Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20170602170443/@comment-27089028-20170728102838

TheHumanAmbassador wrote: I'm saying the humans' choice in banishing the monsters is justfified. They were not in the wrong, and most certainly do NOT deserve to be eradicated, and neither do the monsters. Why do you think I said the Pacifist variation of the Neutral Ending was the best one, instead of the Near-Genocide, or even FULL Genocide Ending? Because we shouldn't be killing all the monsters. Separating them from humans is a much better solution. If I thought both sides deserved to be destroyed, I'd go with the Genocide Ending. Banishing an entire race at the time may have seemed justified but oh boy did it not pan out so well in the long term. Nobody has to be eradicated in the True Pacifist ending that's why it's called the True Pacifist Route. I'm fully aware of why those endings are your favourites but personally I can find at least one thing troubling in every variation of the Neutral ending. Oh no but caging them up again is sooo much better. How exactly is that going to work in terms of logistics, Frisk didn't go through all that trouble to break the barrier just so someone could erect another one. How is it even going to work? Assuming another barrier is possible (which it isn't) what if during the time it would take to get such a complicated plan in action a Monster falls in love with a human or becomes friends with one?