I saw your edit on Ross and I felt like I have to disagree. Ross is indeed much shorter in Red Dead Redemption 1 than he is in Red Dead Redemption 2. It's not really a case of him appearing to be shorter due to slouching.
This video is a couple of appearance from Ross in the first game. In the vast majority of the cutscenes, Ross is shown to be way shorter than John and Archer, even when he's standing up straight. Granted, I know a couple cutscenes depict Ross as being the same height, but those appear to be oversights. The general idea the game gives is that Ross is a really short guy.
These videos are a couple of appearances from Ross in the second game. Here, he's depicted as being much more average in height. He's shown being the same height as Archer in the Valentine bar scene. In the Beecher's Hope scene, he is shown to to be shorter than Archer (not a short as RDR1, but still), so it seems that R* realized their mistake at the last minute.
Removed incorrect and biased trivia. Jack, John and Dutch all "succeed" in attaining revenge, but are punished in some way (John is only character who's revenge directly leads to his death). Sadie is no different. After she gets her revenge on the O'driscolls, she laments on how her pursuit of revenge has "turned her into a monster". After that, she becomes far more level-headed and reliable, completing her character arc. So yes, she does "seek redemption" (even if you don't like this arc, it is nonethless how it is in an objective manner). Also, "the Law Never Forgets" is not a reoccuring philosophy in the series, being exclusive to RDR1. In fact, Red Dead 2 openly disowns this theme, showing that John got Ross' attention from killing Micah, a mistake he made in the present that was solely his fault
I do partially agree with you, but not entirely. Sadie does not get much of a punishment for her revenge - reflecting that she has "turned into a monster" is not an objective punishment, it’s a subjective assessment of herself. What’s more, after getting revenge on Micah, she has no regrets at all and is implied to start a new life in South America, running a business and whatnot. In terms of what we see happening in-game, her revenge does not lead to her downfall, which it does with John, Dutch and so on. Jack is a bit different, as he is left on a cliff hanger and we canonically know absolutely nothing about what happens after Ross' death. Nothing is said about it, which is not the case with Sadie.
Furthermore, she does not seek redemption. Saying that she "becomes far more level-headed and reliable" is a subjective interpretation of what she turns into. While I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s far from the truth, it doesn’t have anything to do with actively seeking and desiring redemption for her past. All other "good" characters like John, Arthur, Charles (even Abigail and Uncle, in their own ways) do seek to redeem their life of crime, but Sadie instead wants more violence and revenge, and unlike villains like Dutch and Micah (who also don’t wish for redemption), she is never punished for it. The overall message of the trivia point(s) was valid, as was the point about her brushing away her tendency to endanger others being an ironic parallel to Dutch, who often responds with something like "we’re living, Arthur". That’s not Sadie’s response, but nonetheless, she is unsympathetic to anyone she endangered and does not apologise for violence that might have caused this (whether anyone thinks she should or shouldn’t is ultimately irrelevant, as it’s subjective).
I’m not going to re-add anything immediately as I need some time to word it more carefully, but I do think that the points they were making were at least partially valid.
The reason why I changed it is because the whole black/white hat dycotomy isn't true, even with classic western films like Tombstone, The Searchers, or True Grit. It's speculative, and even if this was intentional as a nod to that, we are speculating with very little evidence and more than a bit of personal interpretation.
To each to his own then. However, it isn't speculative or out-there enought to warrant being unworthy of a trivia spot, so I will suggest you re-enter them. After all, trivia can be interesting comparisons, along with interesting facts. Of couse, I do reccomend that you talk to an admin about this. Also, True Grit doesn't really work as a comparison as both versions are meant to be subversions of the typical 1960s Western formula. Anyway, I aprreciate your recent edits and have a nice day.