Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27023843-20160702213248/@comment-28517148-20171029153221

I consider Player and Frisk to be one and the same:At least canonically speaking...

I can say a little bit about correlations between Player and Frisk and how to properly define them using canon and non canon point of view. Maybe this will help. In short - in our hands Frisk is just a mindless tool. There is no way that they wants anything from us unlike the creator of the game could. Also, canon doesn't accept Players (it cannot define us because it is bordered by the game and that mekes us non canon), otherwise core components of the game must be redefined pursuant to superior point of view - the reality, which causes canon to fall into pieces. Here is good example of this - definition of the Frisk: - by canon: a child who has fallen into Underground and now is trying to get out (Player as driving force behind everything being non canon cannot be involved here) - by reality: a playable character used for moving and interacting (in this case Frisk will never be a human and cannot be compared to the Player, the real human) Two correct yet mutually exclusive definitions of the same thing. As you can see, every time when you are mentioning Player, you are also redefining the canon, or at least you should redefine it in order to get right explanation.