Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-29788596-20160906011125/@comment-37385627-20200210181629

TheHumanAmbassador wrote: Then tell me what aspects of it would led Chara to wish to kill every human, every human child, baby?. I know many misanthropes but i never heard of a misanthrope wishing to kill every human. It's also implied that Chara hate humanity as whole and that can individually like them such as Frisk. Perhaps they simply wish to destroy humanity as a society? Even still, it's clear that they're after the monsters, and there's a reason why they wanted to get through the Barrier.

That basically means you think they are pure evil as EVERYONE can change as long as they have good left. We call in tvtropes Rousseau Was Right arguing that if an individual was TURNED into a bad person by their experiences then it's possible to turn them back to good. After all, humans are CULTURAL individuals influenced by their experiences.

How do we know they haven't crossed the Moral Event Horizon?

I'm not saying they have, and I did specifically say that's possible they get saved sometime after a Pacifist Run. But they can't be saved during a Pacifist Run. Otherwise, they wouldn't turn evil in Soulless.

(By the way, if they did cross the Event Horizon, that just means they can't be redeemed. It doesn't mean that they're a Complete Monster. Of course, if you read the Event Horizon page, you'll figure that out.)

As a result, if they do get saved in Pacifist, it must happen sometime after the ending-After the point that we load from when Flowey tells us not to reset. Because by resetting and doing Genocide, we're undoing that. And we know from Soulless runs that Chara does recall previous timelines.

That way, the Soulless Endings still make sense, without Chara being irredeemable. It would be possible to save them, but that event simply never happens, as Chara does their thing before getting a chance to be saved.

And Undertale is the game where even FLOWEY can change and Chara isn't even nearly as bad as Flowey

Which is why I said they're not pure evil to begin with.

And Chara is a child at this thus very suggestible. EVERY real life kid CAN CHANGE because its how psycology works.

Chara was Soulless, though. And remember how they hated humanity? Why would they go around with Frisk?

Chara hates humanity. So they'd see your evil actions as further evidence that humans are bad. Not go along with it.

If they went along with it, there had to have been a very good reason for it. My hypothesis on that reason is because what you're doing happens to get them what they want. That's why they help you on Genocide, encouraging you to continue on, and preventing you from accidentally aborting the route..

While doing next to nothing in Pacifist.

It's inaccurate to say that we can't redeem a freaking child in a game like Undertale that use Rousseau was right as the main trope.

But how do we know that trope's in Undertale? TVTropes isn't always accurate:Did you know that originally, TVTropes' main canon was that Chara was... an irredeemable villain? That's what you were supposed to assume when making entries.

It's accurate for determining what a trope is, but when it comes to determining what works have what tropes, it can be quite inaccurate.

Also who know maybe you don't save Chara during Asriel battle because they are already saved? They helped a HUMAN after all, refusing to let monsters kill them and destroy humanity.

Wasn't that Frisk? I don't see how Chara sided with that.

They treat Frisk rather well in pacifist and neutral runs, teasing them, describing stuff to them, giving them options, helping to understand monsters, making poems to them "a cotton heart and a button eye, you're the apple of my eye", affectionately describing them in mirrors "it's you!" "despite everything it's still you". You can't deny the fact that the narrator is warm and optimistic in pacifist/neutral runs. Flowey even state that the pacifist end is the only one where Chara has "nothing left to worry about" implying that it's the only run where Chara find peace.

..Wasn't the poem for the DUMMY? And how is an "it's you" affectionate? It's not like we hear their tone or anything... For all we know, they meant something like:"It's YOU".

In other words, they dont need to be saved because they are already saved. They are already "reedemed". They have their own arc in the game and just because it's subtle doesn't mean it's real because everything about Chara us subtle and never explicit.

We at least need to see it before just assuming that it exists.

Anyone seen a china teapot near Mars, by the way? I hear Russel's been looking for it.

It's too small for our telescopes to detect it, by the way.

Flowey was EVEN worse yet he was still reedemable. Chara also only kills 6 people on the surface and thats because Frisk no longer deserve their happy ending.

Didn't Frisk change, though?

Is everyone redeemable or not? Does everyone deserve forgiveness or not?

If everyone should get the benefit of the doubt, that includes Frisk, and saying we don't deserve the happy ending is wrong.

If that's not the case, then the fact that Chara destroyed the world and their other evil antics show that they don't deserve a happy ending either.

And even if Frisk didn't deserve a happy ending, the six monsters that were killed do.

Yet they still let to true reset and try another run.

Where everyone dies again. And it could be that since the world's not destroyed, we still have the ability on our own. Who knows?

And why are you saying that nothing will stop Chara from killing everyone if you did the genocide run? I dunno the neutral run is still an option and Chara doesn't kill everyone here.

Perhaps it's because we never make it past the Barrier?

Frisk never answers the phone, so we really don't know what happens after the Neutral Ending.

Flowey even implies that everything is fine on the surface despite the fact you had the photo of Chara with Frisk's friends with X mark.

X marks only mean you intend on killing the target. It doesn't mean you already have. I place the actual deaths after the ending, after the point where Flowey would tell us everything is fine.

After you never even see Frisk in the credits until the end of it so who knows, maybe Chara has replaced Frisk?

We do see Frisk. It's Chara we don't see until the end, as that's what it looks like when Frisk actually IS possessed.

When Frisk is possessed, their form changed to look like Chara. That's one of the reasons why we know they weren't possessed all those other times, like when they skipped Papyrus' puzzles.

After all, there's a reason why Chara does nothing on the surface and wait until the last scene where Frisk is normally on the screen, implying that it's really just a guilt trip tactic. And we aren't even sure why Chara let Frisk's friends to pose for the photo with them if they always planned to kill them.

Perhaps they intended to do it one by one, just like Frisk did...

So yeah even this scene can be interpreted in different ways and thus we shouldn't jump into conclusions for what Chara does to other monsters and humans because we aren't even sure what they do to Frisk's friends.

Considering that they destroy the world when plenty of safe monsters exist in the True Lab, it's clear they don't care about the monsters anymore by the time the Genocide Route is over.

And what led you to believe that Chara isnt already reedemed in the game? Why would they be reedemed AFTER the end of the game? Whats the point of this ?

I already explained why their redeeming, if there, must be after the end of the game.

No Occam Razor has nothing to do with this.

It leans towards it.. Compared to the other option I gave.

Theres no evidences that both of the worlds are destroyed in the souless pacifist end.


 * Premise 1:Chara destroys the underground world in Genocide Ending, even though there are plenty of living monsters (Fact)
 * Conclusion 1:Chara's fine with killing innocent monsters (I mean, they literally did just that.)
 * Premise 2:Chara hates humanity (Asriel makes this very clear)
 * Premise 3:Chara either doesn't hate monsters, or does, but hates them less than humans (If it's false, well there goes your interpretation of Chara)
 * Premise 4:If Chara's fine with killing innocents, then they'd also be fine with killing the guilty. (I mean, why wouldn't they?)
 * Conclusion 2:As a result, Chara would wish to kill the humans as well, as they think humans are worse than monsters. (If the think they're even, the same reasoning still applies.)
 * Conclusion 3:Thus, it's likely both worlds end up getting destroyed, and nearly certain that humanity gets killed alongside the monsters.

Everyone is even fine until the end of the game.

Has Chara gained 20LV yet?

LV is what allowed Chara to act on their on in the Sans fight. They're going to have to kill a few monsters first.. Like the ones they X'd out.

If we assume that Chara destroy humans on the surface, we not only have to assume they always had unlterier motives but also that dying somehow gave them super mary sue powers allowing them to physically destroy all humans while they never show this kind of powers in the game and Flowey died too and it did not give him any special powers.

We DO see similar powers. The powers that were used to destroy the underground.

Super powers already exist. So what can we derive from these powers? And where may they have came from?

Occam razor isnt on your side because your theory purely rely on speculation with no actual evidences. We have to assume too many things to consider this possibility. Not only that but we also have to ignore Charas own words when they say that they feel "obligated" to "suggest" you another run implying that they don't have any ulterior motives for suggesting you another run as they feel obligated to do this and that they don't even try to convince to do another run, just "suggest" another one, showing that there's nothing personal here otherwise they would make more efforts to convince us to try to do another run instead of simply "suggesting" it.

I mean, if we do another Genocide Run, it's as if we never took the offer in the first place..

And perhaps they do feel obligated to suggest it. We already messed up the first time, by just doing another Genocide Run, rather than just doing a Pacifist Run because that's the missing ending. So maybe they feel that they HAVE to suggest it for us to even get that we need to do that.

And I have explained where these premises came from.

We have to ignore the fact that Chara accuse us for destroying the world and that it was merely a mean to end.

It WAS a means to an end.

We have to assume that Chara only destroys the underground.

I did give an alternate explanation that involves both worlds being destroyed. That's the one that requires that Chara would rather give them a painful death than just erasing them, much as Chara did to Flowey.

We do have to assume one of these things, but it doesn't matter which. I'm taking the "only the underground was destroyed" path, though. The Surface was specifically referred to as another world, after all. So when Chara destroys "the world", singular, then merely the Underground is a reasonable interpretation-And both worlds being destroyed is an assumption.

We have to ignore the fact that Chara let Frisk remain in control despite having their soul and despite the fact that Frisk can simply not carry Chara "plan" (if they had any)

Genocide:Monsters get killed, and Frisk is forced to restart.

Neutral:Either Frisk is still forced to restart because they can't cross the Barrier, or the Barrier is crossed, meaning Chara has the chance to destroy humanity anyway.

Pacifist:Humanity can get destroyed.

That's what we call a win/win/win for Chara. Or, on TVTropes, a Xanatos Gambit.

We have to assume that Chara destroy the surface on neutral endings despite the fact that theres no evidences of that.

OR, that Frisk never crosses the Barrier in that ending, which is supported by the fact that we still get to meet Flowey.

We have to ignore the fact that Chara doesnt kill monsters in souless neutral endings.

We're not sure WHAT Chara does in those endings. But considering that Flowey shows up to railroad us to the Pacifist Route, it's likely Chara's steering us towards that route.

We have to make too much assumptions to consider this possibility so its not Occam Razor.

Less than half of the things you stated are assumptions we need to make. Only around half are statements we need to accept, and many of those are facts from the game itself, or can be derived from the facts.

And what led you to believe that Chara necessary have a master plan?? Why cant you just rule with Chara says and accept that they simply "suggest" (not force you or order you) you to take another path because they feel "obligated" to because its pointless to kill everyone all over again?

If they just thought killing everyone again was pointless, they wouldn't X everyone out in Soulless Pacifist, hinting that, guess what... They plan on killing everyone all over again.

Its also never implied that Chara wanted to be on the surface and its not even implied that they know Frisk would succeed at leaving the underground.

Two possibilities


 * 1) Frisk reaches the Surface on a Neutral Run. As a result, if you take "another path", as Chara suggests, you're on the Surface. So Chara did want to be on the Surface.
 * 2) Frisk does not reach the Surface on a Neutral Run. Which is where Flowey comes into play, and the form of my argument that assumes Frisk didn't reach the Surface applies.

And they only kill 6 monsters and all of them are Frisks friends (they dont even kill Flowey) meaning that it has to do something with punishment, not with personal motives.

Yet they don't do anything to US?!

It only counts as a punishment if we actually do care for them. If we do care for them, we've reformed, and don't deserve the punishment. If we don't care for them, then we haven't reformed, but that punishment will do nothing to us, and is thus ineffective, and Chara should have done something to US instead, while leaving the monsters intact.

You're assuming too many things regarding their motives while they mostly have the "i dont care do whatever you want but accept consequences" attitude as showed by their passivity and dialogue. This is not how a psycopath having the plan to kill everyone would behave.

They're more of a misanthrope. They want to kill these people not "For the Evulz", but because they think said people deserve to die.

And X's don't mean "these aren't yours, they're MINE", it means "these SHOULDN'T BE HERE" or "These are not allowed". Chara could have easily given us that interpretation by replacing Frisk.. While not doing a thing about the monsters.

I agree with this persom