Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26242189-20160605230949/@comment-27701762-20160606030356

Yossipossi wrote: I kinda mistermonolgizd myself (if that makes sence). When I meant Chara slashes at the screen, I meant they attack you, but asks for Frisk's SOUL in exchange for the world. Besides, why would Frisk want the world back? Only the player would. And when Chara says "You have something I want" they don't mean that it's our own SOUL, but because we managed to not die to that amount of damage, they see we still have control over Frisk. By giving the SOUL over, we give over Frisk. Okay. I think I have better idea of what you're saying. But the "attacking the player" argument refers back to the "attacking the screen" point I raised earlier. We need a bit more to go on than that. Otherwise we should stick with the "null hypothesis" that Chara is indeed attacking the world itself.

The problem with the line you point out is that Chara literally says "You will give me your SOUL." If Chara knows that Frisk and the player are separate entities, and the consequence is that Chara takes Frisk's soul, then why use "your SOUL?" Presumably they could say "You will give me the SOUL of that human you control." Or something like that. Otherwise we need to argue that Chara switches partway through from addressing the player to addressing Frisk, which means identifying where that switch occurs and why.

Also, regarding Alphys, what I'm trying to say is that because Sans and Alphys could've worked together in the past, they would've possibly exchanged knoledge of timelines, like Sans says in his battle dialogue.

I'm fully willing to concede as much knowledge as you would like to Alphys about SAVEs and RESETs. The problem I am trying to point out is that all of those mechanics operate within the universe of Undertale. By which I mean that they are not merely mechanics of the game that are imposed upon the world for the sake of convenience. The result is that knowledge of SAVEs and RESETs does not constitute awareness of being in a game.

To get at it another way: I have not argued against Sans being on the list, despite part of your evidence for him having such awareness being that he also knows about these things. But Sans also acts in ways that demonstrate an awareness about battle mechanics and turns, as you point out, that suggest a knowledge of how the game itself operates. So if I were being nitpicky, I would say that you should remove the part about Sans having awareness about SAVEs and RESETs, though Sans would still belong on the list.

It could be the case that Sans shared some knowledge of how the mechanics of the game itself worked with Alphys. But without some demonstration from Alphys of this knowledge, it is at most conjecture.