Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-32182236-20180102200840

"We (you) already did that, that's why I said that. And besides, the message cannot have a literal meaning. After all, it's a phrase that doesn't even make any sense in the given context."

Yeah, I was talking about the whole "But to understand this, we must understand what he meant by this message." Yeah, that. You're implying we have to look for the message first, before we do any analysis at all. Also, once again, let's take a look at the requirements to get the red flag-Perhaps that will give us the context we need to understand this message. You have to beat the game extremely accurately, and within 10 seconds. That's a combination of the conditions for the yellow and orange flags-So you could say you're trying to be a combination of justice and bravery, despite that your trait is actually the red trait. Alas, you still continue to be yourself, by staying determined. Try as you might, you continue to be yourself. It's still just you, Frisk. Still just you

“...Eh, what do you mean? The game did all of that to MAKE you realize that Frisk is their own entity, not your pawn. And the player is not an entity at all.”

So, it’s trying to tell you, the player, something, even though the player isn’t an entity at all? That’s nonsense. Either the player exists or they don’t exist. The game did this because it wanted to reveal that it’s not 201X, that you’re NOT the character you named (You don’t play as Chara lol), and possibly to fix a plot hole that may or may not have existed during the demo era.

"No, it’s supposed to make you realize that you didn’t NAME Frisk, and the child that fell wasn’t you, AND that you’re not actually playing in 201X."

“That's what I meant -_-“

You were implying that it was also trying to tell you, the player, that you’re not Frisk. Which goes against canon.

“It's the biggest spoiler in the game (maybe the second biggest one right after Flowey). It couldn't have been a mistake, he did it on purpose. And maybe you're right on the narrator. But if he changed something, he would have went back and fixed anything.”

And he DID. By making that a part of the story, and explaining how yes, they ARE indeed two different characters like those clever analysts pointed out due to the inconsistencies in the demo. Because that’d be a far more interesting story. And now we have a story without any more holes! Kudos to you, Toby. *wink*

“You can say that pretty much about anything. Does it not require determination to get the other flags for example? Wait, you did say that. So then... what was the point of this argument?”

Takes more to get the red than anything else. An ABUNDANCE of it, you could say…

“As I said, that foreshadowed muffet's battle. Nothing indicates that purple can only appear in fights where little creatures announce you the next round.”

Nothing indicates that “taking notes” has to mean taking notes on what little creatures announce you the next round will be. It could be taking notes on battle patterns you’ve seen, calculating monster stats, doing some math for optimal strategy…

“I don't see the problem. Out of all soul modes, this is the one where you're being kind to the soul. It can't move, so you at least protect it. Idk why do you have so much trouble understanding this simple concept.” “This is your SOUL-The very culmination of YOUR being!”

“careful not to cause inconvenience or hurt to OTHERS”

…Yeah, no problem here. Noooo problem. (/s because yes there is I pointed it out) If we lose our SOUL, we lose our determination contained within that SOUL. So we DIE. If we give ourselves artificial DT to bypass this, we become like Flowey or Chara, depending on our species.

“> For orange and blue, the ball isn't even mentioned.”

I said an obstacle, not a ball. “You are the kind of person who rushes fist-first through OBSTACLES.”

“Also, for green, the ball is mentioned, but in that soul mode, you are the green one.”

“Your care and concern for ball lead you to a delicious victory.”

You and ball are referred to as two separate entities. So they can’t be the same in meaning. Why not say that you are the ball in there?

“So that gives us a clue as to what the ball represents in that case. Or we could just browse in the fields of speculation.”

Or we can say it represents the obstacle like in EVERY OTHER TIME. Or, oh, what do you know, it represents the ball itself, literally, because to get the green flag, you have to be careful not to kick it too hard. You need to have care and concern for the ball.

“What even... do you even THINK when you write? I'm talking about ASGORE, not the game.”

You do mean the game, because the MERCY button is literally destroyed. We SEE it happen. We don’t see Asgore bragging about destroying your MERCY, we see him actually do it. So if it’s a metaphor, the universe itself went along with it.

“I'm sorry, but no. That definition clearly contradicts what we observe in the game, therefore, we've applied the definition incorrectly.”

What it clearly contradicts is the green SOUL mode. We resolve the paradox by saying it simply doesn’t mean the mode, but the actual traits. Like the definition suggests in the first place.

“I keep telling you this. The green mode is kindness by definition, and you cannot change that in any way. Certainly not by being witty about it.”

The green TRAIT is kindness by definition, and you can’t change that in any way. Doesn’t mean the mode has to follow suit. Not like grass represents kindness, or gold represents justice, or water represents integrity.

“And that's why it's wrong. Because you're clearly doing something wrong here. You're separating soul traits from soul modes. That's like separating Flowey and Asriel, they are the one and the same, just in a different skin.”

They mean two different things, though. To say they’re the same is like saying Chara and Frisk are the same because they both have the same color SOUL!

"The definitions of the traits in a dictionary show they ARE personality traits."

“No, that's your idea of what they are, just so that you could preserve their literal meaning, ignoring the fact that the soul modes are a direct representation of them - which in turn is proving that they cannot be personality traits.”

When has it been proven as a fact that the soul modes are a direct representation of it? I’ve done my job at debunking that several times already, and your only evidence so far is “Oh, they’re the same color!” Yeah. And the sky represents patience because it’s cyan. /s

“ that's the Glitchtale fanon.”

Glitchtale would argue that fear is a real trait. I would argue that fear is just what happens when you don’t have any bravery, and isn’t some extra eighth trait that happens when you use a Bete Noire.

“Read anything from this list instead:”

Alright, I’ve decided to read ALL of them. After all, if they all have good arguments, why not just take them all into consideration instead of ignoring more than half the arguments, right? What if one of the arguments I ignored is the one thing that proves me wrong? So, let’s get into this, shall we?

Openness to experience and conscientiousness are both just integrity. Extraversion TOO can be considered integrity, perhaps with a hint of bravery? Agreeableness is clearly kindness. Neuroticism is a lack of integrity and bravery, and perhaps a lack of perseverance as well. Honesty-Humility is what you get when you have integrity as your dominant trait, and kindness as a close second. The Dark Triad is what happens when you remove these things. Self-esteem? MORE integrity. Harm avoidance? Kindness. Novelty seeking is a lack of perseverance. SPS is a neurological condition, not a personality trait. Perfectionism? Like Papryus? Well, nyeh heh heh-That trait is what happens when you have a LOT of justice, and like NO integrity whatsoever, to the point where you start imposing justice on YOURSELF, for every little thing you do wrong. You shame yourself this way, then say everyone else will ALSO not like you. Alexithymia is a very interesting case… It’s the real world equivalent to what happens when you lack a SOUL in Undertale. Rigidity is the lack of flexibility, and flexibility can be defined as a combination of integrity (be creative, like you point out later on), and perseverance (take notes! See what works and what doesn’t! Don’t just give up!) Impulsivity is what happens when you have a lot of bravery… And almost no patience or perseverance. Disinhibition is an extension of that, when it gets so strong you just CAN’T control it… But the conditions are pretty much the same, lots of bravery, no perseverance or patience. Pshychotism is actually a lack of kindness. And obsessionism is what you get when you’re so implusive (already defined in the seven trait system) and excited (passionate-about something that it kind of gets “stuck in your head”. So, impulsiveness (which is what I described earlier), plus AN OPINION. Not a trait, an OPINION. And a CONDITION that can HAPPEN to you. Liking bananas isn’t a trait, being obsessed with them isn’t either.

Let’s move onto the questionnaire next, shall we? Warmth is kindness. Reasoning is justice and perseverance. (Maybe I should change the SOUL color in my avatar from yellow to purple? …Nah, that’s not that important right now.) Emotional stability is integrity, and so is rule-consciousness. Dominance is bravery without kindness. Liveliness is impulsiveness, like I described earlier. Social boldness is bravery, while sensitiveness (as described by the article) is a LACK of bravery, and can also be a lack of perseverance. Vigilance IS perseverance, though. Abstractedness is MORE integrity (creativeness, which we’ll both get to when I reach that part of your post) Privateness (As described in the article), is a LOT of perseverance... And said perseverance is dominant over kindness, though one’s actual kindness can vary. Apprehension can be a lack of integrity, openness to change and self-reliance are both perseverance, Perfectionism (as opposed to the previous perfectionism) is bravery with perseverance, and tension is a lack of patience. As we both know, these sixteen “traits” can actually come from places on a spectrum of a mere FIVE traits, that when combined, make these sixteen. So let’s take a look at them, shall we? It’s the next article, after all.

This version of openness to experience is a combination of integrity and perseverance. Conscientiousness is integrity… Extraversion is what I described it as earlier, bravery without the kindness, though in this case, it may also mean a lack of perseverance, if said extraversion also violates logical principals. Agreeableness is kindness, like we discussed earlier, and neuroticism is what I described earlier. So… What about if one’s patient or not? Can you describe that using ONLY these five traits? Well, we’ll see if HEXACO fixes this issue or not later. First, we have another competitor to analyze. So let’s take a look at the ALTERNATIVE five traits, shall we?

Neurto-tixism-anxiety: That’s a lack of patience. At least they solved that issue. Can they get the other parts of personality right, and do better than the seven-trait system? Well, let’s find out! Aggression–hostility: That’s a lack of patience and kindness. Impulsive sensation-seeking: That’s a combination of impulsiveness, as I described earlier, psychoticism, which I ALSO described earlier (it’s a lack of kindness), shyness (a lack of bravery, and quite similar to “Privateness” from the 16P questionnaire), and sensation-seeking. …Bravery? Wanting some kind of “adventure”… Something fun. I think I’ve got an adventure for you. *Flowey laugh* Undertale references aside, this is probably actually integrity, plus bravery, with a bit of IMpatience. Then there’s socialibitiliy. That’s kindness. Also, isn’t that just the lack of agression-hostility? Of course, then there’s the element of liking to meet people, make friends. Wait, doesn’t that sound familiar? Isn’t that an element of the LAST trait we just went over? Activity is that SAME element again, but combined with determination. So.. Where’s the sense of justice? Well, maybe HEXACO does a better job than this.

For HEXACO, I’ll only really go other the sixth trait, and look at its relationship with the other five. Maybe I should have put this RIGHT after the Big Five? Well, too late for that, let’s just get to the sixth trait already-Emotionalism is jut neuroticism. So, it’s… Honesty-Humility. THE EXACT SAME THING AS conscientiousness. I would just end the analysis right here, but it turns out they changed the definition of said trait, so I’ll just analyze THAT trait, since it’s actually different now. Let’s just pretend this was the sixth trait all along, alright? So… organized, disciplined, diligent, careful, thorough… That’s persevearance and integrity. Add in a bit of determination as well. It does somewhat solve the problem with patience by being careful and thourough.. But what about waiting for the right opportunity? Ahuhuhu, they all have the same problem! Now let’s see how well the power of NEO does. Hopefully I don’t kill it in one strike. Otherwise someone might go Sans on me. Okay, that’s it for the Undertale references. :3

So, NEO is what happens when you upgrade the Big Five, and further break them down. Well, considering that the issue with the Big Five is mainly what it’s LACKING, I doubt it’ll work. I think I’ll kill it in one str-Oh right, no more Undertale references. Since this is the last one, I think I’ll go through them BACKWARDS. So, let’s start with conscientiousness. As described by NEO, that’s a combination of persevearance and integrity. Agreeableness is STILL kindness. Openess to experience is still integrity all across the board. Extraversion becomes like bravery in some cases, while like justice in some others. And neuroticism becomes a combination of different thingstat it should be split up. Anxiety is a lack of bravery-Hostility a lack of kindness, depression a lack of hope.. So, I guess this is what happens when you give up? Lose (almost) all your determination? Self-coniousness is integrity, like I just described before, while impulsiveness is a lack of patience and a lot of bravery. Vulnerabklity to stress? That’s sensitivity again!

So, like I said before, all traits can be defined as a combination of the seven, a LACK of one or more of the seven, or perhaps a combination of those two things.

"A quick look at the dictionary will prove they HAVE to be personality-related for their names to make sense."

“They already do make sense. You are just looking at it incorrectly. Also, never forget to ask yourself, what would Toby do? Would he make it this complicated because of one tiny discrepancy? No, the issue lies in your theory.”

Stop assuming you can read Toby’s mind. Analysis first, try and figure out what goes on in his head second. Besides, he already did something like that with Chara, the ability to SAVE and LOAD, a plot hole in Asgore’s plan that Toriel pointed out, power and a lack of emotion corrupting somene (Flowey), an explanation behind the very simple mechanic of EXP and LV… Stop disregarding canon evidence just to defend a HEADCANON about Toby.

“It doesn't always apply. Only in those cases when the others are breaking moral principles en masse. So in the end it's still about staying 100% moral, not about being unique. That happens only in those selected cases.”

Well, you DO hop and twirl to get the ball in the hole…

“Well then it can't really work if soul modes are always applied to your own soul, can it?”

You’re right:It can’t. That’s why SOUL modes cannot be SOUL traits.

“So where is the problem? It works for colored (non-white) attacks, so why shouldn't the green mode be kindness, DESPITE being green?”

Because monsters choose what your attacks are, and your modes? Because attacks aren’t the same thing as modes?

“I dunno, but it seems to me like the problem is on your side. Maybe you're taking the definition of the traits too literally. I refuse to accept that green can sometimes be something else than kindness, since the game never implies anything like that.”

Yeah. And grass is kind because it’s green. SAVing also has to do with JUSTICE because the points are yellow. /s

“We should instead be aiming to explain how can the green mode actually represent kindness, since... well, it DOES represent it, we just haven't figured out the exact metaphor for it yet.”

So we should come up with as many theories as possible to defend something that has no evidence to it whatsoever, when we can just say the green mode doesn’t represent its trait and be done with it.

“I guess I forgot to say that right there, the soul is also immobile, ergo unable to dodge attacks without our help.”

My point still stands-In the other modes, we move it to stop it from getting hurt. We’re protecting our SOUL. How is that not kindness if the former is?

“besides, the connection is there. Why else would he give the modes the exact colors of the traits?”

Because they’re colors of the rainbow. Why else would Asgore have purple capes if he isn’t perseverant? /s

“And also one more thing. Think about how he designed this game. First came the battle system. Then an explanation. He made the ball game as an explanation for the individual modes, not the other way around.”

You’re not Toby, that’s just speculation.

“No, because this is Undertale, not the real world. That's another thing you keep forgetting.”

Toby should at least start patching these so-called “flaws”. And stop trolling on Twitter so we know what he’s serious about and what he’s not. It’s like the Man who cried Wolf all over again.

“There isn't anything you missed. After all, you cannot get anything wrong when fabricating new info. You can't say it's wrong, since the game doesn't disprove it.”

Just like a scientist! (QM, anyone?)

“Scientists keep their paradoxes instead of resolving them? Lmao what? Can you even read?”

I said I kept the data there, and created a new theory to resolve it instead of disregarding it, just like a scientist. Can YOU even read? No, my point is they don’t just throw out evidence because it appears to contradict other stuff-They throw out their old thoughts and start anew to resolve that paradox. Like me.

“Ergo in the game”

In the game, only the fact that there’s no evidence about them exists. Human essence most definability exists, as it’s the only explanation for Chara in the Genocide Route. At least that doesn’t make a bunch of new problems… *stares at Rafip*

“because you know Toby Fox better than anyone else”

Because patches exist, and we all know Toby Fox just the same. 0%. “indeed, unlike him, you're actually basing your theories on pure fanon and then trying to prove them in any way possible, even at the cost of making stuff up. Sheesh, at least be honest.”

I base my theories on all the evidence, and then go to connect EVERYTHING together in any way possible, even at the cost of making things up TO EXPLAIN THE STORY. Because making something up is better than contradicting the game’s evidence and REMOVING IT FROM THE STORY. Contradictions and paradoxes are SO much worse than headcanons. "You’re actually closer to him, by tossing out evidence just to support a theory, claiming it’s just a mistake Toby made."

“I'm not actually tossing anything out. I'm simply broadening the definition of the terms I come across so that they would align with the confirmed canon.”

Confirmed canon? How is it confirmed? Canon should be defined by the evidence, not the other way around.

“You on the other hand are restricting them - creating paradoxes in the process, and then destroying the canon to resolve them.”

I’m destroying the fanon, to yes, you got this part right, resolve all the paradoxes that arise when you actually consider ALL the evidence. “All because it fits your headcanon and because you're unable to grasp the concept of a metaphor.”

Like I said, difference between a character using a metaphor and the UNIVERSE using a metaphor. You know as well as I do that I don’t take the whole “best joke in a hundred years” thing literally.

“I'm done with you. This is incredible. You're abandoning everything just because it doesn't fully fit.”

Yes. Like actual scientists did with Newton physics versus relativity, and then again with classical physics versus quantum physicists. Should we all just go back to classical physics and say the error was a mistake on God’s part?

“Do you realize it will never fully fit without us making stuff up?”

That’s how it works here in the real world too. We have to make up theories to explain the universe. We then test them and see if they’re plausible or not. Sometimes it’s easy because only one theory actually works, and then we’re that much closer to the truth. Take human essence for example-True, we made that up. But it’s the ONLY way to explain Chara without creating more problems.

“He did what was necessary for you to have a good experience with the game, he never knew it would get so big and that people would dig so deeply into it.”

And then they did, and Toby had a chance to fix these so-called “flaws”. And he didn’t. Don’t you think that’s evidence that WE’RE the problem, and these “flaws” were MEANT to be there? He did fix a few ACTUAL flaws, like Papyrus appearing in the Undyne introduction even if you killed him… And that's why we keep finding all these flaws.

“Okay, a small correction here: As I put it above, the trait descriptions describe the modes. Nothing extra is needed.”

Why can’t they just describe, oh, I dunno, THE TRAITS?

“And what do you THINK is the purpose of those trait descriptions then?”

Just that-Trait descriptions!

“And logically, having a color of your soul changed to a different one is the same as having that different one to begin with.”

That’s assuming association implies causation, AND that they’re literally the same thing, even though the Ball game shows evidence that this isn’t the case when compared with the modes.

“YOU came up with the idea that green = being kind to others, not the game.”

No, the game flat-out listed green as kindness, and the definition is to others. Just going with the evidence.

“YOU keep bringing up the dictionary, despite it CLEARLY contradicting the game in multiple ways (an example would be the word "soul" - in the game, it is portrayed as a magical object, but that's not its real world definition; just like the real world definition of kindness doesn't match the type of kindness we see in the game - not that it's not really kindness as you keep saying, it IS kindness, but you're just interpreting it incorrectly; it's given canonically that that's kindness).”

SOUL is likely either this definition: “emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance”, or it’s an acronym because it’s in all caps like EXP and LOVE. For Occam’s Razor’s sake, I’ll go for the former. There’s also this one, the most well-known:” 1.the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.”

SOUL is immaterial, unlike determination (physical liquid) and essence (also physical, enough so that it can land on Flowey and let its goat owner pretty much possess the flower, coming back to life through DT. “Anyways, I said that a default and a modified soul behave exactly the same.”

And that’s the flaw. Right there.

“But since you cannot just change a personality, then the color of a soul cannot represent your personality.”

But this is still sound, though ONLY for SOUL modes.

“This division serves no practical purpose except for getting rid of the single discrepancy.”

Hmm, seems familiar… Quantum mechanics in a nutshell

“So do we keep the connection, whose existence is more than obvious, or do we keep the concept of a personality trait?”

We choose whatever goes with the evidence.

“Which is exactly the reason why it cannot be related to personalities. It even prompted you to make a joke about it, that's how ridiculous it is!”

That was specifically about the idea of SOUL MODES being related to personality traits.

“The fact is, that the connection is there, and it cannot be ignored.”

It’s not, it’s just as ridiculous as my joke made it out to be. Looking for patterns that don't exist.

"WRONG! Either they’re the same thing or they aren’t. If they’re not a match, they can’t be the same thing."

“The proof of this is all around you.”

Haven’t seen this “proof” yet. I’d say it’s about as real as the Force. All around us… But non-existent.

“And also, may I remind you that if we're not inherently trying to be creative, all theories that would assume the "death of the author" are probably wrong.”

It’s less “death of the author” and more “death of our personal headcanons about the author”.

“Toby had a certain goal in mind, and a theory that doesn't live up to or follow that goal cannot be right.”

But we don’t know what that goal is, so we can’t use that as evidence. “As those Wikipedia articles might have showed you, almost none of those traits listed there mach those in Undertale. Conclusion? They aren't personality traits.”

Check back on my analysis on them.

“Or perhaps we're not dealing with the same "kind" of humans here, which I do not find plausible anyways. They must act the same as us, else how are we supposed to relate to Frisk and all these other human-like characters, if we cannot even understand how they're thinking? They must be like us for this to work. Ergo, they're human.”

Valid logic. All that is valid.

“So these cannot be personality traits.”

But the premise isn’t.

“And you look up the definition of a soul. Conclusion? Souls cannot exist because the dictionary described them as an entirely different concept. Huh.”

Not really.

“Does that change anything? You still have two categories here, personality traits with fighting styles, and soul modes (which I've described as fighting styles; you practically warped the definition of this phrase).”

And two categories isn’t a problem. Also, I decided to use fighting styles as actual fighting styles instead of another name for SOUL mode. You can refer to SOUL modes as SOUL modes, and I’ll get what you mean-SOUL modes!

“The psychological trait of kindness is a personality trait by definition”

Exactly.

“but a magical trait of kindness is not a personality trait.”

How is kindness not kindness? Magical or physical, it’s the same thing. “Why yes it does. The only weird thing about it is that it's placing the person stating those sentences outside the known timespan of the universe. That's not weird from a linguistic point of view (I mean, you can craft any sentence, and it will be right, as long as the grammar is right), but it's wrong from a logical point of view. No one should be able to exist outside that timespan.”

Yep. Nobody should be able to do that, speaking of past events like they’re in the future, and future events as if they’re in the past.

“If anything, this sounds like something some divine deity would say. And that's exactly what I think the ball game is.”

You think a god made the ball game? Also, even prophecies speak in the future tense, because they KNOW that to us, the readers, it’s still in the future.

“I mean, it was of course constructed by someone, but the meta meaning of it does have this quality of "predicting" the future. It's not just some meaningless game someone in the Snowdin forest made. It's flat out giving us all the necessary info to deduce stuff.”

It’s not meaningless, but it IS a game someone in the Snowdin forest made.

“I am seeing the same kind of continuity errors as with the plaques, or the story of Asriel and Chara. Every time Toby chose to dump a ton of lore in front of us, there was always some continuity error or a logical discrepancy.”

Every time, there was a way around that.

“I chose to say that the in-game explanation for these is that it was just a coincidence. You chose to follow them literally and come to a conclusion that the monsters were lying in those plaques or something.”

Which is more scientific.

“Listen. A mistake is a mistake. I chose to dismiss them. You chose to hold onto the paradoxes they create and come up with wild theories to resolve them. All because you think that that's the "correct" way to approach fictional story lines.”

At least ones that the author can just fix any and all mistakes in. If Undertale was a book that couldn’t be revised, you would have a very valid point here.

“Would you also act like this in some other fandom, for example when analyzing the Game of Thrones lore, or the Star Wars lore, or the Lord of the Rings lore?”

Game of Thrones is a book, so no. Star Wars is a TV show that can’t be edited, so ALSO no. Only games that can be patched. And even then, there’s still things that appear to be mistakes but aren’t. Also, those franchises don’t have creators that troll everyone. At least not to my knowledge, I’m not a member of their fandoms. I WOULD act like this in the FNAF fandom, if I was a part of it though. And in the OneShot fandom, but of course I'd bring the player into it because they're mentioned explicitly.

“Anyways, the fact is, that the ball game is foreshadowing Muffet's battle. The movement on strings is given, but the one about taking notes, that is no longer a part of the purple soul mode, it's rather a mechanic of the battle itself, as I said.”

It’s not a part of the MODE. Like I said, it’s the trait, not the mode. Which comes into play in the battle.

“And so, from an in-universe point of view, this could be taken as a coincidence, but from an out-universe POV, this is pure foreshadowing.”

And if we’re analyzing canon, which point of view should we take? The former’s the most reasonable.

“Anything that belongs to a soul mode is a part of that mode, that's obvious, isn't it?”

Yeah, it is. I was responding to you saying that Undyne physically GAVE us the spear, as in, that wasn’t a part of the mode until Undyne decided she’d GIVE it to us, which implies the natural green mode is indentical to the red one, which is what happens when you remove the stuff Undyne gave to us.

“Also... what the heck does the red mode have to do with anything here? Did you somehow get really confused all of sudden or something?”

The red mode’s what you get if you remove the shield and movement restriction from the green mode.

“If the green trait is kindness, then the green mode cannot be kindness. That's true.”

No matter WHAT the green trait is, the green mode cannot be kindness. The former’s true based on the definition of kindness.

“But the connection is there, therefore, the green mode must be kindness.”

No connection.

“You made the assumption that it must be a human-to-human characteristic. However, if we assume that it is a human-to-soul characteristic, then it works perfectly; you are kind to your soul. Not to yourself, but to your soul. That doesn't necessarily have to be the same thing.”

It’s really a characteristic from human-to-others chacteristic-Even if it’s like a dog.

“You see, not much is known about the true nature of a soul, it would be foolish to presume that it is exactly you. Is it a culmination of your being, or can it be described as for example an extension of you? Well, since soulless creatures can exist, the answer is quite clear - a soul cannot be a culmination of one's being (else Flowey would have one too). It must therefore be something extra, a mere extension of your personality, but not something necessary. Caring for it therefore isn't exactly synonymous with caring for yourself. Souls have their own rules, they are very different from a human's body.”

As I said before, all of your DT is contained within that SOUL. Lose your SOUL, you lose your DT. That’s why you die when your SOUL shatters. Only way to come back is if something else gives you DT artificially.

“In fact, the only creatures for which the synonymity of caring for their soul and caring for themselves applies are monsters. Their souls truly are the culmination of their being.”

Nope-Flowey was a monster. It’s the same as with human. But, it is true that killing a monster’s SOUL will kill the monster, for the same reasons as I pointed out with humans.

“And if we look up the definition of kindness (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/kindness), we can see that it doesn't specify that it must be a human-to-human characteristic. After all, you can be kind to your dog too.”

Yeah, you can. But like I said, you need your SOUL to live because it contains your DT. A full, complete SOUL will contain DT.

“Besides, a soul mode is only an indicator of what YOU have to do in order to succeed.”

It’s a battle mechanic. Nothing more.

“So then, are soul traits what you are, and soul modes what you should be at a given moment? Yes. But what are soul traits then? Well, using this logic, we can conclude that every human has some default fighting style, and that a soul mode only changes it. It doesn't change their personality, nor does it change their default fighting style. It only forces them to act differently.”

It changes the optimal fighting style, the one that works best in the situation. But the color changed BEFORE you restrategize, so the mode is no longer you, but the battle mechanics you’re bound to, whether you’ve changed your fighting style to reflect that or not.

“The only thing left to explain is how the names of the individual traits relate to the soul modes. Well, cyan, orange, purple, green and yellow have all been explained already.”

We’re still discussing some of them, and no, you only tried to explain green’s name, with the others being their descriptions only. Then again, I only directly argued against green, as that was the first inconsitency I came up with, and it only takes one to prove the analogy wrong, so it would make sense that you only explained green.

“How exactly does hopping and twirling relate to integrity? Keep in mind that if we can answer this, we will find an explanation that unifies soul trait names and soul modes, eliminating the need to use the personality argument, which has no supporting arguments to it anyways.”

You’d get the unification right, if you can also explain the other five.

“"someone's high artistic standards or standards of doing their job, and that person's determination not to lower those standards" Hmm. Could hopping and twirling be defined as such? I think it could. Surely hopping and twirling could be a metaphor for those morals, but here we have it written in a dictionary.”

Artistic standards… Creativity. Not being literally FORCED to hop around in the same way OVER AND OVER AGAIN. If anything, that helps resolve the “contradiction” between hopping and twirling as described in the trait description, and actual integrity. But still not the MODE.

“So... what else is left there to argue about? All the names of the traits fit their respective modes now. If you're still unsure about integrity, then let me put it differently: You refuse to stop hopping and twirling, even when the others think you're crazy. It's not really about being original, that's just a second characteristic that arises when no one else is doing the same.”

Except according to the mechanic, you’re FORCED to hop and twirl, even if YOU think that’s crazy, and you can’t choose your own path and refuse.

"Loophole-They can just not represent anything."

"You can (Take FNAF vs Bendy), but remember that my argument is that fighting styles are similar to traits, and fighting styles are not SOUL modes."

“Did you define the phrase "fighting style?" No, you did not. When I say fighting style, I literally mean the soul modes. It's something you have to change when the mode changes.”

Something you HAVE to change to survive AFTER the mode changes. Not something that the mode represents, and something you’re mind-controlled to do I mean, you don't have to, but you won't succeed if you don't.

“Oh wow, how did you figure? Because those aren't humans?”’

Check out my huge analysis of the personality traits-That’s better reasoning than just saying “Oh, they’re not humans”. Yes, they ARE humans.

“Yes, he worked on the game for years, not on the story. It is only rational to assume that plot holes in the story are present.”

Patches. PATCHES.

“And I'm not blaming Toby literally every time that a theory that doesn't work, you know that very damn well.”

I really don’t know that. How do we define what is and isn’t a plot hole? Whether or not it goes along with our THEORIES?

“And besides, as I said, he never anticipated the popularity of this game, so that's another reason to think he probably didn't go as deep with the lore as you may think.”

He could have fixed it after it DID get popular.

“And besides, I already showed you that a logical discrepancy is present in every lore dump in the game, suggesting that he wasn't all that good with keeping them consistent with the canon story line.”

And I had an explanation for them all. Like I said, the only paradoxes are the ones WE create by assuming stuff. And stuff in the original 1.0 version that Toby fixed like Papyrus surviving his own death.

“He made an interesting and clever story, but it isn't comparable to stuff like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or Game of Thrones. It's not that big, he wasn't aiming for that.”

It IS big. It’s a massive deconstruction of an RPG world, dealing with many things like the concept of a SOUL, what an “enemy” really is, and all with a consistent backstory.

“Think about the message of this game. That's what it really is about.”

We can’t do that until we analyze the story-Otherwise we’ll get the WRONG MESSAGE. I could say the message is that you should flirt with everybody, but I’d probably be wrong.

“Rafip said that since there's no proof of a human essence existing but proof of human souls persisting, Chara's soul must have persisted. And since Frisk apparently absorbed it by the looks of it, they cannot be human. Despite the appearance AND their soul.”

Yep.

“Now you. Since there is no proof of Sans being able to duplicate stuff but proof of him teleporting around, it means that the stations found all around the underground that are all identical to one another cannot be the duplicates, but rather just a single one that he's constantly teleporting around. Despite the difficulties AND his notorious laziness.”

It’s less that and more “Duplicates wouldn’t explain there being snow in Hotland, that’s so hot it can evaporate a cup.” Who knows, maybe it’s Sans using some quantum physics and the stand’s in some kind of superposition.

“We definitely do not load.”

We do. By closing the game. Just like almost literally everywhere else (With the exception of Omega Flowey and the Chara void, when you can’t, which is when Frisk canonically can’t load.)

"Any monster can kill you if you refuse to defend yourself. As I said, a mere froggit could bring you below the 1 HP treshold, but only during Asriel's battle did your soul actually re-fuse. That only proves that our determination was at maximum (since there was no other instance of this in the game where we could do that), nothing else. Besides, convincing someone not to do something doesn't show you're more determined, that's not how DT works.”

That’s not my argument. My argument is that Frisk could still LOAD.

“So you're saying that they could summon powerful, millenia-lasting spells, but couldn't summon a single friendliness pellet for example?”

They could summon a bullet, though.

“Just because some book used a verb that would suggest a shape-taking pattern? I'm pretty sure that an expression of oneself can refer to any kind of a magic spell. For example, this guy over here summons a powerful shapeless attack out of rage. He just expressed himself through magic, wouldn't you say?”

If it’s the same shapeless attack no matter who’s casting it, then no, he didn’t.

"Heh, I mean, you aren't the one to impose rules around here, I can make up my own too. And if you don't like it, then retract your original argument.”

Mine actually had evidence (the intro), and yours didn’t. All you have to do is follow the evidence. It’s not that hard, really. But, your restriction DOES make sense, because it’s the only way to explain the expression-If humans can’t represent themselves through magic, then THEY CAN’T REPRESENT THEMSELVES THROUGH MAGIC. At all. But like I explained, this isn’t a problem.

“And who was there to take a photo of that moment, hmm? What makes you think that ancient legends are always 100% correct?”

It was an intro. Like a game intro. Where do you think the intro was, a plaque in Waterfall? The wording doesn’t match.

“No thanks, I'd rather believe what the monsters wrote about the war, that seven of their greatest magicians (didn't say that these were humans) sealed them.”

Yes, seven human magicians.

“After all, the way the books in Snowdin talk about humans would make you think that they never had these abilities to begin with. Essentially, we have the intro against literally the entire rest of the lore. I'll side with the latter if you don't mind.”

We have the intro versus an ASSUMPTION about the lore. Representing through magic does not equal using any magic at all.

“It is said that they don't have magic. That's canon.”

REPRESENT themselves through magic.

“And boss monsters don't necessarily have to have any extra DT. I mean, Undyne is pretty buffed, but no boss monster behaved the way she did. Plus, there is no mention of DT being involved with the entire soul persistence thing. I think it is clear that what's making boss monster souls persist cannot be DT. That would look a bit different. I mean, boss monster bodies are only a sum of their soul and some dust. If the body dies, then how can the soul persist, given they are the same thing? If one persists, the other one should have too.”

Apply that logic to the humans and then figure out why that doesn’t make sense. The body died, but not the SOUL within it. Of course, like I said in a different discussion, it’s closer to “DT magic”, which is created from DT, and used to perform its abilities.

“It doesn't explain one thing. How are they supposed to not have magic? I mean sure, turning DT into magic explains the color, but it doesn't avoid the magic expression problem (casting magic, that is).”

They can cast magic. Just not represent themselves through it. Two different things. Explain the barrier, and why it takes seven HUMAN SOULs to destroy it by your theory.

“If the humans never could use magic, but those magicians could, then they couldn't have been human.”

Valid, but the premise is false.

“But this wasn't IN the game. The game closed. The world can't just "close". That's what games do.”

So, we define it as the same kind of event that happens when WE close the game-It’s a LOAD. (The game’s programmed to close, this is intentional)

“This is the same as the discussion about whether the HUD is just a representation of the mechanics of that universe, or whether it is those mechanics literally. If you're already talking about some in-game universe, then at least stop thinking of it as a game.”

It’s less that and more that I actually include ALL the information that you can access normally.

“The more of the game mechanics stuff we can remove while keeping it canon, the better.”

Yes. WHILE KEEPING IT CANON. Remember that part. We can’t toss out canon evidence.

“Saying that everything in the game is a part of that story is as bs as saying that for example the save mechanic isn't canon, since it's clearly a game property.”

No, they’re two opposite sides of a spectrum. I already know where the line is drawn, once you have to start hacking to get certain info, THAT’S when it stops being canon.

“Perhaps it's the same area where the barrier normally is. You know, after it's gone, that room changes to the room with the small grass patch in the middle. It's most likely the same room. As for why that grass patch isn't visible when the barrier is there, I'd say lighting overexposure. After all, the barrier is pretty freakily bright.”

The room geometry doesn’t fit. You can walk much too far north and west, if we assume the save point’s the same save point as in said room. You also can’t walk east enough through a path. Also, why don’t we see the barrier like we do when Asgore takes us there? Why isn't the room WHITE?

“No, of course not. It's just an illusion. Just like that one amalgamate that's disguised as a save point.”

That’s shapeshifting, not an illusion. He couldn’t make the HUD appear, after all.

“What was the argument here again?”

That we can see Flowey’s HUD, and THE HUD, during Omega Flowey’s battle, and that if you once had the power to SAVE and LOAD, you can see the HUD-Just like we see it even when Flowey steals our power away-The same can be applied to Flowey.

“And how did that someone learn about it then? We don't know if Frisk can see or feel us pressing the keyboard buttons. Probably not. So no, there's no way anyone in the game should be able to know about the "outside" world.”

There is no “outside world”. Check below to see what it means.

“They didn't know what it was. That was just their guess. Besides, they also mentioned a "full screen".”

Something to do with the HUD, I’m sure of it.

“And that essay, that was just Toby not giving two shits about it. It's that simple. Stop assuming that he never did anything lazy. I am free to blame him, because it's only rational in these cases.”

How? What’s the difference between this and blaming him every time your theory’s threatened? They both use the same principals...

“If there was no problem with them, I wouldn't be arguing with you, don't you think? Besides, how do you plan to resolve a true, proper logical paradox with this kind of thinking? If it's clearly a factual mistake, you would rather flip the entire game upside down rather than acknowledge that it's just a mistake from Toby's side. And who sounds ridiculous now?”

That’s what special relativity does. I’m just repeating what Einstien’s doing. And if I DO find one… I’ll probably go telling him to FIX IT! But I don’t think that’ll be happening.

“No, because it looks like something created from code. And math can be used to describe anything, so it's not an argument.”

Our OWN universe looks like something created with code. Positions not being defined until being observed (perhaps the object isn’t loaded into memory until it’s looked at?), the universe following strict rules that can be reprogrammed as code..? This world being code is a very real possibility, if we ignore Cagito Ergo Sum. Just like your arguments that Undertale seems to resemble a world of code…

“Ergo, the world is a game, which defeats the purpose of all discussions about it.”

Turns are turns. That’s a law. Not code.

“As I said above, if we want to make a consistent explanation without simply pointing to the code and saying "that's what's going on", we must break some of these "facts". I'm not saying we should get rid of them. I mean, if they're already there, the least we can do is to find an alternative explanation for them.”

Yes, an alternative explanation that doesn’t contradict the evidence we’re explicitly given. Kind of like my alternate explanations for Flowey’s final speech-I didn’t change a single word of the speech, but it still makes sense, and isn’t meta anymore.

“Whatcha mean? I never changed anything either.”

You changed a LOT. Saying what Sans explicitly mentions as turns aren’t actually him saying they're turns, ect… What’s next, are we going to say SAVES aren’t canon either and represent something else because “that’s a game mechanic”?

“No I mean, if they're confined to turns and if the humans deal attacks out of fucking nowhere as you're saying, then the question should have popped into their heads a long time ago.”

They probably did something similar to alchemy. We believed in that for centuries even though it bad PLENTY of flaws. Besides, games weren’t a thing back then, so not like they could link it to the non-existent game at the time. In fact, they may argue that the idea of an RPG actually came FROM their world’s mechanics, but are pro-murder and LV for some reason. And maybe whoever told that Froggit Froggit figured this all out because he SHOULD have a long time ago, like you said.

“Just stop it, okay? Either the world is a simulation, or it isn't and there are no buttons. You can't have a universe with buttons. If anything, if such universe were to exist, the simpler explanation WOULD be that it is a game. Since how do you plan to explain all of this without using a single line of code to describe it? Using metric tons of math? Sure. You go with the more complicated explanation. I'll stick to the simpler one. As per usual.”

Except, as you point out, Sans should have been able to figure this out. He didn’t. He figured out the more complex, canon reason.

"Their name is even flat-out stated in the final speech, and not your own name"

“He even stated it in a tweet that people should just name the protagonist after themselves.”

First, tweets aren’t canon, as confirmed by a tweet, which you seem to think are canon. Second, he then repled saying “Well, if you can’t think of anything else…”

“Besides, as I said, there's no way Flowey could have learned that Chara was alive. If yes, it had to be somewhere between us speaking to Asriel for the last time (where he still didn't know that Chara was present inside of Frisk by the looks of it), and him already talking to them when we reopen the game.”

And that’s what happened.

“How though? That is the true mystery. Which is why I think he never did, meaning, he could have never known that Chara was alive, meaning, he couldn't have been speaking to them, meaning, that that monologue truly was meant for the player only. Simple elimination of possibilities.”

I already explained how-It’s a four-step process, okay?

1-He thought Frisk was Chara. This was proven wrong.

2-He heard the narrator. We know he can see the HUD, so he should be able to see the narration. After all, Napstablook does!

3-He knows the two are separate now.

4-So, if he felt "Chara" there, but figured out YOU aren't Chara, then who else does that leave? Why, the narrator, of course!

That’s how.

“It's his save, his world. For what we know, he could have simply just teleported us to some dark cave or something.”

That’s not how SAVE files work, they take you back to a PREVIOUS point in time. So there would have HAD to be a point in time where Frisk was in that same void for this explanation to work. Unless, of course, it was a RESET and Flowey deleted all of his save, and yours came next.

“Depends on how you take it. And besides, I've just realized, EXP and LV don't describe the same thing. EXP directly relates to the murders you've commited, while LV is the potential indicator. So for example, growing up in a rough family would increase violent tendencies in a child, ergo, increase their LV. Violent propaganda would also most likely increase it.”

That’s a more reasonable argument. But Sans says “but you’ve never gained any LOVE” if you have 0EXP. LV1’s still the default.

“The evidence used to prove that the 6 children could save and load in the underground was the following:

http://nochocolate.tumblr.com/post/141805499420/all-fallen-humans-could-save-and-reload

And this was in turn used to prove that they didn't have these powers on the surface. Not the other way around.”

“The power to save and load is held by the one who is most determined in the Underground. Considering monsters do not have high amounts of determination normally, any human who falls in the Underground would have the most determination – and thus have “the power to reshape the world.” (quote from that exact post)

Nope, it WAS used as evidence.

“Because she's not ignorant, unlike Flowey. You're completely twisting her character.”

She doesn’t realize Frisk is evil in a Genocide Route until after you kill her directly. Yeah…

“After we Reset, many characters get "the feeling" - the feeling of familiarity with Frisk, recalling their friendship with them. This includes Toriel, who not only feels familiar with Frisk, but also guesses their choice correctly every time. This is evidence that memories can leak across timelines, and that close friends are the ones the most affected.”

Good so far…

“Now, Toriel says that she gets this "feeling" with (probably every) human that falls down. She expresses how she already felt familiar with them when she first saw them. Not that they remind her of someone. If anything, she says that about Frisk: "Truthfully, when I first saw you, I felt... like I was seeing an old friend for the first time."

While about the other humans, she says this: "When humans fall down here, strangely... I... I often feel like I already know them."”

Seems like there’s somewhat of a contrast between the two.

“Due to the other characters saying the same about Frisk that Toriel says about them, we already know that this feeling she's getting with Frisk must be because of the timelines leaking, not because of Chara. So if anything, she feels familiar with the other humans, but recognizes Frisk as an old friend. So your argument with an old friend about the other humans is unsupported. She recognizes them, but recognizes Frisk as an old friend specifically. And that's assuming these two don't mean the same thing.”

Because FRISK actually WAS an old friend. (It could also be because Chara was actually with them.)

"I felt... like I was seeing an old friend for the first time."

“She felt as if she was seeing an old friend, for the FIRST time. This is of an utmost importance. She didn't just feel as if she was seeing an old friend, she explicitly found it weird that she felt familiar with them, despite seeing them for the first time. Not that they reminded her of someone. She openly acknowledged that something is up. Else she wouldn't have used the phrase "for the first time", she would have rather used something like "again", e.g.: "seeing an old friend again."”

Yes, something is up. The human looks nothing like Chara, yet she feels as if they were? It’s like deja-vu. And remember, it’s back to Frisk, because “Truthfully, when I first saw you…” Like I said, it FEELS like she’s meeting an old friend (Chara? One of the other humans?) for the first time (Anew, as a new human.)

‘But the one about the other humans in between these two sentences isn't just an unrelated note. After all, as I orated, why would she include it in the conversation if it wasn't related to it? She isn't like, senile or anything.”

If you say you want to leave, she randomly brings up snails as a topic. So yes, she DOES include irrelevant info in conversations. Something similar is the case when she calls you about allergies. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6gS2LPXdIc5TmV4MWRNSklHWDg

“And the fact that she began the third sentence with the word "truthfully" also suggests a concurrence with the second sentence. As if she was acknowledging that what she observed about the other humans also applies to Frisk.”

“And lastly, we DEFINITELY know that all three of these sentences relate to the same subject, since if you answer no, she says nothing. The yes answer is the prompt.”

They’re connected in some way, but part of it is Toriel trailing off and things getting derailed. Like what can happen in real life!

“So all in all, it is the fact that she mentions the humans and Frisk in the same context, or rather, the lack of evidence that the context differed, that she was talking about the same thing, implying that the humans had the same powers as Frisk.

"Or, she projects Chara ONTO them."

“Definitely, that's why she was taking care of them. As I said, she wanted to fill that hole in her heart, and also to protect them from Asgore.”

Yep.

“But this definitely wasn't the reason why she felt familiar with them since the very first moment she saw them. That would be an exceptionally weird way to formulate the thought that they reminded her of Chara.”

The very thought of replacing your kid with someone else is also weird. So what? They’re familiar because of your projections towards a familiar human.

“Yeah. After their death. There is proof that they had deadly traps, meaning that they wouldn't have to engage in a battle to kill them.”

But they still wanted to kill them for the SOUL.

“Recall the firey flames that Mettaton sent at Frisk in the dungeon, or Papyrus's final puzzle (which looked more like a meat grinder if anything).”

Yes, they were meant to kill. But Mettaton didn’t exist for the others, and Papyrus is much too soft to harm a human-He’s never seen one before, so we can’t credit any deaths of a human to Papyrus’ puzzles.

“Oh my god then perhaps don't make them impossible to turn off??? EH!?!?”

If a monster can turn it off, so can a human. That’s how we’re able to traverse the CORE.

“So what is soul power then according to you? If it isn't a trait on its own, but an overall power of the soul as we've both agreed, then what contributes to it?”

Just raw strength and power! Magical energy! No trait required!

“And what you said about Asriel, that's exactly what he did. What even is your point?”

That the claim that the DT extracted from the six SOULs would pose a “problem” with breaking the barrier is simply invalid-It’d end the same, Asriel breaks the barrier. There’s no problem.

“No, there's at least 10. Five encounters, 4 that approach Frisk (who look nothing like those encounters), and one that tucks Frisk into bed, who could also possibly be the one behind the curtain of the bathtub.”

If that’s the case, wouldn’t you then subtract one if they’re the same, making nine? Anyways, what likely happened was Alphys gave the Amalgamates a (relativelty) low amount of DT, enough to melt them (Let’s say about how much DT Undyne had when SHE started to melt, maybe 1.5 times that), while she really wanted her flower vessel to work, so she kept on trying and trying to give it DT, until finally, it worked. She had created the vessel. And let it become a murderous flower trying to kill everyone over and over again.

“You seem to forget what is a part of the in-game story and what isn't. It can't all be included in it. It simply doesn't work. You're the one trying to push a cube through a triangular hole here.”

It can work-My theories demonstrate this by example. Sure, they can get weird, perhaps as weird, or even weirder than “The magicians weren’t human” (but without the contradicting evidence), but they WORK. If I used your own Toby reasoning on you, I’d probably say the magicians were human and that the evidence they weren’t was a plot hole.

“Oh yes. Toby is a psychology expert now according to you.”

There’s many ways to break down personality-Toby just came up with one of them. Check out my analysis on traits above.

“Pretty sure that's patience. Being one way at first, and then striking. It can be thought of as a metaphor essentially. And don't say that you aren't eating this. I can say the same about you trying to condense hundreds of traits into just 7.”

See? You’re getting it! And I can apply the same logic to the personality traits! (Remember, I said IF there’s more than 7 personality traits, there’s more than 7 fighting styles.)

“Because he was talking only about that one. It doesn't prove that it was the only one. No, really, shut it, it doesn't prove it. You can't talk your way around this.”

Here, I have a SOUL! *takes out SIX SOULs* A SOUL of justice!

Yeah, that’s about how your reasoning sounds. And no, I don’t really have six SOULs lol I’m not Flowey.