexual morality, obedience, and social status.

This is why Johanka's trial scene is far more complex than an ordinary "investigation mission."

---

4. And here, Henry truly enters "ecclesiastical justice" for the first time

This is what I find particularly interesting about this DLC.

In the main storyline, Henry mainly deals with:

War, bandits, nobles, lords, murder, military operations.

In Johanka's storyline, he suddenly enters a different system of power:

Church court.

In other words, you are not facing a group of soldiers with swords, but:

• Monks
• Clergy
• Church investigators
• Trial procedures
• Religious testimonies
• Moral accusations
• Theological arguments

This actually allows the player to see:

Medieval "law" was not limited to the lord's court and the king's law.

The Church itself was a very powerful judicial and social authority.

---

5. A deeper layer: It is actually about "who has the right to interpret truth"

This is highly relevant to the Hussite era in Bohemia.

Bohemia in 1403 was undergoing a process of reshuffling intellectual and religious authority.

On one side was traditional Church authority:

Clergy → Church tradition → Theological system → Church judgment

On the other side, increasingly emerging was:

The Bible → Personal faith → Moral critique → Questioning of Church corruption

Jan Hus would later become one of the most important figures in this conflict.

And Johanka is not Hus.

She is not even a theologian.

That is precisely why her story is so interesting.

The game is essentially asking:

If an ordinary person without a university degree, a Church position, or political power claims to have heard God, can they be taken seriously?

This was a very sensitive issue in medieval religious society.

---

6. Another very important theme: The trauma left by war

Don't forget that Johanka is a survivor of the Skalitz massacre.

She experienced:

Destruction of her home → Death of acquaintances → Life as a refugee → Tending to the wounded → Disease and death → Religious fear

And then began to have dreams and religious experiences.

Therefore, the DLC does not completely separate "religion" from "war."

It actually shows:

How an ordinary person who has experienced a great disaster seeks meaning in that disaster.

For a modern person, we might interpret her dreams as psychological trauma, stress, or something else.

But for a devout believer in 1403:

"This is God telling me something."

was a completely reasonable interpretive framework.

And the Church investigators had to judge:

Is this divine revelation, hallucination, deception, or heresy?

This is the source of the storyline's tension.

---

7. So, the Johanka DLC and the main storyline form a beautiful contrast

So, if the main storyline tells you:

"Why was Bohemia at war in 1403?"

Then Johanka's storyline tells you:

"Why would this society experience a great religious explosion a decade later?"

---

8. The most interesting thing is: It does not directly talk about the "Hussite Wars"

The time is still around 1403.

The Hussite Wars would not break out until 1419, and Jan Hus himself was executed after the Council of Constance in 1415.

So Johanka's storyline does not directly tell you:

"Look, this is the Hussite movement!"

But rather shows you the social soil in which the Hussite movement could grow:

Church authority is questioned
↓
Ordinary people begin to discuss religion
↓
Personal faith conflicts with Church authority
↓
Poverty, gender, class, and religious power become entangled
↓
The Church tries to maintain authority
↓
More and more people begin to ask: Does the Church even have the right to do this?

This is its true value in terms of historical background.

---

A very interesting summary

If you look at the various DLCs of Kingdom Come: Deliverance together, you'll find they each showcase different aspects of 1403 Bohemian society:

From the Ashes → Local lords, town building, and economy
Hans Capon's Love Adventure → Noble culture, gender, and marriage
Band of Bastards → Mercenaries, law and order, and local armed forces
A Woman's Lot → Ordinary women, war trauma, religious authority, and the issue of heresy

And the Johanka part of A Woman's Lot is precisely the thread that best connects daily life in 1403 with the Hussite revolution that was about to occur after 1419. The official design presents it as two parallel independent narratives alongside Theresa's story, with Johanka's part later developing into the multi-ending The Madonna of Sasau.

If you like, I can further discuss an even more interesting question: Did Johanka's "miracles" and trial have real historical prototypes? How much of the game's trial procedures, religious accusations, and the image of the "female prophet" are real? This part is actually even more fascinating than the game itself.

I think this interpretation is valid, but we need to distinguish between "Johanka has narcissistic traits" and "Johanka meets the modern clinical definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder." The former is perfectly fine as character analysis; the latter cannot be diagnosed based solely on the game's text.

Moreover, if we look at her alongside her behavior in the main storyline, I believe the writers were likely deliberately creating a character who is both sympathetic and uncomfortable. However, I haven't found any interview where Warhorse writers explicitly state that "Johanka was designed as a narcissist," so part of what follows is textual analysis rather than confirmed authorial intent.

The key point is: Johanka is not simply a "pious believer"

She has a very distinct behavioral pattern:

She continually elevates her own judgment to a "higher moral ground."

She already showed this tendency in the main storyline. She is very keen on judging how others should live, repent, and do good deeds; in "The Madonna of Sasau," this tendency escalates further:

"I believe this is what God wants me to do."

Here's the problem—once her own judgment is packaged as God's will, she effectively occupies a position that is nearly impossible to refute.

When others disagree with her, it's no longer just:

"You disagree with Johanka."

But potentially becomes:

"You are opposing God."

This is precisely what makes her characterization very dangerous, and also very interesting.

---

But I think what the writers really wanted to explore might not be "narcissism"

Rather:

How does a traumatized person with a strong moral sense and an intense need for meaning and self-affirmation gradually absolutize their own subjective judgment?

This is far more interesting than simply saying "Johanka is a narcissist."

She experienced the Skalitz massacre.

She lost her familiar living environment, witnessed mass death, and in Sasau, she constantly came into contact with the wounded and the sick.

Then she began to believe she had received special religious revelations.

This process can be understood as:

Trauma → Seeking meaning → Gaining a sense of mission → Moral superiority → Increasing self-certainty

Thus, she develops a very strong psychological structure:

"I have endured these sufferings, so I know something others don't."

Going further:

"Since God chose to reveal this to me, my judgment naturally carries special authority."

This comes very close to what you call "narcissistic."

---

And the most interesting thing about her is that "she might genuinely believe herself"

This point is particularly important.

If Johanka knew she was deceiving people, she would simply be a manipulator.

But the game doesn't handle it that simplistically.

It always leaves an ambiguous space:

Did she truly receive divine revelation, or did she project her own thoughts as divine revelation?

The official description of the DLC also deliberately frames it as her suffering from "terrible nightmares," rather than directly confirming these dreams as miracles.

Therefore, players must decide for themselves:

• Is she a prophet?
• Is she a devout but misguided person?
• Is she a trauma survivor?
• Is she using religion to gain power?
• Or are all these factors present simultaneously?

This is precisely where the character is well-written.

---

More notably: She is not a "villain"

This is also why I don't think the writers simply wrote her as an antagonist.

She does help the sick.

She does care about the poor.

She does hate war.

She is willing to take risks.

She does want to make the world conform to her moral standards.

So the question is not:

"Does she have good intentions?"

But rather:

"Can a well-intentioned person also become tyrannical?"

The answer can clearly be "yes."

And this fits perfectly with the context of the pre-Reformation period.

---

This actually forms a brilliant mirror image with the Hussite issue

This is what I find most clever about Johanka's storyline.

In 1403 Bohemia, a huge problem was emerging:

If the Church can be corrupt, how can ordinary people determine what true Christianity is?

One answer from Hus and his circle was to re-emphasize the Bible, moral living, and criticism of Church corruption.

But hidden within this is a danger:

When you begin to believe you possess the "true truth," you yourself can become a new authority.

Johanka is a microcosm of this.

She questions:

Aren't the people in the monastery doing enough?

Then it becomes:

I know what God wants us to do.

Then further:

If you oppose me, you are opposing correct morality.

This is the journey from anti-authority to self-authorization.

And this is precisely a very profound issue in the history of the Reformation.

---

The contrast with Henry is especially clear

Henry is also a very "self-centered" character, but in a completely different way.

Henry often is:

"I want to know what happened."

While Johanka is closer to:

"I know what should happen."

Henry's main problem is impulsive action.

Johanka's main problem is moral certainty.

Therefore, during the trial, their roles undergo a very interesting shift:

Henry begins to doubt.

While Johanka becomes more certain.

This is likely the core reason why the writers made her increasingly unsettling.

---

There's also a very clever detail: Johanka needs "witnesses"

She constantly needs others to validate that her mission is real.

This aligns very well with her narcissistic traits—it's not simply "I think I'm great," but rather:

"Others must acknowledge that what I have seen holds special significance."

So her relationship with Henry is also a bit strange:

She needs Henry to help her accomplish many things, yet she constantly places herself in the position of a moral guide.

This is why some players feel:

"She doesn't do the work herself, but makes Henry run errands for her, and then ultimately credits the success to her own mission."

This reading does exist within the player community.

Of course, players also have completely opposite interpretations: seeing her as merely a traumatized, devout believer trying to help others. This divergence itself proves that the game didn't write a definitive answer.

---

So, if we ask "Why did the writers write it this way?"

I would offer three levels of answers.

First level: To make Johanka a truly complex character

If she were simply:

"A brave, kind, pious, persecuted good woman"

Then the entire trial storyline would easily become:

Good woman vs. Evil Church.

Too simple.

By adding self-centeredness, moral superiority, stubbornness, and even vanity, the player is forced to ask:

"Should I support her or not?"

This makes the trial a genuine moral dilemma, not just a faction choice.

---

Second level: To prevent the "Reformation" from becoming a modern-day power fantasy

If the game told you:

The Church is all bad, the reformers are all good.

Then history would be simplified by modern values.

Johanka provides an excellent counterexample:

Those who criticize the Church can also be bigoted, arrogant, self-certain, and even capable of harming others.

Conversely, people within the Church are not necessarily all evil.

This is much closer to the real historical religious conflicts.

---

Third level: To make the player themselves become the "judge"

This might be the most important.

The entire "The Madonna of Sasau" is essentially asking the player:

"Do you believe Johanka?"

But the game doesn't give you an omniscient correct answer.

If you think she is a true prophet, you will view the trial one way.

If you think she is merely projecting her own thoughts as divine revelation, you will view her another way.

If you see her as a trauma survivor, you will understand her in a third way.

And this fits perfectly with the overall narrative style of Kingdom Come: Deliverance:

It often doesn't give you a modern person's "correct answer," but instead lets you judge for yourself within that society.

---

So I actually think your point that "Johanka has strong narcissistic tendencies, and the main storyline already laid the groundwork" is a quite promising reading.

However, I would slightly rephrase your proposition to:

Johanka is not "a narcissistic villain," but a person with a strong moral self and an urgent need for meaning and recognition; the war and religious environment gradually inflated this personality into a self-awareness of "I represent a higher truth."

This brings out her tragic nature.

What makes her truly dangerous is not that she doesn't believe in God, but that she increasingly cannot distinguish between "God's will" and "her own will."

And this is precisely the personalized version of the larger problem facing 1403 Bohemia: When old authorities begin to lose credibility, how can a person truly know that what they hold is the truth?

I think this addition actually describes "why Johanka makes people uncomfortable" more accurately than simply saying "she has narcissistic tendencies."

Especially your final sentence:

"She doesn't sacrifice to help others; she sacrifices to become a prophet, a martyr."

If we take this as the core of character analysis, then many plot points in "The Madonna of Sasau" are indeed reconnected.

The key difference might be: She pursues not "doing good," but "being a person who does good"

These two things look extremely similar on the surface, but their motivations are completely different.

When a person helps others, it can be:

"This person needs help, so I help them."

While Johanka's behavior is closer to:

"I am a person who should help others, so I must perform actions that fit this identity."

The problem with the latter is that the center of the action is still the "self."

So when real people don't cooperate with her "saint narrative," she becomes very uncomfortable.

The example you mentioned with Theresa is particularly important because it happens before she enters the "revelation-trial" storyline.

If Johanka were just a kind but somewhat stubborn person, when Theresa spoke for her, her reaction would at most be:

"Why did you speak for me?"

But she quickly interprets it as:

"You betrayed me."

This actually reveals a very strong relational self-centeredness:

What Theresa's motive was for doing this is not her primary concern; the most important thing is whether this action fits Johanka's own understanding of their relationship.

In other words, she doesn't first treat Theresa as a person with independent will, but places Theresa into her own narrative.

---

And this precisely explains why she later increasingly resembles the "Madonna"

Your use of this term is very precise—not that she literally thinks she is the Virgin Mary, but that she constantly constructs a self-image of:

"I bear suffering, I help others, I am misunderstood, I still persist on the right path."

The biggest feature of this narrative is:

It desperately needs suffering.

Because without suffering, there is no evidence of "I sacrificed for others."

Thus:

Helping others → I am kind
Others don't understand me → I am misunderstood
The Church opposes me → I am persecuted
I still persist → I am even more noble
Ultimately accepting punishment → I become a martyr

This narrative is highly self-reinforcing.

It can even lead to a very dangerous result:

The more others oppose her, the more easily she interprets the opposition itself as evidence of her correctness.

Because "I am being persecuted" itself becomes part of her saintly identity.

---

This also explains why the "Sasau villagers" episode is particularly important

The detail you pointed out is, I believe, a key to understanding Johanka.

Because the villagers' needs are very specific:

They need practical help.

At this point, there is no grand religious mission, no drama of "Johanka being persecuted."

It's simply:

"We have a problem, can you help?"

And Johanka's first reaction is not to actively intervene.

Only when someone reminds her:

"Didn't you just say you wanted to help people?"

Does she reluctantly respond.

This is very ironic.

Because if what she truly valued was:

"Helping others"

Then these people's needs would be the end in themselves.

But if what she valued was:

"Being a person who helps others"

Then when specific individuals don't fit into her current spiritual drama, they easily become background noise.

These two are almost indistinguishable from the outside, but the difference is very clear in terms of attention to specific others.

---

This is also why I am now more inclined towards your interpretation than my previous response

In my previous response, I emphasized that "she might be a complex character formed by the intertwining of trauma, religion, and the search for meaning."

But you pointed out a problem I find more explanatory:

Her interest in people seems highly dependent on whether these people can enter her own moral narrative.

This goes beyond just "trauma-induced behavior."

Because a traumatized person could very well become more concerned with specific individuals:

"I know how painful it is to lose a home, so I don't want others to go through that."

But Johanka's pattern is more likely to become:

"I have experienced pain, therefore I know the right path."

The center of the former is others.

The center of the latter is still the self.

---

And her attitude towards "others' contributions" is especially telling

You said:

"Dismissive of others' contributions and any issues that deviate from the agenda of putting them on a pedestal."

I think this might be the most valuable observation for judging this character.

Because a truly compassionate person usually not only focuses on:

"What I have done for others."

But also notices:

"What others have done for others."

For example:

"This person has actually tried very hard."
"She has sacrificed a lot for her family."
"This person's situation is actually more difficult than I imagined."
"Although he disagrees with me, his motives are understandable."

All these statements imply:

The subjectivity of others has value in itself.

What Johanka often displays is the exact opposite:

Others are best as characters in her moral script.

Thus:

• Those who help her → Loyalists
• Those who oppose her → Persecutors
• Those who need her → Objects of her charity
• Those who don't understand her → Not pious enough
• Those who question her → Don't understand the truth

In this way, it becomes difficult for others to exist as "complete people."

---

Thus emerges a very beautiful, and also very cruel, irony

The DLC is titled:

"The Madonna of Sasau"

But according to your interpretation, it could even have a second layer of meaning:

Johanka doesn't become a saint and then get called a Madonna by others; she herself increasingly needs to become the role of "Madonna."

This makes her final predicament very complex.

She may have genuinely helped people.

She may have genuinely suffered.

She may genuinely believe she is doing the right thing.

But these facts do not prove her motives are selfless.

A person can simultaneously:

• Do many practical good deeds;
• Sincerely believe they are kind;
• Sincerely love certain people;
• And desperately need others to acknowledge their moral superiority.

All these propositions can coexist.

---

So the question "Is she a good person?" actually needs to be split into two

Behavioral level:

She has indeed done many things to help others.

Personality and motivational level:

You can absolutely believe that her good deeds are highly dependent on the self-narrative of "who I am," rather than genuine concern for specific others.

And this second point is precisely what you call "narcissism."

I would even summarize your view into one sentence:

Johanka does not take "the happiness of others" as her goal, but rather takes "becoming a kind, pious, persecuted person who is ultimately proven right" as her goal; helping others is an important means to realize this self-image.

If understood this way, then why she is so obsessed with her dreams, her revelations, her trial, and her suffering all connects.

---

But here's a twist I find very interesting

If the writers truly intended to shape her this way, then they did something quite ruthless:

They did not make Johanka a "hypocrite."

A hypocrite is simple:

"I know I'm deceiving people, but I want to use them."

Johanka's more frightening and more realistic version is:

"I genuinely believe I am doing this for others."

Thus, she doesn't even need to lie.

She can very sincerely say she is helping others.

And her problem becomes:

Her "others" are always the others that exist in her own mind.

The real Theresa, the real villagers, the real Henry, the real patients—once their wishes conflict with her self-narrative, she easily reinterprets them as "people who misunderstand me," "people who don't understand me," or "people who need to be corrected by me."

This is actually more worth writing about than a simple villain.

Because truly dangerous moral narcissism does not necessarily manifest as "I don't care about others," but can manifest as "I care about others so much that you have no right to tell me what you actually need."

I believe this is precisely what makes Johanka the most intriguing character.

I can understand why you see Johanka as the character with the most lasting impact in the two parts. Especially following the observation you made earlier—"the others she perceives are the others she imagines"—she is no longer just a "pious, stubborn, controversial woman," but becomes a very complete psychological construct.

And I think your point that she contributes greatly to the entire world-building is particularly worth expanding on.

She turns the "Middle Ages" of Kingdom Come: Deliverance from a backdrop into a world of people

In the main storyline, the Middle Ages are largely presented through power:

• Struggles between kings and nobles
• Relationships between castles
• War
• Territories
• Commerce
• Armies
• Crime and justice

These elements constitute an external world.

But Johanka allows us, for the first time, to see very deeply:

How does a person living in this world understand this world?

And this "understanding" may not be correct.

This point is very important.

---

Because Kingdom Come: Deliverance does not write medieval people as "modern people in costumes"

This is what I find particularly impressive about this DLC.

Modern players can easily translate Johanka into:

"This is a person with a narcissistic personality."

But for Johanka in 1403, she would not understand herself that way.

She would think:

"I am pious."

"I have a conscience."

"I care about the poor."

"I am willing to suffer for the truth."

"So I am doing the right thing."

Thus, the player simultaneously has two perspectives:

Johanka's own world:

God → Revelation → Mission → Sacrifice → Redemption

The player's world:

Trauma → Self-narrative → Moral superiority → Reinterpretation of others

And the game does not force you to accept either one.

This is actually very sophisticated.

---

She even makes "religion" itself three-dimensional

Without Johanka, players could easily understand the religion in the game as:

"Medieval people were superstitious, so they believed in miracles."

But Johanka shows you that religion is not just a system of "believing in the supernatural."

It is also a framework for explaining who you are.

Johanka needs to answer:

Why did I endure these sufferings?

Why should I help others?

Why don't others understand me?

Why am I being punished?

Why should I still persist?

Religion provides her with an extremely complete set of answers.

And this set of answers also gives her a very strong self-positioning:

I am a person entrusted with a mission.

This explains why she is so obsessed with her "revelations."

If she admits:

"Maybe this is just my own thought."

Then her entire self-narrative would be shaken.

But if she believes:

"This is what God told me."

Then everything becomes meaningful again.

So when you say she "lives in her own world," I find it particularly accurate.

It's not that she is unaware of the real world's existence, but that she constantly reinterprets the real world to fit her own worldview.

---

And this also makes her an excellent mirror for Henry

Henry is also constantly searching for meaning.

But his approach is the exact opposite.

Henry:

First encounters reality, then tries to understand reality.

Johanka:

First establishes an explanation, then lets reality fit into that explanation.

So Henry constantly asks:

"What actually happened?"

While Johanka is more likely to ask:

"What does this event mean?"

The former leans towards facts.

The latter leans towards meaning.

This is also why Henry increasingly becomes an investigator, while Johanka increasingly becomes a prophet.

---

Even more cleverly: The player is also drawn into it

This might be the truly brilliant aspect of Johanka's storyline.

You must decide:

Is she insane?

Are her dreams divine revelations?

Is she a good person?

Is the Church's trial of her justified?

Is her behavior piety, trauma, narcissism, or all three?

The game doesn't give you a "developer's answer."

And you just said:

"This character is the best-written in the entire two parts."

I think one very important reason for this is that she is not completely sealed off by psychological explanation.

Even now that you have formed the "moral narcissism" interpretation, you can still go back and look at a certain scene and discover:

"Wait, she might have been genuinely suffering at that moment."

The next second, you might find:

"But why did she completely disregard this person's feelings?"

And then:

"She did help this person."

And then:

"But she seemed to need this helping act to prove herself."

This constant back-and-forth is precisely where a truly complex character is born.

---

And her greatest contribution to the world-building of Kingdom Come: Deliverance might be making us realize:

History is not just about those who actually change history.

1403 Bohemia certainly had Wenceslaus, Sigismund, nobles, and Hus.

But the vast majority of people living in that era did not know they were standing on the "eve of the Hussite Wars."

They were just:

Falling in love, feeling jealous, praying, doing business, drinking, caring for the wounded, arguing, believing in dreams, fearing death, hating their neighbors, loving their children.

Johanka is such a person.

She doesn't know she is "a social sample from the eve of the Reformation."

She is just Johanka.

And precisely because she is so specific, she makes the entire era believable.

---

So I strongly agree with your point that "she greatly benefits the entire world-building"

It could even be said:

The main storyline tells us what kind of country 1403 Bohemia was; Johanka tells us what kind of people lived in 1403 Bohemia.

And this is also why "The Madonna of Sasau," though almost insignificant in terms of grand historical events compared to the main storyline, might be the most intellectually dense segment of the entire series.

It doesn't change the fate of the kingdom.

But it makes the player begin to question a more fundamental issue:

When a person says "I am doing all this for others," should we look at what they say, or at how they actually view those "others"?

If you continue to look at Kingdom Come: Deliverance along this line of thought, I think there is another very interesting comparison: Johanka and characters like Marianne, John, and Karbon in the second part represent several completely different types of "self-narrative." Looking at them together, you'll find that Warhorse's interest in the theme of "how a person understands themselves" goes much deeper than simply telling medieval history.

I strongly agree with what you've grasped here, and I think you've actually pointed out the most fundamental difference between the Kingdom Come: Deliverance series and many RPGs:

It's not about letting the player "play as a modern person living in the Middle Ages," but about letting the player gradually learn to become an ordinary person in 1403.

The experience of these two is completely different.

1. "Henry doesn't know" is one of the most important narrative choices of this series

Many RPG protagonists are actually a very strange existence:

A huge conspiracy happens in the world, NPCs know some things, and the protagonist often quickly learns what they're involved in, and then the player starts following quest prompts:

"Investigate the conspiracy."
"Stop the evil forces."
"Find the artifact."
"Save the kingdom."

The player knows the goal, the character knows the goal, and even the game world actively explains itself to the player.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance is the exact opposite.

Henry starts as:

A blacksmith's son who doesn't know what happened.

Why was Skalitz attacked?

Who is fighting whom?

What does Sigismund really want?

Why does one noble support this person?

Why is another noble hostile to him?

Why did someone suddenly die?

Why does a seemingly ordinary case eventually involve so many things?

Henry doesn't know.

The player doesn't know either.

So the player isn't "watching Henry grow," but gaining knowledge together with Henry.

This difference is enormous.

---

2. Therefore, its political narrative is particularly realistic

Ordinary people in reality don't have a "historian's god's-eye view."

A blacksmith's son in 1403 wouldn't know:

"What inheritance relationships exist within the House of Luxembourg."

He might only know:

"The king was captured."

Later:

"Someone says Sigismund is the bad guy."

Later:

"Wait, why is this noble cooperating with Sigismund again?"

Then the player slowly discovers:

It turns out the politics of this world are not simply good vs. evil factions.

This is actually very consistent with real history.

History books will tell us:

Wenceslaus IV
Sigismund
Jobst
Noble alliances
The Church
The Holy Roman Empire

But an ordinary person in 1403 couldn't organize these things into a neat political relationship chart.

Henry couldn't either.

So the player's confusion itself is part of the immersion.

---

3. And a particularly clever point of the game is that it doesn't rush to explain things for you

For example, you arrive at a new town for the first time.

You see:

A knight.

A merchant.

A monk.

A beggar.

A blacksmith.

A lord.

They know each other.

They all seem to have their own histories.

But the game doesn't immediately pop up:

"This is the XX family, they support the XX faction."

You can only slowly understand through conversations, quests, overheard dialogues, books, and observing their behavior.

This creates a very special feeling:

The world doesn't exist for the player.

It was already running.

The player just entered this world later.

This might be what you mean by:

"Making other RPGs feel like a game."

The most core aspect.

---

4. The immersive design and this narrative method actually reinforce each other

If it were just "Henry doesn't know," it might only make the story confusing.

But Kingdom Come: Deliverance also has a very important thing:

Most people in the world don't exist just to tell the player a story.

They will:

• Eat
• Sleep
• Work
• Go to market
• Drink
• Pray
• Hunt
• Argue
• Rest
• Get sick
• Do business

And Henry's quest is often just:

"Go ask that person."

So you get there and find:

That person is eating.

Or:

That person doesn't want to talk to you.

Or:

That person has no idea about what you want to know.

Or:

What he tells you might be wrong.

This is completely different from the traditional RPG "NPC = information terminal."

---

5. The most crucial point: the game doesn't completely separate "game mechanics" from "the world"

This is also why many of the small designs in Kingdom Come: Deliverance are particularly important.

For example:

Sleeping.

In many RPGs:

Sleeping = Restore HP / Save.

But in Kingdom Come: Deliverance:

Sleeping is part of life.

Eating is too.

Bathing is too.

Changing clothes is too.

Reading is too.

Sword practice is too.

Drinking is too.

Even having dirty clothes affects how others see you.

So these things that would normally belong to the "system" are all repackaged as:

Henry's life as a person.

The player isn't executing:

"Restore stamina."

But thinking:

"It's too late today, I should find a place to sleep."

This is a very subtle difference.

---

6. And the first-person perspective further reinforces this

Third-person RPGs have a natural advantage:

The player can always see their character.

So there is naturally a bit of distance between the player and the character.

But Kingdom Come: Deliverance's first-person perspective makes Henry almost become:

The player's eyes in this world.

You don't see a beautiful "protagonist model" standing in front of you.

You see:

Your own position.

This perfectly combines with the "Henry doesn't know" narrative.

So when a knight suddenly appears in front of you, you don't know:

"This is an important NPC in the story."

You only know:

"Damn, this person looks tough."

This reaction itself is immersion.

---

7. So it particularly lacks "modern value guidance"

This is also a very important point in our previous discussion about Johanka.

The game doesn't tell you:

"This medieval person has a problem."

Nor does it tell you:

"This person's values are backward."

It just lets you see:

Johanka thinks this way.

Then lets you have your own reaction.

Even the game doesn't tell you:

"The Church is the villain."

You will see corruption, hypocrisy, and power struggles within the Church.

But at the same time, you will also see:

Monks truly saving people, healing, copying books, educating, and caring for the poor.

Similarly:

Nobles are not uniformly evil.

Peasants are not uniformly victims.

Soldiers are not uniformly thugs.

Merchants are not uniformly greedy capitalists.

Everyone is first and foremost a person.

This is where it particularly differs from "modern historical-themed works."

---

8. And this design ultimately gives the player a rare feeling:

"I'm not playing a game about the Middle Ages."

But rather:

"I really don't know where I am."

This might sound like a flaw, but it's actually very precious.

The first time you enter a forest, you don't know:

Where is safe.

The first time you come to a town, you don't know:

Who is trustworthy.

The first time you meet a noble, you don't know:

What attitude you should use to speak with him.

The first time you encounter a political conflict, you don't even know:

Why they are fighting.

This "not knowing" itself is part of the world-building.

As the game progresses, you gradually build your own knowledge:

"Oh, so this person is connected to that family."

"So that monk actually..."

"So this is why this place is so important."

"So Sigismund..."

This is very close to the process of getting to know a society in reality.

---

So I think your last sentence can be slightly modified

Not:

"Other RPGs all feel like a game."

But rather:

"Kingdom Come: Deliverance strives to make the player forget they are playing a game."

Of course, it's not completely without gamified design—the combat system, skill points, quest structure, and numerical systems are very obvious.

But it hides these things as much as possible into Henry's life.

And this is also why a character like Johanka can work.

If the game told the player from the start:

"Johanka is a complex, traumatized, narcissistic religious figure."

Then she would be dead.

But the game just lets you get to know her.

First, you think she's a friend.

Then you find her strange.

Then you find her increasingly uncomfortable.

Then you start to doubt her.

Finally, you even end up in a discussion like ours:

"Is she helping others, or is she helping herself become the person she imagines herself to be?"

At this point, the game no longer needs to give you the answer.

You have already started to think of this world as a real world, rather than a script waiting for you to solve.

I think this is probably the most impressive thing about Kingdom Come: Deliverance.

If we limit the question to "immersion", rather than overall game quality, I am actually quite close to your judgment.

I wouldn't say it's objectively the "best in history," because it depends on how you define immersion; but if your standard is:

Making the player forget they are playing a game, making the world feel like it wasn't prepared for the player, letting the player understand a pre-existing world from an ordinary person's perspective

Then Kingdom Come: Deliverance 1 & 2 are indeed among the very few works in video game history that can serve as benchmarks.

And I think its brilliance isn't just about "lots of details."

---

I think the most special thing about Kingdom Come: Deliverance is "cognitive immersion"

Many games' immersion is actually sensory immersion:

• Beautiful graphics
• Realistic sound effects
• Rich environmental details
• Weather changes
• Beautiful lighting
• NPCs with daily routines

Kingdom Come: Deliverance certainly does these well too.

But what truly makes it special for me is:

It makes the player feel like they are gaining "knowledge about this world."

This is a level above "the world is beautiful."

The first time you enter a place, you don't know what it is.

You listen to someone speak, not knowing if what they say is true or false.

You meet a noble, not knowing which faction they belong to.

You take a quest, not knowing what it will eventually involve.

You see a strange person, not knowing if they are a madman, a liar, a saint, or an ordinary person.

Then you gradually build your own understanding.

This is actually very close to how people understand the real world.

---

So I actually think that the "gameplay" of Kingdom Come: Deliverance sometimes gives way to immersion

For example:

Reading.

Typical RPG:

Read → Gain skill experience.

Kingdom Come:

You can't read → You really can't understand the book.

This alone makes Henry a person with knowledge boundaries.

Another example:

Combat.

Typical RPG:

Enemy level high → High stats.

Kingdom Come:

A truly well-trained, well-equipped person should indeed be far more dangerous than a blacksmith's son.

So "difficulty" is no longer just game design, but becomes world logic.

Another example:

Noble status.

Many RPGs are:

NPC's head shows "Noble."

Kingdom Come is:

You have to learn for yourself how to talk to this person.

This is very different.

---

If I were to compare it with other top immersive games, I would distinguish them like this

Not a ranking, but different types of immersion.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance 1/2

→ Social/Historical Immersion

You feel like you've entered a real society.

Red Dead Redemption 2

→ Environmental/Life Immersion

The world itself is very alive; people, animals, weather, terrain, and towns together form a complete ecosystem.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series

→ Atmospheric Immersion

It is particularly good at making you feel like you've entered a dangerous, unfamiliar, and incomprehensible place.

The Sinking City / Ghostwire: Tokyo

→ Spatial and Cultural Immersion

Making real culture, architecture, and urban space an important part of the game experience.

Microsoft Flight Simulator

→ Real System Immersion

It's not even simulating an "adventure," but simulating the real world itself.

What's relatively rare about Kingdom Come is:

It pulls "history, society, interpersonal relationships, knowledge, daily life, space, and game mechanics" all in the same direction.

So its immersion is particularly complete.

---

I even think Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 goes further than the first

The biggest strength of the first game was:

You and Henry know nothing.

The second game introduces another very interesting change:

You already know this world.

So the immersion of the second game no longer comes entirely from unfamiliarity, but from continuity.

People you know might still be there.

You know certain places.

You know certain customs.

You know certain people's personalities.

You even know how certain things might develop.

So the second game creates a very special feeling:

The first game is like "entering a strange society."

The second game is like "returning to a society you've lived in for a while."

This is actually very difficult to achieve in RPG sequels.

---

But I would keep a small qualification

If someone told me:

"Kingdom Come: Deliverance is the most immersive game I've ever played."

I wouldn't find it exaggerated at all.

If they said:

"Kingdom Come: Deliverance is the best immersive series in video game history."

I would also think this is a completely debatable point.

But if they said:

"It is objectively and indisputably number one."

I wouldn't agree with that.

Because a work like Red Dead Redemption 2 has very strong competitiveness in environmental vitality; Microsoft Flight Simulator's logic of immersion is even completely different from RPGs; and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. proves that "not knowing the world's rules" can also be an extremely powerful form of immersion.

---

But I strongly agree with the sentence you said earlier:

"Making other RPGs feel like a game."

I think this sentence captures the most unique aspect of Kingdom Come: Deliverance.

The subtext of many RPGs is:

"This is a world prepared for you."

The subtext of Kingdom Come: Deliverance is:

"This is a world that already exists. You just happen to live in it."

And once a game achieves this, quests, NPCs, politics, religion, cities, war, and even bugs start to have a different texture.

The player no longer asks:

"Is this quest designed well?"

But starts to ask:

"If I were Henry, what should I do now?"

I believe this is the true sign that immersion has reached its peak.

I think your judgment is very accurate, and it actually touches on the fundamental difference in "immersion" between Red Dead Redemption 2 and Kingdom Come: Deliverance.

Red Dead Redemption 2's immersion is extremely strong, but it's closer to a kind of "immersion surrounded by a director"; while Kingdom Come: Deliverance's immersion is closer to "immersion accepted by the world".

1. The biggest problem with Red Dead Redemption 2 is precisely that Arthur's life is already written

Your point about "the story being too dramatic" is very crucial.

Arthur in RDR2 actually has a very clear authorial trajectory:

Wilderness life → Dutch gradually loses control → Gang disintegrates → Arthur awakens → Redemption → Death.

The player can decide how Arthur lives, but can hardly decide who Arthur becomes.

You can make him:

• Kind or cruel;
• Wear certain clothes;
• Eat certain things;
• Go to certain places;
• Interact with strangers in certain ways;
• Complete a large number of side quests;
• Even change some details of character relationships.

But at key story nodes, Arthur still has to act according to the script.

More interestingly, the player can't even reject Arthur's already formed value judgments.

For example, in a certain mission, Arthur decides to help someone, and the player can't truly ask:

"Why should I help him?"

Or:

"I don't want to get involved in this."

The game usually only gives you:

"Accept this mission, then decide how to execute it."

This is a very typical author-driven narrative.

It gives RDR2 an extremely powerful cinematic narrative ability, but sacrifices something unique to video games:

The player's ability to change the character's behavioral logic itself.

---

2. And the most impressive thing about Kingdom Come: Deliverance is that it doesn't even care much about "whether Henry is a good protagonist"

The difference between Henry and Arthur is very interesting.

Arthur is:

A person already fully written by the author; the player enters his life.

Henry is more like:

An unfinished person; the player forms this person together with him.

These two create completely different experiences.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance often allows you to do some very "un-heroic" things.

For example, you can completely:

• Not want to do something;
• Run away;
• Drink;
• Steal;
• Lie;
• Slack off;
• Not learn;
• Mess things up;
• Complete a task in a terrible way.

And the game won't immediately tell you:

"You did wrong."

The world just keeps running, and then consequences happen.

This is very important.

Because real life is like this.

---

3. You said RDR2's "character text interaction is weak," I think we can be more precise

Strictly speaking, RDR2's character interaction is not lacking.

The problem is that its interaction is mainly concentrated on:

The performance layer, not the semantic layer.

Rockstar is particularly good at:

NPC sees you → turns head → frowns → says something → makes a move → changes reaction based on your clothes/weapons/status.

This is actually extremely advanced environmental narrative and behavior simulation.

For example, if an NPC sees you covered in blood, riding a horse into town, they will react.

If you are shabbily dressed, wearing a mask, carrying weapons, drunk, riding a different horse—the world will give you feedback.

So the player has a very strong feeling:

"This world sees me."

This is one of RDR2's greatest strengths.

But the other layer of the problem is:

"Does this world truly allow me to engage in deep meaning exchange with it?"

This is weaker.

Many NPCs will react to what you do, but they won't truly form complex relationship changes based on who you have been over a long period.

---

4. And Kingdom Come: Deliverance has a very special kind of "low-tech, high-semantic" interaction

This is also why I find your observation particularly interesting.

RDR2 might have an NPC:

See your clothes are dirty → Comment on your clothes.

While Kingdom Come might have an NPC:

Remember you were drunk last night → Mention it in conversation the next day → Change their attitude towards you because of it → Further affect how you obtain information.

The visual presentation of the latter might be far inferior to RDR2.

But it is deeper on the level of social relationships.

Kingdom Come often doesn't need NPCs to perform particularly complex actions.

A person just says:

"You're here again?"

The player will feel:

He knows me.

And this actually creates a feeling of "I live here" more easily than an NPC performing a dozen beautiful actions.

---

5. This is also why RDR2 sometimes creates a strange "game feel"

This might be RDR2's most interesting contradiction.

You ride a horse for two hours across the wilderness.

Suddenly:

"Mission starts."

Camera cuts.

Arthur:

"Let's go, Dutch."

Then a fully written story segment begins.

The player was just freely moving in an open world.

The next second:

You enter a movie.

Some missions even have very obvious:

"Stand here as the director requires."

If you don't act according to the mission logic, the mission fails.

So RDR2 has a strong structural contradiction:

The open world gives you freedom, but the main story constantly pulls you back into the director's hands.

---

6. Kingdom Come: Deliverance often does the opposite

It even allows the story to become a bit awkward because of your actions.

This is actually a very brave design.

For example:

You didn't complete something in time.

An NPC might have already left.

You were late.

Someone has already died.

The conditions of a quest have changed.

You don't have enough skills, so you have to take another approach.

You lie and get caught.

You can't read, so you can't understand a letter.

You wear noble clothes to meet a peasant, or smelly clothes to meet a noble.

These things are not automatically corrected by the director.

So the game occasionally has:

"This scene didn't play out beautifully."

But the player might feel:

"This is my story."

I think this is a very important aesthetic of video games.

---

7. It could even be said that the two represent two completely different kinds of "immersion"

I would summarize it like this:

Of course, this isn't to say which is "better," but that the design philosophies are completely different.

---

And your final point about "it might be to serve a completely explicit main storyline," I particularly agree with.

Rockstar is actually making a very clear trade-off:

Sacrificing some player narrative freedom in exchange for extremely strong authorial narrative.

This allows RDR2 to concentrate motion capture, cinematography, editing, voice acting, music, camera language, facial expressions, and scene staging all together to create a dramatic effect close to TV shows/movies.

Warhorse chose another path:

Sacrificing some cinematic expressiveness in exchange for the world's capacity to accommodate player actions.

So Kingdom Come often doesn't even feel like a "well-produced TV show."

It feels more like:

A historical simulator where you can make yourself quite miserable.

This also perfectly explains the standard you mentioned earlier—"The player starts asking 'If I were Henry, what should I do now?' instead of 'What does the writer want me to do next?'"

I think this is the most core dividing line between the immersion of the two.

---

If you want, I can:

• Continue to explore the deeper themes of Johanka's character portrayal
• Expand on a comparative discussion of Johanka and other characters
• Analyze the historical and cultural background behind Johanka's character portrayal