Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-36097492-20180901023019/@comment-34871600-20180923021255

TheHumanAmbassador wrote: Once again, how am I, as Frisk, supposed to know that monsters don't want to absorb human SOULs, when all the info I have is that those who enter never return, that humans won a battle against them, and by the time I read the Waterfall plaques, we already know Asgore wants to kill me and destroy humanity?

When you make your judgements, please act like you're talking to the GENOCIDE Frisk, not someone who played the Neutral Route first. Because that's exactly the role I'm taking right now. Why spare the enemy, after all? Just attack them on Turn 1, kill them all!! Stuff that requires knolwedge only gained through Neutral Route, I shouldn't be responsible for, because I killed everyone before I'd gain that piece of info. Genocide was the FIRST option. Unless you can give a reason why I should have spared them and START with Neutral, instead of playing Genocide this is baseless. Tell me where and when I should have stopped my fighting against the monsters, and tell me where I demonstrated a desire to kill off the entire world, rather than just monsterkind. Remember, you are to assume my first run was Genocide, maning I did not experience Pacifist or even Neutral before I went full-on genocide. (My LOVE is just that high.) Go on. Go through that route in isolation, and find out where I'm onviously evil rather than trying to vanquish the "darkness" that is monsterkind.

Yes, I eradicated the monsters. I will not deny this. I will also not deny that this means no more enemies-World is saved, after all, that's the whole plot of an RPG. Their problem is taking the fact that I destroyed what I thought of as my mortal enemy, and then extrapolated that and said I wanted to destroy the world. No, I wanted to SAVE the world, Chara! What's wrong with a world without enemies? I still have allies on the Surface!

Also, I have no problem with the second genocide run (at least not alone-There is a problem when linked with the post-geno pacifist ending) My problems are with the destruction of the world, the SOUL exchange, and the post-genocide pacifist ending. I talked about the first, the second is that we have your typical selling your soul to a demon (specifically, the one who comes when you call their name), and the third is linked to the second-Where they posess you and pretty much kill everyone, going against their so-called merciful principals (like when they say maybe you should do a pacifist in the second genocide ending. This is the "problem" with the second genocide run I was referring to)

Of course I'm no real hero, and the monsters aren't actually evil. But reasonably, someone could believe this in the context of the game's story. Frisk could believe this. That in their warped mentality, they're doing humanity a favor. This is what I was trying to capture. No desire to destroy the world. THAT'S my point, making Chara destroying the world "because of us" baseless.

The problem isn't proving that killing the monsters is wrong. It is wrong. It's proving that A:Frisk should have KNOWN it was wrong, and B:That killing them somehow tells Chara they want to kill EVERYTHING, and not just the monsters.

So, if you want to prove me wrong, then show how Frisk's actions NECCESITATE that they want to destroy the world, rather than this just being them trying to save humanity, making them just like the humans who attacked at first (well, technically a LOT worse, because killing is far worse than banishment, but hopefully you get the idea) Chances are, this would be the justification I'd give to Chara. How do you think Chara would respond to this? If we were allowed to try to justify our actions and say we never intended the world to get destroyed, and I gave this as my justification, that monsters clearly seemed to be the bad guys for me to kill to save humanity, what do you think the response would be?

Of course you're to assume I chose "DO NOT" in the erase question. And that I ONLY did Genocide at this point.

Oh, and it could also just be monster racism. Still not literally wanting to destroy everything, but still evil and wrong. Just not enough to justify Chara destroying the world and saying that was our fault. It's less me trying to say Frisk is innocent, and more me saying that Chara was needlessly cruel and evil. I can't iterate this enough:'I'm not saying Frisk's actions weren't wrong. They were.' I'm saying they don't justify Chara's actions:Therefore, Chara is (also) evil. Don't forget that LV corrupted Chara too. You are right, but Chara was corrputed by LV too much, and that made them evil. As sans said, the more you gain LV, the more you distance yourself, and thus the less you will hurt (inside), the more you can bring yourself to hurt others. You were right, but you just forgot that little detail.