Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20180324175357/@comment-29855659-20180331113008

I don't like the "Charrator" theory. Everything we know about Chara is, what we see at the end of the Genocide route, where they look pretty evil and cliché-ishly "creepy-child-like". How can you rule out Alphys easily because of her personality, but not Chara, when what we have seen of them doesn't fit the neutral/pacifist narrator at all? Everything else that we know about Chara is based on assumptions. A lot of things can be explained by the narrator-Chara theory, that's why it's so popular. But why doesn't Chara say the same things in pacifist and neutral. Obviously, Chara wants to interact with the world in some way, but in the Pacifist route they are just watching completely stoically. If you were fighting against your megalomaniac little brother who threatens to destroy the universe because of you, wouldn't you at least say something else than "Oh, hey, you ate a dream. You feel better now."?

I doubt that the narrator is an actual character, but there are two characters you just ruled out, that I think would be pretty good candidates for that role. First of all, Frisk. You say, that it cannot be Frisk, because they wouldn't say: It's me, Chara. My theory is, that the game avatar is the narrator. Usually Frisk is doing everything you want them to do, like a mindless slave. They are narrating everything that happens to them as if it happened to you, because they aren't in control of their own opinions and actions. De facto, you are the one who goes, fights and heals themselves, it is YOUR decision to do these things. Frsik is basically an observer in their own life. In Genocide, Chara is taking over. Everytime a stat increases, that feeling, that's them. Your stats increase so fast, that Chara is able to take over the body of Frisk, as shown by their behaviour towards Papyrus and Flowey. Now, Chara is the player character, more or less controlled by the player and therefore still narrating as "you" most of the time. That Frisk is the narrator of the pacifist route is implied by the sudden "independent" actions of the player character at the end of the route. We have never been able to resurrect ourselves, but in the Asriel fight we suddenly can. I think this is Frisk's determination growing stronger than ours and gaining new abilities. Frisk's independence is also shown by them telling Asriel their name, which isn't something you choose to do, but something that Frisk just does. This theory also gives a whole new meaning to the "laughing"-line in the True Labs. You are laughing, but wait...you didn't do that. Your command is "laugh", but the player character's behaviour doesn't match the command and Frisk/the Narrator taunts you about it.

The second character that I think might be the character is Gaster, (who did [REDACTED] refer to, btw?). Gaster is not inside the game anymore, he's been thrown out of it by his own invention. It is true that he speaks in Wing-Dings, but sans does not always speak in comic sans (B a d  t i m e, etc.), so why would Gaster always speak in Wingdings as opposed to ,for example, the much more readable "Aster"-font? And besides, who knows how Gaster speaks after his "bannishment"? What we know is, that Gaster is always watching, like the Narrator. As something outside of the actual game, Gaster experiences the game the same way the player does. Furthermore, Gaster would be able to tell you to "name the Fallen Human" - something Chara who is apparently summoned that way, can't have said. Obviously, Gaster's role as the narrator is taken over by Chara in the Genocide route, at least sometimes. Gaster is probably the one who narrates the sans battle though, as I don't think Chara (WHERE ARE THE KNIVES???) would say that you "feel your sins crawling over the back". Gaster also knows sans' strength and tries to trick you ("the weakest monster"). Alternatively, Gaster might think of Papyrus as being "forgettable", depending on what theories about Gaster you have.

Ultimately I don't think any of these theories is true, but I think they are not worse than the Chara theory. I think the narrator isn't a character and Napstablook's (and Tsundereplane's) behaviour is just a simple breaking-the-4th-wall-gag. Generally I don't think that Toby Fox wasted that much thought on the in-universe relations between Chara and the others, determinations etc., at least not as much as we do.