Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31536324-20190117214835/@comment-32182236-20190210030828

"Tl;dr: red must be the sum of the other 6 traits and Frisk must have it and nothing else in all routes.

That is the basic premise given by the game."

Exactly. And because of this, we must build our hypothesis off of this information.

"This line can also be interpreted as putting an end to the ball, whose property is mayhem."

It's the mayhem of BALL, not the Ball of Mayhem. Important difference.

"But in either case, the conclusion is technically the same: stopping some form of chaos, which does agree with the definition of the word "justice", a synonym for "order", which is an antonym to "chaos", "mayhem"."

Exactly.

orderly system is the only way to achieve such surefire accuracy

"But this is implying that if mayhem is present, it is impossible to achieve a surefire accuracy."

Your property isn't mayhem. The mayhem is what you're trying to stop. YOUR orderly system fights against the mayhem. Saying you can't achieve surefire accuracy because you're fighting against mayhem is like saying you can't play chess intelligently because your opponent is as smart as a Flat-Earther. YOUR strategtic, orderly system combats the mayhem.

"I.e. it is impossible for the yellow trait to manifest itself when it is said it should. But again, an unimportant nitpick. I'm sure this is not what you meant."

Hopefully I clarified myself better.

"This can also be interpreted as stubbornness, to a certain degree. Considering the keyword here is "integrity", it implies we're talking about stubbornness in morals, that is, the unwillingness to take compromises (which coincidentally fits Toriel's character, who, as Sans described, has integrity; so maybe I'm on the right track with this one). So, not exactly creativity as you've then said below, but yes, creativity is also one of the elements of this trait, because of the aforementioned "original style". So, combining these three keywords together, we get: stubbornness in creativity and morality. Kinda sloppy, but that's the best I can do right now."

Think of Justice as the orderly system, and Integrity being what principals to BASE your system off of-Your original style. And this is still different from perseverarnce:I'll just compare the three for you.

Justice:The system of order-Putting an end to mayhem, the laws you wish to enforce

Integrity:Your style of action, the principals you wish to make. This is more about creating things than actually building them.

Perseverance:Trial-and-error:FINDING things by trial-and-error, etc.

"Purple is probably the most divergent when it comes to its fanon definitions. Some view it as something very close to determination itself, and some as an innate love for literature. I'd leave it for later to see which definition is more fitting after we sort the rest out."

I simply ignore the fanon and build my own canon based on what the game says. Literature has nothing to do with it, and I combined both statements to make something that fits. Trial-and error combines the "determination" aspect of it with the analytical aspect. But we can do this.. As long as you're excluding the red trait when you say "the rest", because we need this trait to find out the red one.

"Specifically, the problem of getting the ball to the hole. It's important to figure out what kind of other problems this actually translates to."

They all mention an obstacle of some kind, so the logical conclusion is to say they're methods of overcoming obstacles.

"We could be speaking of an enemy, and therefore the situation being a fighting style (a preferred method of resolving conflicts), or of something more psychological, like simply your daily behavior. Or perhaps your behavior under heavy stress."

It's any obstacle in general. It needs not be an enemy, just an obstacle. It can even be something like winning a game, or surviving getting stranded on an island.

"Once again, assuming the ball is an enemy, something to act hostile towards, is where we might be making our mistake. Since it's not actually said that the ball is an enemy."

The Yellow flag makes it clear that the ball is an enemy. And since it's now canon that the ball is an enemy, then the ball is an enemy. So the Green Flag means an enemy.

"It could be perceived as an enemy by those more energetic traits, which do use brute force to win over it. But using their conclusion to streamline the conclusion of the other traits is wrong."

The other traits already have this conclusion. You've got it backwards:I'm using the streamlined conclusion of the other traits to find out what green is.

"It usually goes hand in hand. I'd for example assume that empathy is not present only when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, I'd keep it. Besides, we didn't just pay attention to the ball, we were being specifically delicate when handling it, to obtain this flag. So rather than attention, I think we are speaking concretely about the kind of care that tries to minimize damages."

Perhaps, but do note that we still attempted and succeeded in winning. Minimal damage is not playing at all. So we can't say compassion is the MAIN aspect of green.

"I'd rather not try to connect the personality of the monsters to their specific chromatic attacks, since it's not implied, and since they don't really fit anyways, especially Undyne."

Passion fits. It fitting Undyne was just a bonus that I realized after the fact.

After all, Sans' trait isn't integrity-Oh wait, he's creatively abusing the rules.. Okay, well Papyrus isn't:Oh, he's all about praising himself and trying to achieve perfection.. But that's not creative..

Well, Mettaton doesn't fit, because he just wants his fans! If Papyrus is integrity, so must Mettaton! ...But the yellow trait came from Alphys' phone. And Alphys is a scientist. ...Which should be purple!

..Okay, so they kind of fit. But not absolutely, so we can abolish this correlation between and mode-changing attacks and the trait of the user.. Unless someone finds a way to make it fit better.

"It could also be just the type of behavior of the attack itself, if we were to treat it like a living being (as silly as it may look). Note: this is not what I did when I mentioned Toriel. I only mentioned her, because she displayed something that Sans said she has, that coincidentally also appears as the name of a trait that closely matches her. Not because of anything that has to do with her fighting style."

Mine was also just a bonus, but it fits better than yours, because styles here better fit the traits.

"True, but Undyne's passion is for battles. Compassion is "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering," (according to dictionary.com) so the two aren't equal in this instance. Unless you compare the misfortune to us being a human, and the desire being Undyne's desire to take our soul."

Compassion is a subset. A subset means just that-A SUBSET. Passion is a set, and the set of compassion is contained within that set. Not all passion is compassion, but all compassion is passion. Capiche?

"However, that only brings more suffering, actual physical suffering, and removes only one small issue that is causing no actual physical harm. So it depends on whether you define compassion with, or without any exceptions. If without, then this cannot work. If with, then that's subpar to compassion without exceptions, and yet, here we're speaking of this exceptional version in the context of the trait of kindness, which goes to imply that kindness isn't actually the kindest trait (I mean, you'd expect the name of the trait to also match its own description, rather than some smaller subset of it, right?)"

As I said, here, kindness is care and concern, which does fit one of the definitions used. We do have to use some creative thinking, but it still technically fits, even though we probably don't use the word that way. Besides, since compassion is a subset of passion, compassionate people will find themselves with a green trait most of the time. (Not always though, see:Pacifist Frisk.. But since red is just the other six combined..)

We can't say that green is classical kindness as you define it. Remember, red is a combination of all six traits. So that means Frisk has the green traits.. On ALL routes. Including Genocide.

So unless you can show how GENOCIDE can still be kindness, I'm going to continue to deny green being the empathetic kind of kindness.

"Yes, Frisk demonstrates it. But considering the proof that all humans had the same abilities as Frisk concerning the timey wimey mumbo jumbo, I'd not give it to Frisk just yet. It's a very close tie. We could also do two things here: fight about the validity of this proof, or fight about Frisk's supposedly unique ability to refuse and its impact towards the uniqueness of their trait and their nature, compared to the other humans. Or even both at the same time."

Both are important. But we do need to find out where to start.

"that Frisk's refuse ability is unique, and that it's enough for their soul to gain the DT title,"

The refuse ability is actually not necessary for my argument. It simply means that Frisk has more DT than they did before, which can separately be proven based on Asriel's line about regaining control of the timeline, proving we still have it. And I can't solidly claim the others can't use REFUSE yet:They never were put in a situation like Asriel that would bump their DT to that spot. We'd first have to assume that red is DT, so that's just circular reasoning at this point. But if anyone has a way of getting around this catch-22, they can reply.

"Ergo, this is not a place to draw solid conclusions, due to a lack of info. You could use other deciding factors to choose one, or just choose one based on a head canon and then hope to develop something bigger that won't contradict itself later on, which is what I've done essentially (since I've found no other deciding factors). And imo, I haven't really stumbled upon any significant contradictions yet, hence why I'm sticking with it."

I still cite the Asriel paradox.

"It's as if the more logical interpretations of certain uncertainities in the plot don't align with each other, so you gotta take one and sacrifice the other."

Not necessarily. I've taken both and sacrificed none, and I haven't run into any contradictions.

"I've chosen to sacrifice the DT = red head canon in favor of something more plain, because I disliked the notion that Frisk is the "chosen one" or whatever. I hated to place that burden upon them in my works."

They're not. Any SOUL of determination can do this, and I headcanon that it's a 1 in 7 chance. I haven't done any real calculations yet, (I can't, because all I have is a sample size of 8, which is very small), so I won't use it in my theories, but this is my current hypothesis.

"But really, if there's only one type of DT that does fluctuate, then what does keep the souls constant in power? I actually can't continue talking here, because I forgot what your argument for this was. Can you fill me in?"

It's SOUL power. You know, the thing mentioned by the Waterfall plaques? It's something completely different, that determines your POWER. Not HP or durability, but POWER.

HP≠ATK

SOUL POWER≠DT

"Furthermore, Asriel's battle is once again one of those variables that can have different explanations based on how you interpret it, based on your head canons. Specifically, this time it's about the canonity of the meta, and the deal with plot holes. What is a plot hole and what isn't? Can we make plot holes canon, should we fix them, or should we disregard them completely? And then the same questions once more, but with Toby's perspective factored in."

We should ALWAYS fix them. We should never disregard them.

"Me personally: Us managing to force a reload by restarting the game during Asriel's battle IS a plot hole, since it doesn't "feel" right, considering the meaning of the buildup towards this battle, and considering that it's not actually acknowledged by Flowey."

Asriel's line would like to argue against you.

"Variable points arise when the game is vague about its own mechanics. And a whole new dimension of questions pops up when you start tinkering with the meta as being possibly canon."

We just need to take all the evidence that we've got, and form a conclusion that fits ALL the evidence. ALL of it. The Dirty Hacker Ending is noncanon simply because we can't access it, and secondly because it results in clear contradicts.

"My interpretation was that red can be anything that doesn't fit the other 6 traits. That's how I've explained the 2nd flag to myself."

But you need to simultaneously explain the 1st. You can't pick and choose, or flip-flop.

"Also, this reminds me of one cuckoo that I'm currently arguing with on Tumblr. His arguments are good, but he often resorts to "why didn't Toby write THAT then?" I hope we can avoid such arguments here."

As long as you don't directly go AGAINST what was said, it's fine. Toby can keep secrets, and some things are meant for us to discover for ourselves. But if you blatantly contradict what was said, your theory has a problem.

"Actually, could we avoid constantly taking everything so literally in general? I'm tired of arguing about semantics already. Yes, they're important, but we're never gonna reach a conclusion."

We are, if we BOTH use them correctly. Just use proper grammar!

"Especially when we start pulling other arguments and facts into the debate, hoping to clear up the meaning of the word(s) that way. Because then we introduce more flip flaps that we can argue are with or against our theses and just end up complicating the entire equation. And instead of one day happening to introduce some final deciding factor, we're gonna introduce one that we've already introduced before, just forgot about it, and we're stuck in a circle. That's how it always happens. It's our collective inability to focus on more than one logical variable that nearly drove us mad."

I suppose that's true. Hopefully my reboot of this argument will help us out.

"You are a step ahead of me I see."

I decided to respond to some arguments you made on the last thread as well. I didn't predict your arguments, I used your arguments from the prior thread. :3

"But here's where I'm a step ahead of you, the talk about quantifying these traits. That's where it all suddenly gets very complicated and where we all can make up ad hoc reasons as for why it's this percentage and not the other one."

I don't plan on going over HOW they're quantifiable for right now, for the reasons you stated-Just that they ARE. What is worth how much delves us right into moral philosophy, and unfortunately, we don't have a concrete answer.. Even in real life!

"Just the notion that these traits are quantifiable is a head canon on its own to begin with, as I've mentioned above."

If DT is the seventh trait, then DT is the combination of the six before it. And DT is physical. Thus, it must be composed of the other six, and therefore, they are physical as well. And thus, quantifiable. Done.

Now to see if DT is the seventh trait to see whether the conclusion can follow.

"What if the soul just picks a color by reading and analyzing the mind of the human at birth? While that could result in inaccurate predictions, I mostly dislike the idea that the human nature is dictated by some 7 fluids which logically cannot give you every possible type of a human personality."

It's not. I've said in this thread that the 7 traits are indeed an effect, not a cause, and while more personality traits exist, they are irrelevant to the SOUL color, and thus, are not counted. (Plus they can all be a combination of the others)

"How do you express negative behavioral factors?"

As a lack of the former. Impatience is a lack of patience. As I said, if you can wait even 1 Planck Time, you have some patience.

"How do you express factors which are not even included in these 7, and NOT just by saying that they are a subset of one of the 7 (because how would you then distinguish between the trait itself and one of its subsets, how would you quantize which one is more dominant?)"

In the case of the SOUL, the six traits ARE the dominant ones. The rest just add TO said traits, based on what they are. A square still counts as a rectangle, after all, so compassion still counts as passion, for example.