Daniel vs Mandus

[Dash213]

mandus was crazy, daniel was confused and scared and turned evil out of confusion and fear. those are two very diffrent characters, but i have to give a slight edge to mandus.

the best reasoning i can give is the eventual fate of the character, daniel tried to repay for his sins, mandus tried to punish himself for them. mandus was crazy and he sinned out of his own choice and his own madness.

[Kreekakon]

I don't want to sound like a bad ass but I wouldn't.

I'd have fallen prey to the shadow, went insane or offed myself. One of the three. I wouldn't have done the things he did.

I won't completely dismiss your claim on this, but I'm just going to say that that's likely because you're sitting here perfectly safe in front of your computer.

If some day a man-eating shadow was to come after you who knows what you might do? You may still follow your principles, or you may not. You never know until you really experience it, because you wouldn't be thinking the same.

[Diz]

I also want to add to Kreekakon's post that Daniel had a childhood where he was abused, and even in school he was experiencing dreadful events, if I remember the story correctly. Add nyctophobia on top of this, you would never be close to even imagine how it would be like. I feel Daniel is a strong person to (in the very start of the story, with the expedition) come off as a sane person like you and I with all of his past. If you count everything up to that point and add it with the aftermath of the expedition, all the deaths in London and the events building up at Brennenburg Castle, if you would have done a lot of things different from Daniel, I believe you would not have been human.

Daniel is a lot more fragile in term of gameplay, but calling him a coward and ending it at that is uncalled for. I respect opinions, but please recall the characters' circumstances and exact situation, past and present.

[Cuyir]

He's a character I didn't care for, not a real person lol.

[Kreekakon]

Great stuff

More great stuff

Diz, have I ever told you that I think you're a very underrated member that I'd love to see post more?

[Gunslingerjh]

Philip Lafresque, hands down.

[Kurton]

Philip Lafresque, hands down.

The release box said his last name was Buchanon, no? Although I don't know why he wouldn't have his father's last name, to be sure...

[Jrolk]

I do notice notice that all the Amnesia protagonists (counting Justine) have one thing in common.

They're all sociopaths/psychopaths/etc that committed atrocities.

[LHudson]

AS much as I prefer Dark Descent, I kinda preferred Mandus, he had a much more rounded character and we could probably be more descriptive about him than Daniel

[Alardem]

Which is why I was hoping, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Mandus would have turned out to be a good man. Instead he has a lot in common with his great-uncle Alexander.

It's funny that a lot of players prefer Ozymandias over Daniel of Mayfair simply because the former comes across as more courageous and selfless. I actually agree because the 'insanity' and 'darkness' mechanics ended up irritating me rather than contributing to empathizing with the character. Just remember that Daniel's got a phobia of darkness and is being hounded by a supernatural shadow - calling him 'spineless' would be a little too far, since he did eventually push his way through Alexander's castle.

Mandus has a rather creepy amount of sexual repression. He'd spied on his wife long before his supernaturally-endowed madness, and he apparently enjoys masturbating to his own image while indulging himself in nihilistic thoughts. Daniel may have been fearful and weak-minded, but I never saw him as an egotist or pervert.