Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27997069-20160317174518/@comment-28064260-20160331080122

GetYourFix wrote: The Chara that occurs in Frisk's timeline... I respect your articulated effort. However, that's really just a description of what happens in the game. The question isn't how Chara is revived, that's easy to explain with determination. The important question is how does Chara change from a separate npc to a part of the player? If we appeal to suspension of disbelief, then why Chara? Why use a different character to become a part of the player, instead of just using a corrupted version of the player character (or even a corrupted version of the player, if Toby is hardcore about metafiction)? It can be easily done without any confusion, like shadow from the Persona series. That's direct, simple, and works better (also doesn't need extra settings). By using Chara for this role, it creates unnecessary complexity about how much Chara is being him/herself, and how much Chara is a part of the player. If this question is unanswered, then the conclusion is simply that Chara magically becomes a part of the player (reanimation is irrelevant, as that's revival, not becoming a part of the player). So far this thread has only described Chara's change to become a part of the player, not explaining how. The why question is also unanswered.

Isthereaplace wrote: Frisk and Chara are the part where information is left to the player's imagination. They don't create plot holes, what is revealed about them is still enough for a consistent story. In fact, there are more details than needed. We get to know that Chara hated humankind, and that gave way to a persistent opinion of them being evil(ish), or sociopath(ic). The plot hole I'm concerned about is that without a good theory to fill the gap, the conclusion purely based upon in-game content is that Chara, a separate entity, magically becomes a part of the player in genocide. Please read my response to GetYourFix for further details of my thoughts.