Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-32182236-20171223175726

"Those words describe how you need to act during a fight. Nothing indicates that they're describing personality traits."

The Red flag does, by identifying the six said personality traits by color.

"You're distinguishing modes and traits, but my point is, that they're the one and the same. What is your counter argument? That's what interests me."

The discrepancy between the green trait ("Your care and concern for Ball", the enemy) and the green SOUL mode (Just caring for YOURSELF.)

"Self-preservation is dodging magical attacks in general."

And that's all you're doing by blocking them off with the shield. To truly be kind, you must care for others. It could very well be that you only care about yourself, and this is almost certainly true in the Genocide Run.

"We're talking about soul modes here. How they affect you. For example, integrity is described by the ball game has "hopping and twirling". Is this something that people with integrity do? Well... you can't say that it's a rule."

Integrity-1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. 2. the state of being whole and undivided.

Considering that the ball game mentions "original style", it's likely the former-But do note that you decide what these principals are... Hopping and twirling was the style, in this scenario.

"No, this is what WE have to do with our soul when it's blue. The description of the traits given by the ball game literally matches what you gotta do in order to succeed."

Only sometimes. It doesn't always do this. Therefore, the theory is flawed.

"And the ball game describes green as "concern and care". Is that not how we act towards our soul when green? Do we not shield it against the incoming attacks?"

It's our own SOUL, the thing that gives us emotions. The thing that contains our determination. If our SOUL dies, we die. The same could be said about every other mode-I moved it away-I protected it! How kind of me to have my own soul jump over the bones and save my own life!

"What you said could be applied to any mode. "Staying still isn't patient. It's just self-preservation." In short, your argument is invalid."

If it can be applied to any mode, that just makes it stronger, doesn't it? My point is that the modes do not represent the traits exactly, and if we no longer single green out, the evidence is now much bigger. So I'll accept that the other traits aren't represented by their modes either. Hopping around isn't always your own, original style, after all.

"All I see is that it's not necessary to earn all the other flags in order to earn the red one, which, strangely, is described as a sum of all the other flags. I don't understand how is this supposed to prove that the flags are not talking about your fighting style, but about your personality."

How about the disrepency between the flag's definition of the green SOUL, and the actual mode that happens when Undyne turns you green?

"The ball game is ALL about the fighting style in fact."

Not always-It's about what you do to overcome an obstacle, fighting or not. Fighting styles can be an extension of personality traits, and the actual names of these traits, "kindness", ect. show a personality. Kindness isn't a fighting style, it's a personality trait-But your fighting style could extend off of that.

"So you can be kind, but without a green soul. And you can be mean, even with a green soul. This proves that soul modes change the mechanic of the battle and not your personality, yes, but it still doesn't prove that the default trait reflects one's personality. Ergo, it can still be true that humans with a green soul don't have to be kind, but just extra cautious during a battle."

There's the Red Flag, that flat-out lists the green trait as "kindness".

"Purple is actually all about being confined to a movement on strings. "Even when you felt trapped" - that's the part that's referring to this. The one about notes is rather foreshadowing the battle itself (the spiders showing you the next round)."

It's in the past-tense, not future tense.

"And as for that other one, I meant minimalizing the damage done to the soul, by shielding it. Again, these two are concepts that you cannot combine. You're either not moving, or moving hastily, or jumping, or moving on strings, or protecting yourself in place, or trying to finish the opponent asap, or just kind of moving around however you please. You cannot combine these."

Protecting yourself in place requires you to also not be moving, does it not? So, that shows that the green SOUL mode contains a little bit of the light-blue trait inside of it. That is, if the modes accurately represent the traits, or "fighting styles".

"You are the one splitting the traits into two distinct categories just because you can, not because of any discrepancy between the theory and the lore."

There IS a discrepancy-The trait is flat-out listed as "Kindness", and there's a proven distinction between care and concern for the ENEMY and fare and concern for YOURSELF. Look up the definition of kindness, and you'll see that protecting yourself isn't kindness.

"And I can show you that you can in fact make Newton's relativity principles compatible with Einstein's. How? Well, it's simple. You just use a different set of equations for each! Huzzah!"

Something similar is actually being done with quantum mechanics versus relativity. Of course, in Newton's case, all the evidence for Newton was accounted for by Einstein, so we can scratch Newton's theory. In quantum mechanics, though.. Well, they're both supported by evidence. Quantum field theory attempts to unite the two, though, and establish a relationship between the two, which is what I'm trying to do as well-SOUL traits help decide your default mode, which is only partially based off of your trait-But the mode can be changed without affecting the original source.

"You are always the one reading unnecessarily deeply into everything. You keep saying that the ball always represents the enemy. Why? It doesn't have to. Why can't it represent different things based on how the context changes?"

All evidence within the game is significant, no matter how tiny. It may seem small, but it's the same case as the one experiment that lead to quantum mechanics. All the things about quantum mechanics are based off of one observation. One. Hey, why not scrap that theory ad go back to classical physics? It's just ONE error, what's the harm in that? Why should we overcomplicate things just because of one little problem? /s

The ball represents the enemy because of what the flags themselves say. You OVERCAME the game of ball. The yellow flag describes it as a "mayhem", for example.

"Now, there's of course no reason to think that soul power is DT, but there's in fact no proof that soul power is a stand-alone trait (and therefore not DT) either."

Soul power is NOT a trait. It's just how much power your SOUL has. There are only seven (eight if you count the white magic SOUL) traits.

And for the proof that it's not the same as DT, that's further down-It's the whole Asriel Dreemurr thing.

"But as of right now, it seems more reasonable to think that soul power is simply the measurement of the power of a soul, and that it depends on determination for the most part."

Except for the part about determination, I agree with you. It IS simply the measurement of the power of a SOUL.

"Well, humans have no magic, right? They've been described as having water instead of magic. And yet, Omega Flowey successfully used them to cast powerful spells. I think their raw strength has the power to buff ordinary magic. It could serve as an amplifier."

An alternate explanation could be that humans DO have magic, but just can't represent themselves with magic. The barrier was created with a magic spell. Humans CAN use magic. They just can't represent themselves with it-They'll never have a bullet pattern. It's exactly what the book said, without taking an uncalled for logical leap saying humans literally can't even HAVE magic. But, yours works too, and it's what I use to explain Omega Flowey-I kind of use a hybrid-They don't have magic on their own, but can turn some of a certain "SOUL magic", directly proportional to SOUL power, into magic. That both explains the barrier, and what Omega Flowey did, AND why humans can't represent themselves through magic, or, say, have a white SOUL.

"I'm not sure what's there to be explained. And what do you mean by "the void"?"

Omega Flowey crashes your game after absorbing the six SOULS, and when you load Flowey's save, you're in a black void. That's the void I mean, and that's what I need explaining. There's a lone SAVE point there, and when you try to use it, Flowey erases your SAVE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMviLrvhb1A

"I meant our own HUD."

We can see Flowey's HUD in the Omega Flowey battle, where we basically swap roles with Flowey in terms of determination.

"Saying stuff like Sans being proof that turns are real is the same as saying that their world cannot be "real", just because some Froggit knows about the "F4" option."

The same Froggit says he doesn't know what "F4" even means, nor does he know what a "full screen" is-Though one could argue this "full screen" is yet another reference to the HUD.

"Really, it'll be for the best if we come up with an explanation for everything that isn't so "meta"."

Yeah, it would. But the explanation still needs to explain EVERYTHING. Your logic right there is why I argue Flowey was talking about Chara.

"As for the rest, it directly implies that everything is in a videogame, just like the Froggits mentioning the F4 button on your keyboard."

No, it implies there are buttons Frisk has to press to do certain actions. And the Froggits never outright state it's a button on your keyboard-In fact, they assume it means "four frogs!" (Maybe it actually does in canon!)

"Either you acknowledge that this game is self-aware, or you disregard ALL of it by coming up with an alternative explanation for everything and then say that it isn't."

OR, we come up with an alternative explanation for as much as we can, without directly contradicting canon info. That's what I do. If you can give a CANON explanation to my evidence of the HUD being real, WITHOUT CHANGING it, I'll convert over. Just like I did with Flowey, you'll have to explain all of his lines from THAT narrative.

"Usually, as it goes for this game, everything has a "primary" meta explanation, and then a "secondary/alternative" logical one. Either you stick only to the primary ones (which you did for the HUD), or only to the secondary ones (like you did with Flowey talking about someone watching)."

Or, you stick with the second one, unless doing so contradicts canon info, in which case you move on to the first one. And doing this reveals that the HUD exists, but as a law of physics, and not as any kind of "code". Besides, you give away Frisk's SOUL in the SOUL exchange, so we can't just say the whole "player is a separate entity" thing is canon and that Chara's aware of that. And we've already established that Sans shows no awareness that he's in a video game, and we have the whole paradox you mentioned.

Simply put it-Evidence shows the world's not canonically code, but it also shows that the HUD exists. I'm just going with whatever the evidence says.

"And about that evidence, first, where was that? I'd need a source."

It's flavor text during Sans' Genocide Battle. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6gS2LPXdIc5WGpwa3VxYloySkE

"And there's no instance of a save file being straight up deleted, so I'd rather not assume that it's possible."

There IS an instance-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMviLrvhb1A

"And about the LV, yes. But wouldn't no data rather show null?"

Sometimes, whether it's due to errors or not, 0 represents null. This ha lead to problems before, though, for example, the "Null Island".

"Or maybe, that was the default level of violence, so when it loaded to LV1, it indicated that the one who this save belonged to gained one level already."

EXP still says 0. So you do start at LV1-Otherwise, you'd have already gained some EXP when you LV up to 1.

"You said the opposite. That they DID somehow save on the surface. Read your own texts more carefully."

I presented it as another possibility to debunk. And I did debunk directly below that.

"It's not circular reasoning if you prove the same point by assuming it is true."

What they did was this:A is true (Fallen could save and LOAD). Therefore, B is true. (No SAVE and LOAD on the surface). But what did they use to prove that A was true? B! That's circular reasoning-You described argument by assertion, which is what happens when there's only one term-A is true because A is true.

"If you meant one of your proofs by that, then I may have missed that."

Considering that you thought I was actually saying that humans could SAVE and LOAD on the Surface, you did miss that-It was directly below that statement.

"So she indeed implied that she had the same experience with the other humans, not that they reminded her of Chara."

Or, the fact that she guessed it right, as if she already knew us, reminded her, and gave her the opportunity to tell us that she feels like she already knows them. When would she do this otherwise, in the middle of her stories about snails? She's a person too, and monsters have some of the same biases that we do. Think of her like a person, and you'll understand it more. Want a hint? Let's just say bringing up random trivia in a place where it's uncalled for/irrelevant isn't usually something people do, or like others doing. Same can be said for Toriel.

(it's still more plausible than some theory involving Sans; I mean, this one is already clicking into place without any problems).

Asgore knowing about the HUD, however, is more complex.. Unless you use that theory involving Sans.