Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20170602170443/@comment-32182236-20190316204236

Alright... I'm somewhere between the list of changes and the alpha "script". Here's what I have so far.

As we know, there was a monster that absorbed a human SOUL. Now, the circumstances behind this are unknown, but what IS known is that a human SOUL was stolen. Hence, this proves monsters are capable of criminal behavior, despite what many would have you think. (Love, hope, and compassion anyone?)

The Barrier was not made as a punishment:In fact, it couldn't have, because one count of theft by one individual would not provide justification for bringing the entire GROUP into prison for life.

Instead, it was a means of defense. You see, by gaining the ability to have massive power, just one monster could decide to destroy mankind eventually. (Things like this is why we have so much protection against terrorism, despite the number of terrorists being very, very small.)

But does this qualify as a proper defense, or is it too excessive? Well, let's take a look at something similar-Self-defense.

You're allowed to use nonlethal force to defend yourself, as long as said recepent is currently a threat. Lethal force, also known as "deadly force", however, is a last resort, and is only justified if the threat itself is also lethal. (There are a few exceptions:You probably wouldn't have to consider evacuating from your own house first [This can actually depend on your jurisdiction-Consult a lawyer if you actually have this problem, as I'm not one.], for example, but this particular conflict does not fall under any of those exceptions.)

Now, the Barrier itself is nonlethal:It's simply banishing them from the surface:Similar to just locking your doors, except this time, it's actually 100%(?) effective. And there is no clear, better alternative to fixing the problem, either. So the Barrier itself was justified. And considering how the Barrier was the terms of surrender (It was made as a result of the monsters surrendering to the humans), it's very likely the Barrier was the ultimate goal of the war.

So, does that make the actual war justified? Well... it actually depends.

You see, the war began suddenly.. Without mercy. And while the Barrier itself isn't lethal.. Killing countless monsters most certainly is. So, in order to find out whether THAT is justified, we need to find out whether or not this was necessary in order to properly create the Barrier, and get EVERYONE to cooperate with staying underground.

...And unfortunately, we can't tell. It could be possible that the humans tried negotiating with the monsters before, failed.. And then a few years later, war arose.. "Suddenly".. And this was a way to force them to cooperate.. In which case the war possible WAS justified. (If you have a better solution, please, point it out!) And it's also plausible that the humans didn't try to talk until later, in which case the war was very clearly unjustified.

I'm not going to rule one way or the other. But seriously.. No more of this "the war proves humans are bad" stuff.. For all you know, the war was the right decision after all. Undertale taught us that things can be different than how they seem.. So, shouldn't the same thing be true for the humans?

And also, we can't assume that everything goes happily after True Pacifist. For all we know.. We just unleashed a new threat...