Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-29788596-20160906011125/@comment-32182236-20200217185906

@TypeLou:That someone was.. Jacky720.

I agree with the idea that Chara is the narrator.. And that's it. The other main conclusions are invalid. (Except for the one about Chara being SOULless, Frisk's power reawakening Chara, and Frisk being connected to Chara:those are actually correct. But Soulless Chara is not an answer to "why can Chara be taught this way", because the argument that they are taught this way is completely invalid.)

In fact, some of my arguments actually rely on the fact that Chara is the narrator!

"Almost everything they say is backed with ingame references."

..That's just it. Almost. The most important bits weren't.

For instance, the assumption that half-full->Optimistic.

If the thing it's half-full of was something useless or something bad, it need not necessarily be optimistic. Dog food is useless to us.

There's also the assumption that "You remembered something funny" means that CHARA thinks it's funny. It could also mean that Frisk thinks it's funny, and Chara narrated that.

So the whole corruption bit is based on unjustified assumptions.

Not only that, the "what kind of monster are you" is almost certainly in reference to FRISK, yet the Determinator post pretty much takes for granted that it's CHARA who has changed, and not Frisk.

If Frisk chooses to punch the Mad Dummy in the Garbage Dump, how hard they hit it, and how they feel about it, is dependent on the LV they are at the moment.

So we already have evidence Frisk changed, and an event that implies either Frisk changed, or Chara did.

The most likely case is that it's about Frisk having changed, since Asgore likely has no idea that Chara even still exists. Why would this spontaneously be about Chara when Asgore was talking to Frisk?

And the "Your guidance" is also presumption-based.,

Here's the dialogue.

"Why was I brought back to life? You. With your guidance. I realized the purpose of my reincarnation."-Chara

Determinators post assumes that this is what was meant:

" Why was I brought back to life? You. With your guidance, I realized the purpose of my reincarnation. "

However, this is not the only interpretation of the text. There's another.

" Why was I brought back to life? You. With your guidance. I realized the purpose of my reincarnation. "

Colors represent passages, groups of sentences that together form a complete narrative flow-Sentences within a single passage are connected to each other.

The "I've learned SO MUCH from you" is likely complete and utter sarcasm. How do we know this?

Because Flowey already considered killing people fine. So us killing doesn't teach Flowey anything new.

Yet, we did spare Flowey (if we didn't, we wouldn't get this message.)

So, in essence, we first try and spare Flowey, in an effort to teach him that killing is unnecessary... And then go on and kill anyway.

So a sarcastic remark makes sense.

Also, note that Flowey wonders on his own if killing is really necessary. Why? Well, to find out, we need to figure out why Flowey kills in the first place.

Flowey, even after being Soulless, was once a compassionate flower, who used his powers for good. It was curiosity that lead him astray. He wanted to know what happened if he killed everyone.. So he did. Curiosity is his main drive, his main motivation.

And "is it possible to get a happy ending without killing anyone?" is a question to be answered, after all...

They also give the assumption that Chara can possess us and move Frisk's body prior to the end of the Genocide Route, when this has not been proven. Instead, they take the Demon!Chara side's word for it and assume Chara is the one that skips Papyrus' puzzles, rather than Frisk doing it through the cutscene.

Not only that, the mountain we see in the Surface is not Mt. Ebott. We're standing on it. The underground is ONE mountain, and we see two separate mountains: The one we're on, and the one out in the distance. So we don't know how far the mountain is. (By the way, the reason for climbing the mountain may have been to "run away".)

Now, Determinators does suggest that "erase myself from existence" cannot be in reference to the time when Chara died to go to the Surface with Asriel. However, later text makes it evident that this actually is what the line was in reference to.

"So... I decided to follow in your footsteps. I would erase myself from existence. And you know what? I succeeded."

Flowey's still here. So he didn't actually erase himself from existence in the way Determinators interprets it. But he did die.

"But as I left this mortal coil... I started to feel apprehensive. If you don't have a SOUL, what happens when you...? Something primal started to burn inside me. 'No,' I thought. 'I don't want to die!' …"

If you don't have a SOUL.

Something Flowey didn't think about. If Chara dies, their SOUL persists, and Flowey following those footsteps should imply that HE would still exist, just as a SOUL. But when he thought about the fact that he has no SOUL, he got apprehensive, and decided he didn't want to do it after all.

From this, we can conclude that this was indeed in reference to just dying, like Chara did.

And while Determinators is right that Chara never had furniture in the Ruins, they have yet to prove the Ruins' flowers belonged to Chara. (And also yet to provide an explanation as to how Chara could have gotten by WITHOUT their own furniture in the Ruins.)

It's likely that Chara fell almost directly AFTER the move. They fell at the end of 201X, and the Memorial Fountain over in Hotland had already been built in 201X. Which means the hotel that it was a part of had also been built by 201X. So that doesn't leave much room for the migration to have happened.

Their attempted rebuttal of the "attack on Asriel" does work against the common PureEvil!Chara arguments, but what if the attack was Chara trying to show Asriel why they hated humanity?

What if the attack, or at least the qualities of the attack, were the reason that Chara hated humanity, and Chara was trying to show Asriel this fact?

We already know that Chara and Asriel were friends, and it's very unlikely that Chara was actually trying to just use Asriel as a pawn. They did care for Asriel.

However, for something as dark as the evils of humanity, just plain saying it.. might not be the best approach at sending the message.

Think about it. Just saying "they're ruled by fear, and attack those they do not understand" might not send off the right emotional reaction to someone as optimistic as Asriel.

But what if Asriel got to witness this event first-hand? Saw that they almost died to humans, and killing them was thereby necessary?

THAT could get Asriel to sympathize with Chara, the bond would strengthen, and they might even share the common goal.

...At least, that's a reasonable guess to make. It did end up being wrong, though, as Asriel still thought that killing them was wrong, since that would result in war against all of humanity.

...I'd say that from Chara's point of view, Asriel was completely missing the point. And of course, he just stood there, which ended up getting the both of them killed.

And the idea that Chara could have mutilated their own body? Determinators is missing the point. Yes, Chara could have done that, but that would not show humanity's bad qualities.

And I have my own take on why the villagers thought Asriel killed Chara.


 * Premise 1:It takes a human and a monster SOUL to cross the Barrier
 * Premise 2:Asriel crossed the Barrier
 * Conclusion 1:Asriel has a human SOUL
 * Premise 3:Asriel has the body of a human.
 * Conclusion 2:Asriel has this human's SOUL.
 * Premise 4:No human would WILLINGLY give their SOUL to a monster.
 * Conclusion 3:Therefore, Asriel took it by force.
 * Premise 5:Taking a SOUL is only possible when the human has died.
 * Conclusion 4:Asriel killed Chara

The mistake in the villager's reasoning was Premise 4. Chara did do this willingly.