Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27997069-20160317174518/@comment-27907368-20160331234139

Prpr wrote: My question was about why using Chara for such a meta role when it's easier and better to make a character from the ground up solely for this purpose? Alright, so I'm reading that you're looking discussion of artistic intent - I hope that's correct! Let's see here... I'm going to break down this question into smaller parts to organize my thoughts and hopefully provide clarity to people reading.

Q: Why use a character at all if it's meant to be a part of the Player?

 Why SOMETHING had to be there as opposed to just flavor text - this would be a huge reach because Toby would have to write the  exact  thoughts of the Player. That's impossible. So, a "character" almost had to be used.

Q: Why use an outside character to represent the Player's dust-lust?

I believe Toby had a keen awareness going into the game that the flavor-text and response options provided by the protagonist could never be exactly in line with the Player. Though the protagonist is ours to control, they can't ever be us. Perhaps Toby interpreted the silent protagonist trope as a red herring as we know that Frisk does talk to other NPCs in the game; we simply do not know exactly what they said. NPCs also comment on the protagonist's emotions even though they are unknown to us in the overworld. The ambiguity of Frisk adds to the Player's ability to put their thoughts and emotions into the game - even though the protagonist already has emotions and thoughts.

Frisk has a mind of their own though we control them. From this, I believe that Toby also knew he could never tell the Player's exact intent for doing a genocide route. Moreso, Frisk is not the one that committed genocide, so what imagery would be used to convey megalomania? I believe that this lead to Toby using an outside voice to speak to the Player; no character that occurs in-game could reach the Player because they have defined traits and personalities that would lead the Player to be able to interpret their words a certain way.

Q: Cool, so why Chara and not a novel character?

Alright, so he could have built a new character or used an abstract form in place of Chara. Why did he choose someone that has a history in-game? This would have to further the story or add meaning to it in some way.

I am writing this going off of Frisk's ending being true pacifist and Chara's being genocide while our endings are neutral. This is mostly for convenience, not accuracy. I get really tired of typing "Frisk/Player". ^^'

Flowey mistaking Frisk for Chara is a large part of this. Flowey/Asriel are the antagonists (though Asriel has a change of heart) in pacifist and neutral. The first time Flowey has a timeline with Frisk (and the Player), there is no mention of Chara at all unless you go genocide, but as I said the chance of someone playing Undertale for the first time and going genocide is incredibly slim. At the end of neutral, he speaks to the Player and asks them to befriend everybody to get a happy ending.

Only after the Player resets and plays through pacifist does Flowey call Frisk "Chara". Frisk's flavor text in the True Lab is that Asriel's voice is one that they have never heard before. So, how does Flowey mistake Frisk for Chara near the end of a pacifist run when he also identifies Frisk as Chara at the start of a genocide run? Moreso, why does he mistake Frisk for Chara after a neutral run - we know that keeps his memories from the neutral run.

This is a commentary on DETERMINATION. Chara was incredibly determined and so is Frisk. Keep in mind that "determination" means "purposefulness" or "single-mindedness"; it is not a positive or negative attribute on its own. Having Flowey able to name the being inside of Frisk helps provide this commentary. Having a brief history of Chara helps us to see intent but yet leaves some interpretation up to the Player which is what allows the Player to connect to the comparison. We're offered an idea, not a fact.

As soon as Asriel (Angel of Death) snaps out of his panic, he identifies the protagonist as "Frisk" and not "Chara". He had to regain his ability to feel love, mercy and compassion to see that, though Frisk was very determined, they did not have intentions to destroy as Chara did. At the flowerbed scene, Asriel then says that Chara is dead and that they had not been the "great" person that he thought they were. Asriel died very soon after Chara manipulated him and did not have time to reflect with a soul- after he gets a chance to do this, he realizes that he had made the right choice getting them both killed. Without a soul, he could not properly see what Chara was.

This relationship to Asriel, if removed, would have had to have been conveyed to the Player in another way if a unique NPC was created. Removing history with Asriel, an overall "good" character, would have made Toby's job more difficult. How could the idea of intent be discussed if there was little foundation to work with? Assuming that the Player will have a decent enough moral compass to be able to draw these conclusions without another character discussing with them is just that - an assumption.

Creating an NPC without history would have been the cleaner solution but I am not convinced that it was the better one. Without Chara, the Player could never see the Asriel/Chara/Flowey disparity that occurs. Though Chara is given some history, they are mostly left up to interpretation so, again, we are offered an idea and not fact. We don't know why Chara hated humanity. We know she is sympathetic to monsters. Or perhaps she is manipulative? Who knows. We're meant to be able to add meaning to her on our own time and not on Toby's.

So, from a story-telling perspective, I can see why Toby used Chara as opposed to an NPC with no history. Could he have done it differently? Sure. Why he used Chara is not unfounded, though.