Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-30088034-20170108152544/@comment-27701762-20170117231956

Wildkitten1234 wrote: It's obviously Chara killing them, but you said they're slowly gaining more control because of Frisk's LOVE. That can't be the case, because when Chara and Asriel fused, they both had 1 LOVE and yet had to fight for control, they shared it equally. The Chara/Asriel fusion would have no bearing on this situation, since Frisk does not absorb Chara's soul or vice versa. Chara is nothing more than a spirit or spirit-like being exerting control or influence.

But why do you think that? We have to be playing as either Chara or Frisk, yes? Then the person moving them in the cutscenes is whoever we aren't playing as, most likely Chara. We clearly see the times they take control, and it's not often. Oh okay Mabian - you see the player as an actual in-universe thing. I don't, but if it were true - ...doesn't my point still stand? We'd be a third being possessing Frisk, and they'd either never be able to do anything on their own, or only move in the cutscenes I think are Chara. So what does this change? Chara doesn't get control over us, and it seems unlikely the same kind of cutscenes are Frisk in Pacifist and Chara in Genocide. What about Neutral?

Your point wouldn't still stand if I am correct about the player being a distinct entity. Yes, where the human acts on their own would indicate that the player is not doing it, but it would then allow the possibility for it to be either Frisk or Chara. In fact, it could be Frisk at one point, and Chara at another, which would make complete sense with how, for instance, the human reacts differently in different playthroughs, such as hiding behind the lamp in Neutral (Frisk), versus staying put and refusing to move (Chara). Indeed, how often does the human make an independent act which is the same in both Neutral and Genocide?

Meanwhile, the game doesn't make a great deal of sense if the player isn't a distinct entity, or at least intended to be a distinct entity (if not properly divided by the game's narration). If the player is Frisk, then Flowey's speech about letting Frisk live their own life makes no sense, since the implication is that the player is Chara (or at the very least is someone that Flowey has confused with Chara). If the player is Chara, then the ending of Genocide would quite obviously make no sense.

For any piece of evidence that can be brought to suggest that the player is Frisk, another piece of evidence can be brought to suggest that the player is Chara. If the evidence is so thoroughly convoluted that neither answer is in fact consistent, is it not then simpler that neither character is the player, and in fact the player has a distinct will from Frisk and Chara?