Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-29788596-20160906011125/@comment-32182236-20181118165452

"I personally subscribe to the idea that in-game Chara is a blank slate that is affected by our chosen path, not necessarily because I think Chara is "good" but more so because of the idea that Chara being a pure evil loon that exists solely for the reason to be hated is boring, thematically."

That's your reason? Really? We use evidence to theorize, not subjective parameters. We want to find the most likely possibility, not the most "interesting" one.

"If you go exclusively off what you can observe in-game about their life before the game starts, you see Chara mostly commit naive and callous acts. They're very clearly willing to manipulate Asriels' emotions for their own benefit, something that is never acceptable to do towards someone you love, even if it's for what you think is a good cause. They didn't react very much when Asgore got sick, which is definitely a red flag considering how kind Asgore was to them, and they killed themselves without much consideration for the pain the monsters as a society would experience in seeing them die. Not a very good start to the character."

So.. Where's the idea that they aren't just evil come from?

"You do also observe some comparatively benign/affectionate acts from them. They knit a sweater for their adoptive dad, which is a kind enough gesture, and implies they do care about him. They draw and play with Asriel a lot, so they probably have some emotional attachment to him as well, which makes sociopathy relatively unlikely in my opinion. And if they wanted to break the barrier out of a desire to free monster kind, emancipation is almost always a morally righteous cause, but that's speculation and can't be proven."

It was likely a little of both. They cared about the monsters, and wanted to free them, but their hatred of humanity sort of takes priority over that, to the point where the maniuplation happened. They wanted to destroy humanity, AND free the monsters.

"Unfortunately, without the context of their life on the surface, the "what happened and why" of it all, we can only either make educated guesses or base our judgments on a very incomplete picture, neither of which are going to be wholly satisfying. I'll go with the former, myself."

I really go for a hybrid. I start with the little evidence we have, using them as restrictions, and make educated guesses that best fit the evidence. Closest to the scientific method I can get.

"Chara being a victim of untreated trauma is a reasonable assumption to make based on their behavior and way of approaching things. They hate humanity intensely but refuse to ever talk about why, for example."

Really, I think the reasons overlap with the humans attacking Asriel. Something similar to that. Which means the humans attacking doubled as an attempt to corner Asriel into attacking them AND trying to show why they hated humanity. Asriel luckily didn't get the hint.

"And the "Mr. Dad Guy" on the sweater could be inferenced as a way to stay somewhat distant to a parental figure while doing something kind for them, or just something silly an adopted child would do."

Probably the latter. They make a lot of puns later on as the narrator.

"It could also explain them laughing it off when Asgore got sick, either they do it as a way to hide their real feelings to his pain and their role in causing it, or they are just very detached from the idea of death and suffering."

Perhaps. Knowing them, they might have actually made a pun out of it..

"But no matter what suffering they may have gone through on the surface, at some point you stop being a victim and become responsible for your own actions. Getting your sibling killed, attempting the murder of more than likely innocent people and traumatizing the surviving family who took you in with love and compassion are terrible things to do without question, and punctuate the end of Chara's normal life with tragedy and callousness."

The first (getting Asriel killed) was not Chara's intention, in fact Chara would believe Asriel did that, since it was ultimately his refusal that got them killed, but yes, what you said is accurate. An anti-villain is still a villain, after all.

"So going into the game, you only see Chara for certain on the Genocide route, where you see them behave at best in a completely detached and apathetic way, and at worst in brutal and sadistic glee while they destroy the Underground. At the end they claim that "you" (the player, Frisk, whatever) are the reason they came back, and that you taught them the meaning of their reincarnation: to kill and become more powerful no matter the costs."

They DO say you brought them back with your guidance, but they just say THEY realized the purpose of their reincarnation. They reached the conclusion THEMSELVES.

"The way it's worded implies the two aren't one and the same; Chara came back, and was then shown the path towards power."

And then REALIZED that their PURPOSE was power. There's a diference.

"Again, implying, that Chara is likely still there with Frisk in alternative runs. This makes sense considering that memories that only Chara should have about their life continuously crop up in the neutral and Pacifist routes, such as when you go to bed in Toriel's house, when you die, when you fall into the garbage dump, and rather pointedly when you save Asriel. The "Chara is the narrator in all runs" theory would complete this situation the most fittingly, but as usual can't be proven, so... make of it what you wish, I guess."

I think I might have actually proven that theory.

"In the end, it seems most fitting (and narratively satisfying to me at least) that Chara exists alongside Frisk in all paths, and either comes to atone for the (many) mistakes and cruelties they inflicted when they were alive, or they continue further down the path of madness and "evil" to become a destroyer of worlds. Redemption or damnation, basically."

Okay, what evidence is there that they turned good in Pacifist?