Joined: Dec 2011
RE: Your opinions of Daniel and Alexander. POSSIBLE SPOILERS
(01-04-2012 02:18 PM)here4uallday Wrote:
(01-04-2012 01:29 AM)Makoton Wrote: I believe neither character is entirely in their right mind, and they're both partially guilty (and therefore, partially innocent) for the atrocities they've committed. Alexander, though manipulative and calculating, isn't human and can't be judged by our moral standards fairly. The baron only wishes to meet with his loved one again and, after all, did in fact express remorse over his actions many-a time - be it in his journal or what have you. The mass murder of humans was a last resort, as he'd tried multiple times to extract vitae from animals and through synthesizing the mystic substance, but his efforts were in vain. Furthermore, Agrippa is partially to blame for the many deaths, as Agrippa allowed Weyer through the portal without notifying Alexander, necessitating the deaths of perhaps hundreds more. This event also caused Alexander to seal Daniel off from the Sanctum prematurely, for fear his plans may be foiled again.
After reading over your answer, I have to agree with you and the points you have made. The way you explained your answer really cleared things up for me. Clearly you did your research.
Daniel on the other hand is young and foolish, manipulated and bullied into doing things in his youth and in the near past; his brutally striking down Henry Bedloe, the primary school thug and to a lesser degree, Herbert's insistence on him using a woman's parasol in the desert. His beating Bedloe was extreme but justified; his fears besting him and making him do the otherwise unthinkable: nearly killing a young boy with a rock. This event mirrors his destruction of life in his later years. It is a radical measure, to say the least, but he felt threatened, as he did with Bedloe, and as such acted in desperation once more. This does not make him a saint by any means, as he eventually romanticized his killings, claiming them to be cleansing the Earth of sinners, perhaps driving sadistic pleasure from the torture he inflicted. He was duped into thinking he was doing the right thing, but subconsciously I think he knew what he was doing was wrong and carried out his orders regardless.
Both of these characters are sick fucks, but their actions are, perhaps, justifiable.
Happy to help clear things up! :3 I'm sure I skipped over some things in my character analysis, but that's the most I saw in the characters in terms of reasoning behind their killings.
|01-04-2012 05:54 PM