Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-26006155-20200112230906

Ambassador, from Part 2: -The narrator refers to themselves by the name we choose for the Fallen Human, thinking that this was actually our avatar in the game. -The narrator learns from what the player is doing in real time. They learn what Water Sausages are after we read about them. They thing Monster Candy tastes like Licorish, until we try it, and find that it doesn't. -The narrator is not all-knowing because the Player isn't all-knowing either. -The encounters with the Amalgamates are so horrifying that the narrator could be going off the deep end a bit being sarcastic. -Chara and the Player are clearly linked. And the game may assume that, as we were Chara, and had a story the existed long before Frisk arrived, that Chara is remembering things that we should know, like when they arrived in New Home.
 * Premise 1:There exists a narrator in Undertale
 * Premise 2:The narrator refers to themselves with the name "Chara".
 * Premise 3:The narrator mistakenly assumes that we asked an Amalgamate why it's even alive.
 * Conclusion 1:By P3, The narrator is not all-knowing
 * Premise 4:If the narrator gets our actions wrong, the narrator cannot be the player, nor an omniscient third-person narrator.
 * Conclusion 2:By P3 and P4, the narrator is not the player,

Who Chara is depends on what we do.

If we act like a good person, we get to save Chara's soul that's still residing in Asriel, and fix its damaged ability to feel Compassion.

If we act like a terrible person, then Chara takes over, and emulates us by killing everyone.. including the Player. Taking our soul is a trophy for restarting the game.

Chara is, at the very least, an analogy for the Player.