Feedback wanted: Some questions on Ending (spoilerish)

[masochism]

I think its important, when assessing Daniel and Alexander, that you pay as much attention to Alex's notes as you do to other parts of the storyline. Alexander has no reason to lie with these, as they are (meant to be) personal notes. One in particular that I thought was important was the one toward the end which said something along the lines of 'Daniel will not take part in the ceremony, he has changed tonight and can't be trusted'. The tone of the note told me that Alexander saw Daniel as more of a colleague than a pawn. I also got this impression from the bad ending. There is no evidence of Alexander doing to others for no gain to either party, so at worst, he's selfish, but not inherently evil, although he does seem to lose the plot a bit in the good ending.

Daniel is, in my opinion, righteous. He always made the correct choices based on the information that he had at the time.
-If he had not tortured people himself, Alexander would done it instead.
-If he had openly acted against Alexander, then he would have become another victim of the torture.
-If he had killed himself, Alexander would simply recover the orb and continue with what he was doing.
-Daniel had no way of knowing that Alexander could not fix an orb like he could, so he had no reason to destroy the orb.
Am I missing anything? The only part of Daniel that I don't like is that he loses sight of the above, and breaks down because of it.

Agrippa doesn't really feature enough for me to form an opinion on him.
____

I got the good ending the first time, then the bad ending. It actually took me a long time to work out that you could knock over the poles.

I don't like how Alexander seems to spend his final moments in a state of insanity during the good ending. The revenge ending was certainly the most satisfying, and the bad ending was a good insight into Alexander's character. I liked bad/revenge the endings, but I thought the good ending was lacking.