I have killed every single boss I have speak to Sans in every location but whenever I talk to him in the strange temple thing it does not let me fight him I’ve tried saving and exiting but it still doesn’t work please help

Please tell me so far I have 50 and it’s not letting me fight him

Which Undertale part made you shed a few tears or bawled loudly, or at least gave you an aura of total depression?

For me, I just sat through the part where Mettaton EX got phone calls from his fans and ran out of batteries and that made me sooooo sad. Listening to Undertale (the song in New Home) didn't even help. :'(

I see that this Wiki is very strict about posting and i want to know where i can post AUs here

Sometimes when I'm on Fourms, the comments multiply when they are actually just normal comments. This also happens with other wikis.

I Killed Toriel And Muffet But Didnt Kill Papyrus And Undyne Im Still Progressing

I mean with sheer honesty and from objective point of view.Whether you like or not.

For example, i think this title easily goes to Asgore though my favorite one is still Asriel.

So, you ever wonder why Undyne wears an eye patch? Did she lose an eye? Is it just to look intimidating? Well, you know how she tried to fight ASGORE when she was a kid? Couldn't land a single hit on him? Well, this is a bit gruesome, but I think she fell on her spear when she was a kid, and ripped her eye out. AND, if you look at her Undying form, she is missing an eye, so it can't be just to look cool. I don't have much evidence to back myself up, but I think it's a valid explanation.

Also what category do theories go in?

Its cool how undertale can tell the time AND weather ect: Sun, mon. Moon, Tue. Its cool, right?

(NOTE: THE TIME AND WEATHER ONLY SHOWS UP IN THE PAPYRUS DATE)

Why does wiki say Asreil's Relationships

• Toriel (mother)

• Asgore (father)

When asreil has a relationship with chara?

I'd like to see what sorts of theories people believe regarding the player, Frisk, and the first fallen human, aka Chara. Maybe I'm just nostalgic for the discussions we used to have around 2015/2016, dunno.

My main inspiration for this post is the following essay; read it if you want to see an even more in-depth analysis:

https://www.deviantart.com/spaztique/art/The-Many-Faces-of-Chara-An-Undertale-Essay-Pt1-602451253

Okay, so, I have simplified everything into just a few broad categories, which are organized based on who's in control, who represents what, and so on. Here they are:

1 Player Chara

1.1 Active Frisk

1.1.1 Chara breaks the 4th wall in genocide

1.1.2 Chara doesn't break the 4th wall in genocide

1.2 Passive Frisk

1.2.1 Frisk is hesitant

1.2.2 Frisk is blind

1.2.3 Frisk is dead

1.2.4 Frisk is Chara

2 Player Frisk

2.1 Genocide Chara (meta, non-meta)

2.1.1 Pacifist Frisk (coplayer Chara)

2.1.2 Neutral Frisk (observer Chara)

2.2 Narrator Chara

2.2.1 Redemption Chara

2.2.2 Follower Chara

2.2.3 Pacifist Chara

3 Player third entity

3.1 Pacifist Frisk, Genocide Chara

3.2 Cutscene Frisk, Narrator Chara

Explanations:

1 Player Chara

One of the oldest theories around, it states that Chara is the player. As in, they have some backstory, and now we get to determine their journey (which is how most RPG games work). Meaning there are no meta shenanigans going on regarding the player, it's just Chara and Frisk. This theory comfortably explains pretty much everything the game has to offer, aside maybe from the final scene in genocide, where Chara gets to talk to us. That scene can either be interpreted as a proper meta twist (1.1.1), or as Chara simply talking to Frisk (1.1.2), projecting their feelings onto them and accusing them similarly to how Asriel projected his feelings onto Frisk in pacifist.

1.2 Passive Frisk

While the above assumes that Frisk has at least some personality, maybe being in control during cutscenes and perhaps inserting some dialogue options (e.g. "tHeN sHe KiSsEs YoU"), this offshoot proposes that Frisk never makes themselves be known or take control at all, either because they don't want to, don't know what to do, because they are blind, dead, or even that they never even existed, that they're just a reincarnation of Chara. From what I've seen, no one seriously believes in this, and it's usually suggested only by people who happen to be confused by Chara's backstory the first time they hear it.

2 Player Frisk

This is a set of theories in which Frisk figures as the main entity in control. However, this is not the main appeal of these theories. Usually, this is just a side effect of ascribing a different role to Chara. And usually, two variants are the most common, 2.1 genocide Chara and 2.2 narrator Chara.

2.1 Genocide Chara

I think we all know what this is already. Basically, since Chara appears as an evil entity in the genocide route, that must mean they're evil. And most commonly, two explanations are given as to why they're evil: a meta explanation, which states that they represent the completionist player stereotype, and a non-meta one, which states that they are a literal physical demon. Some people also extend this state onto their past, saying they've always been like this, while others say that they became this evil only after their plan failed and they died.

Regardless, for any of these, there are two roles that Frisk can play: 2.1.1 pacifist, where they always represent "the good", while Chara wants to do evil (meaning that Chara can be in control, they can actually be a secondary player, and who ends up winning depends on how we play the game), or 2.1.2 neutral, where Chara is never in control, but Frisk can voluntarily choose to listen to and partner with them. Basically, it's whether you consider Frisk a saint or a corruptible entity.

2.2 Narrator Chara

A theory with loads of evidence behind it, stating that Chara is actually the narrator that's present throughout the game. And immediately, several flavors can be crafted:

2.2.1 Redemption Chara - Chara is evil at the start, and we can either partner with them, or mend them through doing good deeds. A variant of this theory exists (mentioned in the linked essay), where Chara is exactly this, except they're not the narrator. However, since the narrator theory works so smoothly for this one, I've decided to merge them together.

2.2.2 Follower Chara - Chara is confused by their revival and is seeking guidance. We can either teach them to do good, or to do evil. This one fits more with their own genocide route words in my opinion.

2.2.3 Pacifist Chara - Chara wants to do good, and even if we kill everyone, they still want us to do better (and their post-genocide pacifist creepy scenes are just them punishing us, not them showing off their "true colors"). A great example of this theory is JudgementBoy's video(s) about Chara. It is notorious for getting flak from believers of the 2.2.2 theory for being too apologetic towards Chara.

3 Player third entity

In a nutshell, the player is a canonical entity that actually controls Frisk. In this case, Chara can play two roles: 3.1 genocide freak (while Frisk is a pacifist sweetheart), or 3.2 the narrator (while Frisk is mostly neutral and in control during cutscenes).

If you want a legitimate argument as for why this theory should be given any legitimacy, then consider the fact that the narrator's dialogue never changes across resets, and that while Frisk's behavior can change slightly upon reset (for example, they shake Sans's hand before he prompts them to), a single true reset undoes this again. So in other words, a true reset resets everything, including Chara and Frisk's memories, meaning, it is impossible for the timeline to take a different turn after a true reset, unless, there is a third entity present, whose memories do not get cleared.

And that's everything for now. If you've got ideas for some other theories, either something that you personally believe, or something that you've heard somewhere, feel free to contribute.

Mine is mettaton!

( The last time i posted it was removed tho nothing bad in post)

Apparently this wiki is toxic is it true?

I come in peace from the terraria and subNautica fandoms

So I've been thinking a lot about W.D Gaster, and I eventually thought: what if Gaster is actually from Deltarune? The River Person's quote, 'Beware the man who came from the other world' suggests that he doesn't entirely belong in the world of Undertale, so what if he's from Deltarune? We already know that Deltarune is supposed to be an alternate universe version of Undertale, so it makes sense that Gaster could come from there. Better yet, what if 'his creation' which he supposedly fell into was a device to travel between the two worlds? I know it's not much, but just a little theory I came up with.

Raga I have a theory. Let's reason, the equipment around in the game comes from humans. The same humans who died. They are not something like fallen sweets or anything like that, they are huge testimonies, and Asgore is not the type who would surely stay there, they would put them in their grave in total respect. So why are they in totally random places or absolutely defenseless people? Well ... we reason... At Waterfall Papyrus suddenly asked me if I was wearing a bandana because a friend asked him ... and we all know Paps is Flowey's only friend / mannequin ... What if he asked him? Flowey did it to recognize us and to know where we are, if we have visited that area or similar ...He took the objects from the grave, scattered, and waited for us to take them to have a sign that recognizes us

I think we should start with the most common misconceptions of many people in the fandom.

1. Azriel was the one who took the body of the Chara and crossed the barrier?

Let's just say that I've met quite a few people who have talked about it, and just as often I've had to repeat the same thing: it wasn't Azriel who took the body and headed for the village. Why do I say that? It's simple: after Asriel absorbed the soul, control passed to both of them, but the one who lifted the "empty shell", crossed the barrier and came to the center of the village, was Chara. This is what Azriel himself says after the battle with him, if you return to the place of your fall in the Ruins:

"There's one last thing I feel like I should tell you.

Frisk, when <Name> and I combined our SOULs together...

The control over our body was actually split between us.

They were the one that picked up their own empty body.

And then, when we got to the village...

They were the one that wanted to...

... to use our full power."

What conclusion can we draw? When I first discovered this, I immediately had a lot of questions in my head, but we can only get answers by logic, reasoning. Well, or ask Toby Fox, but it's a lost cause, remembering the story of ketchup, genocide, and sans. Ahem-ahem, that's a bit off topic...

After thinking about it for a long time, I came to the conclusion that no Chara is not selfless and it wasn't self - sacrifice, and he is not an innocent child who only wanted to free the poor monsters-the only ones who treated him well.

Why did he take his body and carry it to the very center of the village? The first thing that comes to mind is his request to see the Golden flowers, but... wouldn't he be able to see them with new eyes on his own and without this body? Of course he can. So why all this? Why expose yourself and your brother like this, dragging an empty shell on your back? And that's where the fun begins...

What if I told you that Chara ... deliberately used this body to get people to attack? Well, judge for yourself: in the village centre, the most crowded area of the settlement, suddenly appeared a monster from the old legends, which you never saw, and believed it was just the tale,and so he carries a dead body of a child. What should have been the reaction of the residents in the first place? Horror, fear. Fear is followed by a desire to get rid of the source or run away from it as far as possible. Plus, the dead child adds fuel to the fire, for which people will definitely take revenge and want to take it away.

Now Chara. What did he expect, dragging the "shell" with him and coming to the center of the village with it? This is a completely stupid thing to do when viewed from the side of an innocent angel-Chara.

And now let's look at the whole situation with a sober eye, not paying attention to the very desire to somehow justify this child:

Chara himself doesn't strike me as a stupid person, and he would know exactly what the consequences would be. He had made the whole plan himself and only told Asriel about It, and the body was part of that plan. By provoking people with the sight of a dead child and a monster in the very center of the village, the first one to fall at the same time received an excuse for what would follow: the use of full power and the destruction of the entire village along with the inhabitants. First, he will have a reason before Azriel (protection), and second, it will not be a" gratuitous " murder in itself...

Now let's remember the fact that Chara hated people. This is what Azriel himself says.

Chara asked that his body be taken to the center of this particular village. He knew that there were Golden flowers in the center of it - favorite flowers, he said. It is a reasonable assumption that the first person to fall came from this village. These were the people he saw. He hated humanity because of them. He climbed the mountain, presumably because of them.

HE HATED THEM .

You can say ," but he didn't know he could control the body!" and I'll say, "It doesn't matter." Even if Azriel had controlled the body and carried the dead Chara into the center of the village (at his own request, please note), the humans would still have attacked. Further in terms of the child, everything most likely unfolded like this:

Azriel would be attacked, and he would have no choice but to fight. With the power that he has, he will come out victorious and destroy everyone...

With this plan, Chara would have killed two birds with one stone: and freed the monsters (with the war that would have started later), and destroyed the hated village that brought so much pain and suffering (presumably brought).

The reason why the monsters would be able to win, despite the quantitative ratio with humanity, is in the souls. The fact is that a monster with seven souls absorbed becomes a "God". Such a monster is invulnerable. This can be seen in Asriel, "evaluating" him during the battle:

HP

9999

AT

∞(Infinite)

DF

∞(Infinite)

If you try to hit him, the blow in any case will pass because of the amount DEF And as there is usually the population in the villages? At least there are dozens of people present. As a result, if the plan was successful, not only would the monsters already have such an invulnerable "God" on their side, but an indefinite number of them would also appear as a plus.

Humanity would be doomed. This is exactly what people were afraid of many years ago, when they destroyed most of the monsters and imprisoned the remaining ones underground. The surface, as Chara had desired, would be "cleared" of them.

☛ RESULT: Chara didn't sacrifice himself selflessly. He did it for his own personal ends, too, by deceiving Asriel and taking advantage of his trust. Perhaps freeing the monsters was also his sincere desire (in terms of it, at least), but there is no guarantee. In this case, everything is 50-50.

2)Chara-the one who is guilty of genocide and is the most important villain in the game?

So it's time to justify Chara and slightly clean his hands of blood... but only a little.

Let's start with the simplest: did You control yourself when you killed monsters? No, it's not... did YOU push the battle button and turn everyone to dust? The answer is not required, because it is known. Now to the point:

The only moments when the player did not control the course of the battle or the outcome are the situation with sans, Asgore and Flowey. Everyone remembers that insidious second blow in a row to our bony friend, right? Well... I r e m e m b e r . And it was not a player's blow at all, because you can even remove your hands from the keyboard after the first click on the button, but the blow will still happen. You don't control it. The following situation Asgore and Flowey when you went into battle, read the dialogue, and the character attacking without your participation. This Is Chara. He destroys the last remaining on the way and appears before the player, talking about how much pleasure he gets from the force. In other moments, Chara is only an observer and commentator. At the very end of genocide and post-genocide pacifist captures Frisk's body and appears in it before the player.

☛ RESULT: Chara just killed Sans, Asgore and Flowey when the PLAYER has destroyed all the others. Welp, still, of course, the remaining evacuated monsters were erased from existence, and in the post-genocide pacifist, Chara destroyed everyone personally, but I said that we will clean up this child, right?

3. Chara takes revenge on the player for his family and monsters in General?

Let me put everything on the shelves:

1) Chara died along with Azriel, and his soul was destroyed and no longer exists. Accordingly, Chara is soulless, like Flowey, and unable to feel love and compassion. One another's resolve.

2) Chara personally kills Asgore and Flowey (of Azriel) at the end without the participation of the player.

3) Chara says that under the guidance of the player, he realized the goal of his reincarnation-power. And determination - the desire to achieve the goal at ANY cost.

"Under your guidance.

I realized the purpose of my reincarnation.

POWER."

4) Chara didn't say a word about the monster deaths at the end of the genocide.

5) " TOGETHER we destroyed the enemy and became strong."

He doesn't deny his involvement. Accordingly, it is just the same he was the one who helped the player break through Sansa (the stroke), Ashore and Flowy. He supported the player along the way. He helped him destroy EVERYONE, leaving hints on the saves of how much was left. It became an integral part of the genocide. Chara doesn't take revenge on anyone, and his phrase "you think you're above the consequences" is not proof of revenge. And at the end of the post-genocidal pacifist, Chara kills everyone just because of a thirst for power and an unwillingness to just live peacefully. He doesn't need it.

4) Chara fell into the Underground on purpose?

1) This is also a fairly common opinion among fans... but incorrect. Many people talk about how unhappy Chara is and how he was so fucked up by people that the poor child jumped into the abyss, wanting to end his life... and some even think that he fell for the sake of destroying monsters or saving them in advance. But no. And this is confirmed in the Intro of the game itself:(Insert Intro here).

See this insidious root? It was it who caused Chara to fall, but not the desire to die. Azriel says that Chara CLIMBED the mountain for a bad reason, but the reason that Chara ran away from the hated people (and just at that moment noticed the hole), can be any.

2) Chara was calling for help when he fell into the Dungeon. This is told in the story. If he wanted to die, the man would just lie there quietly, hoping that he would die, but no. You can say that Chara changed his mind, but then everything else with his depression and subsequent murder of himself does not fit. He doesn't really want to die. He has other goals.

Note that the description on Kickstarter is exactly the same as the images in the Intro that we are shown. Plus, the argument "but there is no rain!"not suitable-I say in advance. It says "rainy weather", not "rain", so the story was referring to dark clouds, foreshadowing the imminent rain.And one more thing: a year. The history shows 201X... and in the same year fell Chara from Intro!

4) if you kill Flowey and return to Asgore to fight him, after the king's mercy, the following dialog will appear:

"Child, when I look at you ...

I remember a man who fell here a long time ago..."

You have the same sense of hope in your eyes.

Asgore here speaks directly about his lost human child, seeing him in Frisk because of "the same feeling of hope in his eyes." Chara wasn't someone who was so desperate that he wanted to end his life. On the contrary, he was extremely determined to continue living and go towards his goal. Just like frisk. And he did not die for nothing, but for the very realization of his personal goal...

at

Any cost.

And now we can move on to some questionable / interesting points related to Chara that not everyone noticed.

Chara is a manipulator.

A manipulator is a person who never decides on an open and direct struggle for power, he never decides on an open conflict, on the use of force, he comes to power solely through psychological violence directed at a person who inadvertently came into his field of vision.

Tell everyone: "If Chara didn't love the Dreemurrs, he would have killed them!", but each of these people excludes the possibility that He could have used them. Yes, they may have been close to him, but he still manipulated them. Asriel, at least. And killing a monster and absorbing its soul is less effective for several reasons:

1. Chara is not sure that It will get the desired power if it absorbs the monster's soul. At the same time, they write about a monster with the soul of a person: "A terrible creature with unfathomable power."

2. one Chara with three souls of monsters will not be able to oppose anything to the whole of humanity, when if you start a war between monsters and people, you will be able to win with monsters on your side.

3. Monsters can absorb more and more people's souls, and with this power, the victory reaches 100%.

And a couple more manipulator techniques:

> this Is for your own good. Manipulators tend to pretend that they care about Your well-being or illusory common interests. For this purpose, they often use the pronouns "we" or "our"in their speech.

Does it remind you of anything? "Our plan failed." In fact, this was CHARA's plan from start to finish. But he still attributes Asriel simply because he participated in the plan and acted on his brother's orders. This is what manipulators do.

> The interviewee tries to make the potential victim feel guilty. If the victim refuses to comply with their endless requests, the manipulator stimulates the awakening of guilt in the victim.

> Manipulators encourage you to make hasty emotional decisions.Any self-respecting manipulator knows that quick emotional decisions of the victim are his "bread". Give him no time to think, force him to make a quick decision, and then he had what he wanted. A simple phrase "I need time", said confidently, will cool your ardor, and most likely, you will not be asked again.

Both of these points refer to the moment when Chara, as always, calls Azriel a "crybaby" and refers, apparently, to his tears. Because of this, Azriel hastily says that "big babies don't cry" and agrees. On top of that, Chara asks: "Do you doubt me?" This, too, should be answered hastily. So to speak, it was a "finishing" phrase. He doesn't give his brother much time to think about the offer, and he hastily makes a decision. This is what the dialogue looked like on the tape:

"I... I don't like this idea, Chara.

WH... what?

N-no, I don't…

... big kids don't cry.

Yes, you're right.

No!

I would never doubt you, Chara…

Never!

... Yes!

We will be strong!

We will free everyone.

I'll go get some flowers."

And it had an effect, because on the next tape there is a dialogue where Azriel again tells the already dying Chara that he doesn't like the plan. But then he remembers telling his friend that he would never doubt him, and finally asks in uncertainty, " Six, right? We just need to get six… And we'll do it together, right?"

And now a little bit about this seemingly "harmless" nickname "crybaby", which also had such an effect on Azriel that he remembers it even after the battle with Frisk. Apparently, Chara repeated this nickname often enough that it even stuck in the child's memory. This happens with the fact that the person has a great influence:

> Criticism and depreciation. The manipulator almost never openly criticizes. He may begin to devalue the victim under the guise of innocent jokes, but intensely and systematically. Gradually, these judgments lose their humorous color. He may Express doubts about the victim's professional qualities, and then move on to her personality as a whole. His goal is to convince her that she is a lower-order person.

Chara demonstrates to Asriel that he is the most powerful of the two, and The one to look up to. Azriel even understands this when she says, " I should have laughed it off like you did." In the end, Azriel is just a "crybaby", and Chara is the one without whom he almost can not live, remembering him even after losing his soul. It's like a victim's attitude.

There is also a dialogue where Flowey says ,

" I could NEVER have predicted you, Chara!"

Reading articles about the techniques of the manipulator, I noticed one such item relating to "unpredictability". In other words, the manipulator's actions cannot be predicted in advance, since it often turns around. This is an interesting situation.

Just like Azriel's words in the ending of a true pacifist: "Frisk, you are VERY different from Chara. I don't even know why I thought of you as one person." Here it is frankly said that all of a pacifist and selflessly helping everyone frisk is very different from Chara. Now Azriel understands this and calls Chara "not the best person". And it could have been a soft form, since Azriel simply can't do it any other way. After seeing what kind of friends there really could be, he didn't stop loving Chara, but he admitted that he wasn't what he might look like at first glance:

"Frisk, you're the friend I've always wanted to have."

> The manipulator twists the truth. The manipulator is a master at obfuscation and half-truths. He will twist his own words to give an element of doubt or confusion to the situation. They will miss important information or pretend to mean one thing when they say another.

A manipulator can say this with an ordinary look and a calm voice-better than any two-faced politician.

As soon as he notices that you are at a loss, he knows that you are hooked.

Here I will consider the ending of the genocide. Remember what Chara said then?

" TOGETHER, WE destroyed the enemy and became strong"

Now WE have reached the absolute

There is nothing left for US in this world .

Let's ERASE it (that is, we will make TOGETHER) this useless world and move on to the next one"

Here Chara clearly and clearly says that he participated in the destruction of this world. This is evidenced by many other things in the game itself. First, Chara tells you how many monsters are left to kill. Second, Chara stops frisk if there is a monster left in the Waterfall that hasn't been killed.

Thirdly, Chara condemns the fact that the Frisk (player) failed to kill Snowdrake. And even more than that, it shows STRONG disapproval by even using unpleasant words:

"The comedian got away away. Failure."

So Chara was really actively involved in the devastation of this world and does not deny it. At the same time, he doesn't accept the refusal of destroying the world, saying that the Player had no control. And in any case, it destroys the world.

If you wait 10 minutes, Chara returns and says these words:

"You want to go back to the world YOU destroyed.

It was YOU who led the world to its destruction."

You're? But what happened to "we", " us " and "together"? Chara plays with their phrases, in the end trying to point out the guilt of the Player specifically. Only The Player. And this leads to another sign:

> Part of playing the victim of a manipulator is blaming other people for any problems, failures, or moral lapses. The manipulator can masterfully point the finger at anyone but himself, even when it is painfully obvious who is to blame. Even when they are caught red-handed or they say something wrong or inappropriate, there is always someone who made them do it or say it. Or they assume that everyone else sees the situation incorrectly and that only they, the manipulators, understand the "real" truth. Manipulators will commit to everything that happens directly or indirectly in their lives, but they always refuse to take any responsibility when something goes wrong.

Chara blames the Player for the actions that he himself had a hand in personally, too. Well, he does it, and he does it. For what purpose? And the bottom line is that after the same Chara offers a deal in which the Player gives the soul of the last fallen person in exchange for the return of the world. He needs a soul. And before that, he went around pointing at his partner and accusing HIM of all the deadly sins to let down his guard. And then he offered a deal.

But why would he need a soul?

If you go through the path of genocide for the second time in a row, Chara will appear again and this time will say that they are "not similar" to the Player. The player is corrupted by a "perverted sentimentality" that forces him to create the world again, only to destroy it again. And this is exactly what Chara can't understand, since his goal is power, as He says. The final destruction of the world. And on the same path, Chara suggests "trying a different path." Says it will be "more suitable".But why? To get to the Surface, of course, and personally destroy humanity.

3)Chara hates Azriel during the genocide.

This is due to the fact that Azriel once again violated Chara's plans, refused to kill people, and returned without even allowing anyone to be injured. At the same time, the people continued to attack, and in the end, when the Prince returned back to the Underground, they both died. He hates Asriel for what he did in the past, so when he hears his former best friend's voice from flowey, he immediately stops listening to Him and strikes eight times in a row, leaving nothing of the flower.

Besides, Flowey tried to "warn" Asgore:

"Are you the one the flower just warned me about?"

Another betrayal. Flowey no longer do any good except harm. And you need to get rid of him, and at the same time get revenge for what makes Chara hate him so much.

There is a possibility that Chara was a sociopath in his lifetime.

The sociopath does not see attachments between other people and interprets their relationship solely as mutual manipulation. In accordance with his perception of society, the sociopath also builds his relationships with other people on manipulations for the sake of satisfying his own desires. Most often, they do not feel attachment to others or pity.

There are certain criteria for sociopaths, and Chara fits three of them exactly, but the other three cannot be confirmed with such accuracy. Two are missing. But this is enough to define a person in the group of "sociopaths".

General criteria of a sociopath:

1. Inability to comply with social norms, respect the laws, manifested in a systematic violation of them, leading to arrests (controversial).

> Nothing can be said about this due to lack of information.

2. Hypocrisy, which manifests itself in frequent lies, using aliases, or deceiving others in order to extract benefits.

> this is exactly what Chara did with the Dreemurrs. Even if the child loved them, this does not change the fact that they were manipulated for their own purposes and lied.

3. Impulsiveness or inability to plan ahead.

> Chara, on the contrary, planned everything and was determined to execute his plan.

4. Irritability and aggressiveness, manifested in frequent fights or other physical confrontations (controversial).

> You can't say anything about it either. Maybe, but not a fact.

5. Riskiness without taking into account safety for yourself and others.

> That was the plan - a risk to carry out the plan, even though it was risky for both him and Asriel. And there was no question of any security.

6. Consistent irresponsibility, which manifests itself in a repeated inability to maintain a certain mode of operation or meet financial obligations (disputed).

> We do not know anything about this.

7. Lack of regret, which manifests itself in an indifferent attitude towards harming others, mistreating others, or stealing from other people.

> This applies to Dreemurr and definitely to every person simply because this person.

7) Chara misanthrope:

Misanthrope is a person who dislikes and despises humanity as a species, usually contrasting himself with society, or surrounding himself with people who contrast with the social majority.

Notice? Azriel speaks of Chara's intense hatred of humanity. Plus, the child even tried to destroy an entire village with all its inhabitants, and there is no confirmation that he did not want to use monsters to destroy all of humanity during the war between them, which, of course, would break out again because of his actions. But it's not a fact that Chara hates himself, so it's possible that He considers himself something like " someone who fights against these disgusting people for the best-the good of the monsters." In any case, first of all, it is his goal that is carried out here, and only after that the release of monsters follows. Because of this, charu can be called a "hidden egoist", because the liberation of monsters could only be in his plans for the sake of that very war. By the way, monsters can just be the "oppressed minority" that misanthropes surround themselves with.

What do we have after all this reasoning? Chara is a quite controversial character, whose real identity is not so easy to understand, but if you go deep enough into the game, you will find a lot of interesting things. Chara is a person who can do anything to achieve his goal. He may think/say that this is "for the good of the monsters", but in fact, first of all, he satisfies his desires. Hidden selfishness, as I said before. It is quite possible that he also wanted to resume the war between monsters and people — also to try to destroy humanity. But why? We understand that something happened to Chara that made him what He was, but ... it's still wrong and doesn't justify anything. Chara's hatred extended not only to his abusers, but to all of humanity. As many people know, people are different: if one is currently inhumanly killing an animal, the other at the same time saves it from death and takes care of it, giving love and affection. But Chara does not see the difference and is ready to kill just because they are people…

Just like the ones he hates so much.

In this case, Chara is no better than those who cause him hatred. What did people do in their time? Right. They had trapped half of the monsters underground, and killed the other half simply out of fear. To them, all monsters were "the same". What are the people for Chara? They are all equally disgusting and hateful. They deserve to be exterminated. See the connection?

CHARA IS NOT A HERO.

Article isn't mine. Here is the link(Russian): https://aminoapps.com/c/undertalerus/page/blog/x-teoriia-po-undertale-kto-zhe-chara-na-samom-dele-i-v-chem-ego-motivy-x/qVmb_4NHRudWDXZXJrgad0l66ljbQzXq5n

About Chara's "corruption" and Player's "guidance"

There is no guidance. Otherwise, in the worst neutral, "No Mercy" Chara would be THE same as in genocide. But he somehow does not seek to change, although on the genocide it is enough to clear only the Ruins to start, and there are only 20 monsters. That is, in order to "make a genocidal maniac out of the Chara", it is enough not to show mercy to just 20 monsters. But it doesn't change on neutrals! This already excludes that the Chara "spoils" due to player kills.

So this is about LV, not killing monsters by themselves? But no, this is also a mistake, because the genocide begins in the Ruins with 3-4 LV (this LV is usually obtained by killing those 20 monsters). On neutral, you can also reach 3-4 LV or more, but Chara will not change! So also, even if you reached the Core with 1 LV, you can kill 39 knights in the Core, And get 15 LV - just the LV that you have before meeting Mettaton NEO. But Chara doesn't change again! What is it?

In General, if you try, you can achieve the number of murders and crimes as in genocide without activating the path of genocide itself. Here is the scheme of actions:

1) Kill the very first Froggit that enters the kill counter. But in order not to start the genocide, you need to kill 19 more monsters (and clearing the location is achieved by killing 20 monsters after the first Froggit. The path does not depend on this froggit). As a result, we get the absence of the inscription "but no one came", because we killed 19 monsters in the location + 1 Froggit. So we have 20 murders, like in a genocide, but Chara DOESN't change her line of behavior.

2) we Kill Toriel, and in total we have 21 murders.

3) In the following locations after the Ruins, where there is only one monster left, we empty EACH location to a single one: Waterfall, Hotland, and Core. In each such location, even on a neutral path, the inscription "but nobody came" may appear as soon as you kill all the monsters on the location. But since the Player has not completely emptied the Ruins, Chara does not change his line of behavior intentionally, although the Player has never shown mercy and killed as many monsters as he kills in genocide.

4) as a result, we will have at least 102 murders in the Corridor of Justice - just as many murders as the minimum number is achieved during the genocide. The path remained neutral, and you only entered neutral with "No Mercy".

But Chara doesn't change. What does this suggest? And the fact that the Player does not" spoil " Chara. As soon as the Player lets Chara know that He is a worthy partner and does not let him down, without missing anyone, Chara continues to mentor him and demonstrate himself through first-person descriptions and red text. But where did Chara mentor the Player? And here:

1. Chara gives a countdown of how many monsters are left.

2. Chara in Waterfall says before Undine, if someone miss:

"Strongly feels, that X remained. We should not continue yet"

3. Chara kills Sans (final blow), Flowey and Asgore himself.

4. "Free EXP"; "Not worth talking to" (about Tori)

"Can't dodge forever. Keep attacking"

"We destroyed the enemy and became strong" ("we will destroy the enemy and become strong" - for the second genocide);

"You're a great partner"

"On my way"

and so on.

5. Chara erases the world with all remaining inhabitants who were evacuated or just were in other parts of the Underground. The Player's choice does not affect this.

6. Chara kills everyone at the end of the Soulless Pacifist by Surfacing in Frisk's body with the Player's help.

7. Chara says: "The comedian got away. failure", calling the Player a loser because he didn't kill Snowdrake.

8. They are fully partners with the Player on and after the genocide. He and the Player both mentor each other.

Chara did many things. And moved in the body of Frisk in particular, because of the killing and distancing ("the more you kill, the more you distance" - sans), the personality of Frisk begins to fade before the personality of Chara. Plus, no one ever said that getting an LV should feel like something nice ("You hit the dummy with all your strength. Pleasant"). But in the process of genocide, there are too many smiles, enjoyment of violence, and all sorts of "strange/creepy" faces. Chara increasingly suppresses Frisk on genocide and takes control, thanks to the Player. And in the end, he sees Chara fully in the body of Frisk, since frisk himself disappears somewhere. In fact, it hasn't disappeared anywhere. It's just that Chara took full control of his body. The player's actions allowed Chara to do this.

On genocide, Chara says:

"We have ERADICATED the ENEMY and become strong."

Accordingly, he accepts monsters simply as a hindrance in his path, and no more. As an "enemy". Perhaps this happened after Asriel's refusal to destroy the village and the fact that he thus "betrayed" Chara, killing them both with his kindness. This could be the first push for Chara to perceive monsters as just an obstacle to the desired goal, and nothing more.

Chara and the Player are partners. They cooperate with each other, and no one "teaches" or "spoils"anyone. Chara had never shown a good disposition in his lifetime, because he hated humanity so much for some unknown reason and wanted to destroy THE entire village, not just collect six souls, as he had told Asriel. And then there would be a war between humans and monsters, as Azriel says:

I did the right thing. If I had killed those people, we would have had to fight a war against all of humanity.

And Chara, with all his intelligence, had definitely guessed that much earlier than Azriel. Even during the birth of his plan.

Another not my article (source ofcourse http://aminoapps.com/p/fu6str7 but beware a lot of Russian words).

And some of my additions.

Chara is not an idiot.

Chara is smart. They can make such detailed plan,they easily cite such a complex literature like "Kitchen" by Yoshimoto Banana.They easily understand psychology of other people(all the checking).It means that Chara is intelligent and smart enough for an average kid.

Flowey recognises Chara in Frisk only on Genocide.

Where is at least one dialogue on any other path that is not genocide or neutral after the unfinished genocide(and there he does it only twice:after the Ruins and at the beginning of the Ruins after the reset before entering the throne room... oh my head), in which he calls Frisk Chara? Nowhere, there is none. He won't do it even before the final battle on true pacifist route.Only when he turns back into Asriel, he will call their by name.Even in the True Lab it does Asriel (but i still dont know how).This can't just be a coincidence.

Chara isn't impulsive and didn't "wound up" because of fear or something else when humans were attacking them.

Chara didn't show any "wounding up" traits in their uncountable battles while they was in Frisk's body. No matter how the situation was dangerous.

"As per journalistic standards, a death forcefield surrounds the area of intrigue"

"SCRIPT BOMB 1 ATK 0 DEF

Like all modern blockbusters,it is full of explosions."

"Ironically,talking doesn't seem to be the solution to this situation."

In each of these situations, there is tension and, one might say, the threat of death. But Chara shows complete composure and, so to speak, "laughs off" all these situations.They are very cold blooded and steady.

And even if there are RESETS It doesn't mean that death is still impossible. If Frisk loses enough determination, they will die so it is still a threat especially in the battle against Asgore where Chara is still joking off(on Neutral).

Anyway at that day they already had an overwhelming power. They could just beat them up and ran away with just 6 souls (As they with Az planned).

"Six, right? We just have to get six..."

But Azzy clearly says that they wanted to use their FULL power(and few sentences before told that Chara hated humanity REALLY strong.All of these things in one dialogue.Suspicious,isn't it?).

If Chara had done nothing wrong, Asriel wouldn't have said all that things about Chara's imperfection.

"The truth is...

<Name> wasn't really the greatest person.

While, Frisk...

You're the type of friend I wish I always had.

So maybe I was kind of projecting a little bit."

If Chara just wanted to protect Azzy, how can he say something like that?

You may say that's like the situation with MK and Undyne but MK is not Asriel.He wouldn't kill himself for her like Asriel did for Chara (according to what Flowey said to her on the Genocide route) and any other things.

And their situations are completely different.Frisk didn't show any kind of aggression to MK on Pacifist or Neutral (and there he loses all his sympathy to them just because Frisk didn't manage to rescue him from the fall which could not be their fault) while villagers tried to kill Asriel (for understandable reason).Monster Kid's actions don't have anything in common with Asriel's ones. MK is like an NPC who completely changes their attitude to the protagonist if he choses other dialogue option(oh wait... he is).While Azzy truly loves Chara (his best friend on which grave he spent his last moments carrying about their favourite flowers) no matter of what.

"Don't worry about me.

Someone has to take care of these flowers."

Mentioning that he didn't blame them(or only them) for everything.

"And then, because of me, we...

Well, that's why I ended up a flower."

But for something else, something that defines Chara as not the greatest person and not the greatest friend. And if he say something about them it actually means a lot.

Character's role in the plot is not the same as character's motivation.

Let me explain.

From the creator's (or in other words technical,objective) point of view character is just an instrument to tell a story, express the themes and ideas of artwork.But a really professional author (like Toby) will not just create a character to say some wise stuff but create a person with their own standalone(from author's mentality) individuality. Character will act in regard with their backstory,motivation,circumstances,others characters in the first place not because he wants to teach you something.The great example is Asriel. The meaning behind his story is that there is nothing perfect in this world,things just can't always be ideal and happy,no matter how much you deserved it but it is still not the reason or justification for giving up. Though he didn't act the way he did because he acknowledged that but because he was just kind and selfless.

The same thing with Chara. They are some kind of a punisher and reminding that your actions matter but their own motivation has nothing common with that. They clearly state that their new purpose of life is POWER (regardless of how you think they came to that) and they hated humanity in the past. So why not combine this two things(remember that they are still soulless)? They put too much effort and hypocritical words to make you accept their deal and do the Pacifist route.

"A different path will be more suitable"

So it becomes undeniable that they wanted something more than you actually think.

Chara is not the villain but they are not a hero either.Though It doesn't make them bad written character.

This fandom should learn to separate reality from fiction.

Idk

Idk if you meet W.D Gaster he is like a villiain like flowey but my theory is that he is parent of Papyrus and Sans.

I see that Gaster look like sans just think about it, put those lines in the Sans face and Ta-da! it looks like W.D Gaster its the same thing with Papyrus I guess.

And as I can say some videos put that W.D Gaster is the parent of Sans and Papyrus.

This is all my theory I hope you get it

Everyoone talks about undynes eye patch but here are 2 therioes tat may be true theroy 1 She got attackted by a human that poked her eye out thery 2 She has the same eye as sans because sansa and undyne have dterimation because in genocide undyne she has a soul so maybe SHE was a human and turned into a monster and was a deterimined soul too but she turned into a monstr so that is my thory on undynes eye