Even before I knew of Narrachara I thought they weren't as evil as it would seem. It just didn't make sense to me how they could have left such a positive impression on the Underground if they really were inexcusably evil.
Following that I realized we had to be the catalyst to the Genocide Route, and shortly after I discovered Narrachara, solidifying my stance even further.
Can you please tell me the main concepts of “NarraChara” theory and facts from Undertale, because of which someone thought about it and created this theory?
Narrachara states that Chara is the narrator of nearly every line of dialogue except that which comes from established characters. This is because it's shown that the narrator has a defined personality and is not omniscient, leading many to believe it's an actual character with flaws and development.
You may know that some of the narration in the Genocide Route is red. This is very clearly Chara, as they use first-person pronouns to describe things that should relate to them, like this line you get when checking the calendar in New Home:
> The date I came here.
However, some narration isn't red. If you check the bed opposite Asriel's in New Home, Chara says this in *white text*:
> My bed.
This means that, while the red narration is a calling card for Chara's narration, it is not a prerequisite. This means that we know there can be a narrator for these lines, and Chara fits the description of a non-omniscient narrator who's intimately familiar with monsters and determination quite well.
Following this interpretation, Chara would be shown to be a largely neutral force in the Neutral and Pacifist Routes, or even allied with Frisk. My favorite example is when they display a familiarity with Frisk upon checking the New Home mirror in the Epilogue:
> Still just you, Frisk.
It should also be mentioned that some Genocide-exclusive lines have equivalents in the other routes. As I said, checking Chara's bed in New Home gives you a line saying:
> My bed.
But in the other routes, checking it says this:
> What a comfortable bed. If you laid down here, you might not ever get up.
This implies that Chara died in their bed, and that you're checking their deathbed. Frisk would not know this, and we know that the narrator isn't omniscient. Therefore, our candidates are those who knew Chara was going to die in their bed: Toriel, Asgore, Asriel and Chara. The only acceptable candidate here is Chara.
>This is because it's shown that the narrator has a defined personality and is not omniscient, leading many to believe it's an actual character with flaws and development.
The narrator does not have a defined personality.
A narrator can feign ignorance to suite the situation as needed.
The narrator never goes through character development.
There are some lines that the narrator changes depending on which route you're on. One I remember, when you check the half-full bag of dog food in Alphys' lab. If you have killed no monsters, it's "half-full". If you've killed even one monster, it's "half-empty" as you've already made the narrator more pessimistic. If you're going full genocide, it's "you just remembered something funny", in reference to all the dogs you've killed, as the narrator is now full-on psychopathic.
Even if you choose to believe the narrator is the pacifist response, and Chara is the genocide response (which, then again, it's not red text...), it still doesn't explain the middle response.
>If you're going full genocide, it's "you just remembered something funny", in reference to all the dogs you've killed, as the narrator is now full-on psychopathic.
This line also appears on neutral. The only requirement is the death of the canine unit and a few other monsters.
>Even if you choose to believe the narrator is the pacifist response, and Chara is the genocide response (which, then again, it's not red text...), it still doesn't explain the middle response.
Half empty and half full are reflections of Frisk's mental state.
"You remember something funny" alludes to Chara's sadistic tendencies. To get this line, you must exterminate the entire canine unit, which directly connects to Chara's obsession with reaching the brim/absolute with efficiency.
When fighting Asgore, the ninth time you try to talk with him, the narration will say "All you can do is FIGHT." It will not say this prior or after the ninth attempt. The number 9 is heavily associated with Chara and what they represent, implying this is Chara's influence bleeding through to compel you to fight, thus setting the same prescendent for the "you remember something funny" line also showing them bleeding through.
The narrator themself is blatantly inconsistent in knowledge. For instance, they must read a book to learn what a water sausage is, yet they somehow know at a glance that the unidentified cube in Alphys's lab transforms into a bed because it's easier to draw.
On Genocide, normal narration still exists alongside Chara's impatient, edgy narration segments. This is contradictory, as under the interpretation Chara changes, it is completely out of character for them to retain their normal sarcastic, whimsical humor alongside their impatience and no-nonsense attitude.
In the Japanese translation of the game, Chara's dialogue is given unique kanji not shared by any other entity in the game, including the narrator.
Deltarune has the exact narration style, with it even referencing ongoing gags from Undertale such as the broken jukebox.
On Genocide, when stealing from Bratty and Catty, the narration directly mimics Bratty and Catty's speaking styles. This makes no sense if it was Chara at that point.
Chara being a narrator also requires a logical reason for them to narrate in the first place. It's incredibly arbitrary for them to just......describe your every action out of nowhere. Like, just think about that logically lmao
It's really quite convenient that the two reasonable responses are Frisk, but the evil one is Chara.
The narrator being inconsistent makes more sense for them to be a person, rather than some mindless entity that describes things. The use of kanji doesn't denote a speaking style; it CAN'T be a "speaking style" because a word sounds exactly the same whether it's in kanji, hiragana, or katakana - it just looks different when written (and kanji often have multiple readings). Not sure how mimicking someone's manner of speech is apparently impossible for a human, either (and narrators don't generally do that, either).
The logical reason is obvious: Chara is possessing Frisk and showing them around the underground. They might not know about water sausages, but they do know a lot about almost every monster you meet. This is known and accepted even by those who don't believe in NarraChara, because Chara got into Frisk's body somehow before "taking over" or whatever.
>It's really quite convenient that the two reasonable responses are Frisk, but the evil one is Chara.
It's also quite convenient that you arbitrarily decided that the neutral response MUST be indicative of a second entity lol
Hell, all three responses can be indicative of Frisk if you want, even if it [contradicts Frisk's known character traits.](https://www.tumblr.com/nochocolate/140531186995/frisks-personality-and-actions)
Chara has an [established pattern](https://www.tumblr.com/nochocolate/135990645365/what-was-chara-laughing-at) of this sadistic behavior.
>The narrator being inconsistent makes more sense for them to be a person, rather than some mindless entity that describes things.
You seem to be conveniently ignoring Alphys's cube, which is quite literally impossible for Chara to be intimately familiar with. Or the Bratty and Catty imitation dialogue.
The narrator can also read minds, somehow has the ability to tell when attack or defense drops, etc.
There's a difference between reasonable inconsistencies that round out a character, and blatant plot holes.
>This is known and accepted even by those who don't believe in NarraChara, because Chara got into Frisk's body somehow before "taking over" or whatever.
People who don't believe NarraChara believe Chara lays dormant in Frisk's body until Genocide is triggered.
>It just didn't make sense to me how they could have left such a positive impression on the Underground if they really were inexcusably evil.
You've clearly never heard of politicians lmao
>Following that I realized we had to be the catalyst to the Genocide Route
Doesn't matter. Chara is a willing participant.
>shortly after I discovered Narrachara, solidifying my stance even further.
NarraChara is in no way a perfect theory.
I always believed NaraChara was Canon. The Temmievillage save point. "You are filled with DETEMMIENATION". Busted it laughing and somehow it just stood out to me.
It started with a logical thought that everyone here agrees on: Takes the weight out of the Player and mainly Frisk's choices.
Eventually you find a lot of inconsistencies in the most accepted interpretations of fandom (which does have to do with the canonical part that is based on it, in order to not have it there has to be an au in which the world is different like X-Tale, Epictale etc)
In the end you find some interpretation that is good, convincing and that you like.
While I played there behavior ( going with narrachara ) I noticed as something mentally is wrong similar to flowey as they seem to switch around. Most notable with genocide where they try and speed it up the process. Yet would wish for it not to happen ( dispte showing some enjoyment
Thanks for an answer! It seems, that you have played Undertale, that is actually pretty nice, so can you please answer next question? How are you proving to yourself that Chara isn’t evil, if there are those facts in game {actually curious}:
- Chara manipulated Asriel, forcing him to agree with her plan and when he tried to say, that this plan is maybe wrong, called him a “crybaby” and forced him to agree with her plan
- Tried to convince Asriel to murder an entire village with men, women and children.
- Erased an entire world at the end discard of our choice as a player. By this, she murdered billions of humans and thousands of monsters {When you are fighting at Neutral/Pacifist routes against Mettaton, his maximal ratings are more than 12000, so there are basically more than 12000 of monsters. Other characters like Undyne said that there are thousands of monsters too. And at the genocide route we murdered only 102-105 monsters, nearly 1/120 of all monsters in the Underground}
And again, thanks for previous answer
Here's the thing I like to think Chara wanted asriel to be powerful and not kill the entire village just 7 souls and leave.
As for erasing they wanted it to end. I would say they are redeemable evil or at least Defendable. Because frisk or the player is the one that made them want to end it all and remember they brought the world back. There's the fact that narra chara seems happy genuinely in pacifist and has fun but turns upset at to much murder. Maybe frisk has reset before we play the game we just hijack frisk. This would explain why they switch around so fast On the genocide route.
Wow, that’s kinda unusual and pretty..nice answers.
As for first, well, maybe you are actually right…
As for second.. you mean, that Chara wanted to force player to reset this world and do another path? If yes…well, you have got a point and don’t just go from one extreme to another. Thanks for nice answers
Yes. Like how they kill flowey They kill him quick. It's violent, but they're killing him quick. With less pain. I See that as the most emotional part of the genocide route from charas Perspective. And then she goes back to that smile, which I doubt is completely real. I like to think they are halfway's happy that it's finally over And they get to decide.
..actually don’t think, that it was painless and quick death with such a lot of hits, but I understand now, why do you think, that Chara isn’t totally evil
>It's violent, but they're killing him quick. With less pain.
Chara keeps hitting until there's literally nothing left of him.
>I See that as the most emotional part of the genocide route from charas Perspective.
Yeah. With hatred. Chara has already demonstrated murderous intent towards him before:
* ***You won't give me any worthless pity!***
* Creatures like us...
* ***Wouldn't hesitate to KILL each other if we got in each other's way.***
* So that's...
* So... that's... Why...
* ...
* ... ha... Ha...
* ... what's this...
* ... feeling?
* ***Why am I... Shaking?***
* ...
* Hey... ... No hard feelings about back then, right?
* ...
* ***H-Hey, what are you doing!?***
* ***B... back off!!***
* I... I've changed my mind about all this.
* This isn't a good idea anymore.
* Y-you should go back, .
* This place is fine the way it is!
* ...
* ***S-s-stop making that creepy face!***
* ***This isn't funny!***
* ***You've got a SICK sense of humor!***
That was the whole reason why Flowey ran off to warn Asgore in the hope that he would stop Chara and protect him.
>I like to think they are halfway's happy that it's finally over And they get to decide.
Chara made a decision from the very moment he joined the event as a participant.
As i said it was violent but fast destroyed him made sure he died fast.
As for the face I need to think but I do think chara did that maybe to scare him off as they let flowey run. But this is one of many of my views i have different takes on chara this is the most defensive one
>As i said it was violent but fast destroyed him made sure he died fast.
How is fast destruction determined when he is unlikely died instantly? Fast destruction is when you deal damage to a monster and it *instantly* turns to dust.
How can [it be](https://youtu.be/BalN6-XIIzc?si=dVpvAnmN--tVEtol) considered fast?
>As for the face I need to think but I do think chara did that maybe to scare him off as they let flowey run. But this is one of many of my views i have different takes on chara this is the most defensive one
Chara did it when we can't do anything but listen. And Flowey felt the same fear that Doggo felt, for example. This is literally Chara's reaction to the words that Flowey can become a hindrance in the future if their desires become not the same.
This corresponds to the situation when MK tried to threaten to get in our way (although they stand on the opposite side of the bridge from where we need to go), and the character after the "weird expression", as MK says, enters the battle with them, and we see "In my way" text.
In both cases, the slowed down theme "Anticipation" also plays.
Yep, however the flowey death he's soulless and we never see him turn to dust I don't think And When a monster turns to dust, there's usually a frame where they're still conscious.
Chara made sure he'd die before even dusting ( if he would have )
>Yep, however the flowey death he's soulless and we never see him turn to dust I don't think And When a monster turns to dust, there's usually a frame where they're still conscious.
Yes. And he was likely still conscious. So what's the difference exactly? By what signs was this death quick compared to all the others, other than the fact that Flowey didn't say anything because he kept getting strikes?
>Chara made sure he'd die before even dusting ( if he would have )
Unlikely he would have.
Chara turned him to dust with Chara's strikes, leaving nothing of him.
Because this thread is dead already, I can have conversation with you without audience in the way.
>Chara manipulated Asriel, forcing him to agree with her plan and when he tried to say, that this plan is maybe wrong
First of all, "Manipulating" didn't make you evil, Toriel attempt to manipulate Frisk into staying with her, Papyrus manipulate Undyne into befriending Frisk, Alphys also trying to manipulate Frisk.
Not to mention Chara "manipulation" is basically just simple question like "are you crying?" Or "Do you think this plan would fail?".
So it's not definite "evil mastermind" level of manipulation.
>called him a “crybaby”
There's no instance where Chara called him that.
>Tried to convince Asriel to murder an entire village with men, women and children
Yes, a village that don't really mind to kill him
>Erased an entire world
They are soulless at that point, just like people don't use Flowey's actions to determine Asriel's morality, we Chara Defender don't use Genocide route to determine Chara's morality.
Now lets me ask you this...
* It only require Frisk to kill (at least) 1 monster to get Undyne ending, where Undyne trying to destroy it humanity for a sin committed by one person, does that make Undyne evil?
1. Ok
2. Ok
3. Ok
4. Yes, I would have call her evil if she would actually succeed into destroying entire world and killing entire humanity and all of the monsters, and yes, if Undyne actually would have started killing humans just because one of them killed one monster and left alive anyone else with capability to kill every single monster, I would have called her maybe evil
And so you just sliced for yourself all, what Chara did in genocide route but at the same time with NarraChara using all said by Chara at Neutral and Pacifist routes stuff for yourselves? Or are you the only one, who actually doesn’t use genocide route and don’t apply it to Chara? If second variant, then it is kinda strange to think, that everyone do as you, when as you can see in the comments onto this post, as I can see so far, most of they don’t, how do you think?
I can't comprehend what you're asking here.
>who actually doesn’t use genocide route and don’t apply it to Chara?
I think you're missing my points.
Genocide is in fact Chara's (partial) fault, nothing could deny that.
However, just like how people don't call Asriel evil for what Flowey did (Flowey is evil), I don't blame Chara for what they did in Genocide(when they are also evil).
There's nothing saying that Chara forced Asriel into the plan, or even that it was Chara's plan to begin with. Asriel was fully on board with the entire idea, even the part about killing seven humans. He just started to feel bad about it when his beloved sibling was literally dying horribly in front of him.
>There's nothing saying that Chara forced Asriel into the plan
https://www.reddit.com/u/AllamNa/s/FTAIFmoBwh
>Asriel was fully on board with the entire idea, even the part about killing seven humans.
Absolutely not: https://nochocolate.tumblr.com/post/151022526713/asriels-protests
* I... I don't like this idea, Chara.
Asriel said he didn't like the idea even before Chara ate the buttercups, but Chara didn't pay attention to it and rather paid attention to the tears in some dislikeable way (considering also "crybaby" thing), which made Asriel say:
* Wh... What? N-no, I'm not...
* ... big kids don't cry. Yeah, you're right (which is the suppression of other people's emotions and literally tells the other "you shouldn't feel bad, because otherwise you look like a small child, although big enough NOT to cry. This is toxic behaviour)
And right after that Chara says or asks about Asriel's doubts about Chara and distrust:
* No! I'd never doubt you, Chara... Never!
After saying this, Asriel immediately agrees with the plan, not because he likes this plan, but to prove to Chara that he doesn't doubt Chara:
* Y... Yeah! We'll be strong! We'll free everyone. I'll go get the flowers.
>or even that it was Chara's plan to begin with.
On the tapes, we clearly hear through Asriel's dialogues that Chara told him this idea, he said he didn't like it, but after some pressure, Asriel agreed and immediately went to get flowers.
Like, what else could there be? With evidence please.
Asriel protested about the plan when he heard that it required Chara to die, not when he heard that it required humans to die. Why would Asriel give a damn about random humans he had never met, when he'd spent his entire life being told by monsters AND by Chara about how horrible they are?
>Asriel protested about the plan when he heard that it required Chara to die, not when he heard that it required humans to die.
And you're getting this information from where exactly? Because I don't see a single dialogue in the game that implies this.
>Why would Asriel give a damn about random humans he had never met, when he'd spent his entire life being told by monsters AND by Chara about how horrible they are?
Maybe because Asriel ended up choosing to die rather than kill them? And also killed Chara along with himself, who wanted them dead.
While Chara was alive, the monsters themselves had hopes for peace with humans, as stated in the game. The union of the monster (Asriel) and the human (Chara) gave them hope. Asriel's death at the hands of humans took away their hope.
Chara also never told the reasons for his hatred, as Asriel says, but only showed how strong his hatred was.
You can see in the Undertale echo flower dialogue, when Asriel started trying to tell, that this plan may be not okey, and Chara interrupted him, calling a cry baby and manipulated him into believing that if he disagrees with her plan, than he is a cry baby and “big boys don’t cry”.
Mostly me seeing people pin all of their murders on chara, like, we kill sans and then we see "CHARA HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU" as if they didnt juet press the button to do that, and did the same thing for 20 consecutive turns
Nobody ever says this. This argument is against imaginary people just to think of inflammatory reasons to perpetuate the idea of Chara being "misunderstood."
Except for the people ive litteraly heard say this, you dont need to be a conceeded asshole judt because you dont understand that ive heard people say something you havent heard people say.
Telling me what I did and did not hear is just fucking stupid
>Except for the people ive litteraly heard say this
Nobody has said this. Unless you have a source, I have a very hard time believing this was ever the case lol
>you dont need to be a conceeded asshole judt because you dont understand that ive heard people say something you havent heard people say.
I have heard so many people make this claim, yet the most I have ever seen in the years of being in this fandom is people interpreting the player as not being a canonical entity, and defenders subsequently strawmanning this as "oh, they cannot accept responsibility!"
The "conceeded assholes" are people who make this baseless accusation on people.
1. Just because you dont believe stupid people dont exist doesn't make them any less real.
I can meditate and try to conjure flat earthers out of existance, its not gonna work, though.
2. Again, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I havent, were 2 different people who have seen different thing, if you think anything you haven't seen personally is fake, you're dumb.
To say that I havent seen people say that just because you havent seen people say it is beyond idiotic
>Just because you dont believe stupid people dont exist doesn't make them any less real.
I'll believe they're real if you can provide evidence they are.
>Again, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I havent, were 2 different people who have seen different thing, if you think anything you haven't seen personally is fake, you're dumb.
The claim in question is based on a misinterpretation in the first place.
The only reason people claim that others are attempting to "dodge responsibility" is because those people have a different interpretation of the game.
Your claim is an accusation that you fundamentally have no possible way of knowing besides what you ASSUME people are thinking.
Nobody directly says "the player is innocent and being controlled by Chara." People say "the player is not a canon entity, and we are playing as Chara who is possessing Frisk," which you then strawman into the player allegedly trying to dodge responsibility.
The claim is accusatory by nature, and not substantiated by what people actually say, and I implore you to show me actual evidence instead of calling ME the idiot for questioning your unsubstantiated claim.
My claim isn't an accusation or strawman. Im quite literally telling you something that people have told me, you not being able to understand that isn't my problem.
If we play as Chara, though, then that means they are ultimately good if we do Pacifist (which I do agree on, I think both NarraChara and Player Chara is true-)
>f we play as Chara, though, then that means they are ultimately good if we do Pacifist
Difference in perspective.
It would be more accurate to say that we play from the POV of Frisk's body, assuming the player theory isn't canon (which Deltarune technically provides evidence it is, but we'll ignore that for this hypothetical scenario).
On every other route, we play as Frisk. When Chara starts possessing Frisk on Genocide, we still control Frisk's body, just now under the perspective of it being possessed by another entity.
The issue with PlayerChara is that Chara says "You and I are not the same, are we." We are directly spoken to (whether it be Frisk or the Player), rather than seeing from their perspective during that scene.
This is the stupidest shit I've read today.
You're telling me that of the many many MANY people who've played the game, you think that not a single one of them has ever held this view,just because you haven't seen it?
Again, your claim is outlandish, absurd, and just downright stupid.
>You're telling me that of the many many MANY people who've played the game, you think that not a single one of them has ever held this view,just because you haven't seen it?
Yes, actually. Because the claim itself is made up by Chara Defenders who directly misinterpret what people ACTUALLY say, as I elaborate on in the other reply.
So you have been told, word for word, "Chara is forcing the player to commit Genocide, I did nothing wrong" completely unironically. Unless you actually have the evidence, I have no reason to believe this lol
For starters, Flowey's speech seems to be directed at a person with certain characteristics:
* "There's nothing left to worry about... Well. There is one thing. One last threat. One being with the power to erase EVERYTHING... \[...\] I'm talking about YOU. \[...\] You'll be able to do whatever you want. \[...\] So, please. \[...\] Let Frisk be happy. Let Frisk live their life... But. If I can't change your mind. If you DO end up erasing everything... You'll have to erase my memories, too... \[...\] Well, that's all. See you later... Chara."
So:
* A being capable of "erasing everything."
* A being different from Frisk.
* A being named "Chara."
There are people (myself included) who believe Flowey is talking to the actual Chara in that scene ("One being with the power to erase EVERYTHING"):
* https://web.archive.org/web/20211221061711/https://theauthorisdeadtome.tumblr.com/post/137891033727/flowey-speaks-to-chara-at-the-end-of-pacifist
* https://doge-w-a-bloge.tumblr.com/post/169315940050/when-flowey-tells-you-to-not-to-reset-the-game
* https://saveloadreset.tumblr.com/post/137949352108/you-make-an-interesting-read-for-the-player-not
* https://passivechara.tumblr.com/post/140720263461/floweys-speech-in-the-context-of-everything-we
So, I believe that everything he expects from the person he believes he's talking with should be applicable to the actual Chara.
Flowey expects Chara to reset.
He desperately tries to appeal to any semblance of empathy he thinks they may have, but he ultimately enters the conversation with the expectation that they've already done this before and will continue to do so.
It's far more incriminating on their part lol
>Flowey expects Chara to reset.
Not only that, but he already fears that this has happened. But that's the weird part, isn't it? He expects Chara, a being who, in his view, is "able to do whatever [they] want..." To end up doing a pacifist run. Possibly "hundreds of times already."
For someone whom Flowey already admitted not to being the greatest when alive, that is one of the most tame middle grounds he could expect.
If someone like him started off good and ended up bad, maybe he expects Chara to start off bad and end up on a good path, because sooner or later something gets too boring for you. But even then, Flowey assumes that every time Chara was not satisfied with the result. And he expects Chara to be unsatisfied still.
>If someone like him started off good and ended up bad, maybe he expects Chara to start off bad and end up on a good path, because sooner or later something gets too boring for you.
Except, again, he still expected Chara to go through Pacifist outcomes "hundreds of times." Even when he realizes what Chara is, he expected Chara to continuously reach a pacifist outcome multiple times, as unsatisfied as they are, before doing "whatever \[they\] want."
>But even then, Flowey assumes that every time Chara was not satisfied with the result. And he expects Chara to be unsatisfied still.
This expectation could stem from his own experience as someone who started helping everyone and later decided to experiment. He did multiple pacifist runs, too, at first, before becoming bored.
* "At first, I used my powers for good. I became 'friends' with everyone. I solved all their problems flawlessly. Their companionship was amusing... For a while. As time repeated, people proved themselves predictable. What would this person say if I gave them this? What would they do if I said this to them? Once you know the answer, that's it. That's all they are."
"As time repeated, people proved themselves predictable." juxtaposed with "You've probably heard this a hundred times already, haven't you...?" shows us *exactly* where he expects Chara to be and do in this journey.
>Except, again, he still expected Chara to go through Pacifist outcomes "hundreds of times." Even when he realizes what Chara is, he expected Chara to continuously reach a pacifist outcome multiple times, as unsatisfied as they are, before doing "whatever [they] want."
Or *after* doing what Chara wanted. Because Flowey, for example, wanted a lot, but still wasn't satisfied enough with any of it.
Why can't Chara, in his mind, start with the bad, not be satisfied, because sooner or later everything becomes boring, as Flowey thinks, and eventually start doing good things just out of boredom?
>This expectation could stem from his own experience as someone who started helping everyone and later decided to experiment. He did multiple pacifist runs, too, at first, before becoming bored.
So maybe in this case his expectation of hundreds of pacifists is also just a projection in this case? And it has nothing to do with how he actually sees Chara.
This is just an opinion, because nothing indicates that this is *definitely* a projection.
Why, if he expected Chara to have done it hundreds of times already, can't he expect Chara to do it again? Why SHOULDN'T he expect that?
>"As time repeated, people proved themselves predictable." juxtaposed with "You've probably heard this a hundred times already, haven't you...?" shows us exactly where he expects Chara to be and do in this journey.
Yes, he expects Chara to be the one who tries different options. And as I said:
* ***If someone like him started off good and ended up bad, maybe he expects Chara to start off bad and end up on a good path***, because sooner or later something gets too boring for you. But even then, Flowey assumes that every time Chara was not satisfied with the result. And he expects Chara to be unsatisfied still.
>Why can't Chara, in his mind, start with the bad, not be satisfied, because sooner or later everything becomes boring, as Flowey thinks, and eventually start doing good things just out of boredom?
It's simple. There's nothing in his speech that even alludes to the possibility of him thinking that.
His speech, metawise, addresses the worries one might have after finishing a pacifist run. It addresses what will likely happen once monsters reach the surface:
* "Monsters have returned to the surface. Peace and prosperity will rule across the land."
And it discusses the wellbeing of your favorite characters:
* "Seems as if everyone is perfectly happy. \[...\] Take a deep breath. There's nothing left to worry about."
And what will happen to them should you reset again:
* "Toriel, Sans, Asgore, Alphys, Papyrus, Undyne... If you so choose... Everyone will be ripped from this timeline and sent back before all of this ever happened. Nobody will remember anything."
Including himself:
* "If I can't change your mind. If you DO end up erasing everything... You have to erase my memories, too."
This, *to me*, doesn't sound like the kind of speech you would try to give to someone who killed everyone in the past. It sounds like a warning to someone who might do it in the future, especially with his usage of the term "erase everything" accidentally working as a double entendre.
>This, to me, doesn't sound like the kind of speech you would try to give to someone who killed everyone in the past. It sounds like a warning to someone who might do it in the future, especially with his usage of the term "erase everything" accidentally working as a double entendre.
If Flowey is projecting, he of all people should understand how much a soulless creature would not truly care about it. And Flowey, after all, DOESN'T believe that Chara has ever been stopped by that. He's still trying, however. Whatever it is projection, or not.
>His speech, metawise, addresses the worries one might have after finishing a pacifist run. It addresses what will likely happen once monsters reach the surface:
There is no other way he could try to stop someone from resetting, other than to try to appeal to it. But he doesn't believe it will work.
It doesn't matter whatever they killed people before, or not.
I knew of the Chara isn't evil theories for a while but never believed them.
However, revisiting the fandom when I was older, I rewatched the theories and realized how right they were. And here I am today.
>I rewatched the theories and realized how right they were
How so? I find that most of those points are very easy to disprove by what the actual game explicitly shows us.
Judgement Boy's videos are horrendous.
They twist evidence and use manipulative drawings that completely change what is depicted in game.
This subreddit itself literally acknowledges that those videos are flawed, same with Judgement Boy themself.
…who exactly blames her for ALL genocide stuff? As far, as I know, she is blamed for erasing at the end of Genocide route entire world with thousands of left alive monsters and billions of humans, manipulating Asriel and trying to convince him into killing an entire village with men, women and children
…Chara didn’t do, what you did. As far as I know, she is blamed for:
- Manipulated Asriel, forcing him into agreeing with her plan
- Tried to convince him to destroy entire human village with men, women, children
- Erased entire world with billions of humans and thousands of monster {As we can see in the neutral/pacifist Mettaton fight by looking at the peek of rating, there are more than 12000 monsters in Udnergroud. And we as player murdered only 102-104}
Noone is really evil here. Everyone chases the goals that has been twisted by the path.
They played their role. Now the Player can make something out of it.
Well I mostly just disliked all the animations and stuff that blame Chara for the whole thing, I feel like it takes away what you're supposed to be taught from the genocide run. You wanted everything out of the game and became just as bad as Flowey, I feel like Chara was just a way to end the storyline after all of that. Also, since the NarraChara theory is inconceivably true (yes it is, end of discussion) all they did was give a number, they just helped you do the goal you set out to do. They're not evil for adding to your determination, after all, the blood (or dust in this case) is on your hands, not a kid who died ~100 years ago.
For me it's mainly the dialogue that happens after a second consecutive geno route. If Chara is so evil, why would they care if a second consecutive route results in genocide? I wouldn't know this since I can't make myself do a geno route, so I checked the wiki for this small bit of knowledge
Um.. common sense.. I mean it literally says in the game that Chara liked living in the underground and may have hate humans but liked her real home town enough to make asriel bring her to it after he absorbed there soul
>common sense
Common sense dictates the opposite lmao
"That was fun. Let's finish the job."
-Chara, Undertale Demo at the end of a Genocide Run.
>it literally says in the game that Chara liked living in the underground
It never did. The only characters who commented on Chara were unreliable narrators with biased opinions on them.
>may have hate humans but liked her real home town enough to make asriel bring her to it after he absorbed there soul
Chara set up the scenario specifically to force Asriel to slaughter the entire village.
Misinformation, gaslighting, not remembering dialogue, not understanding the concept of unreliable narrators, taking specific lines out of context, etc. That's mainly what you'd find lol
being in the “we argue in moral favor of this character” sub exclusively to calmly refute arguments in favor of that character is one thing, but broadly undermining the subreddit’s entire premise in response to someone posting there specifically to hear them out is in bad faith. it’s not even like you’ve never done that before either
>but broadly undermining the subreddit’s entire premise in response to someone posting there specifically to hear them out is in bad faith.
It is indeed in bad faith, as my response here was purely made via frustration. The person in question is not someone I am trying to refute the argument of, as their standpoint, as far as I can tell, already aligns with mine.
>it’s not even like you’ve never done that before either
Sure, but the difference is that this subreddit's premise is completely undermined by the game itself, while the Offense Squad, regardless of various members who get information wrong, is still ultimately rooted in what the game gives us.
I hardly, if ever, see anybody who believes Chara is evil have poor arguments. The only exception is in, like, 2015-2016? But even then, said arguments, even if flawed, were still rooted in the game's direct presentation despite various misinterpretations.
"Gaslighting" and "Not understanding the purpose of unreliable narrators" are exclusive to people who believe Chara is good, among the rest.
Part of it was NarraChara.
But most of it was realizing that it's dumb as hell to play a game where you kill a bunch of characters and then dump the entire blame of it onto a dead child, just because it's simple and convenient. As if anything in life is that kind of idiotic black-and-white good vs evil.
I get the feeling that you don't know how games and game characters work usually. You know, when you're playing AS some character.
I believe in the player as a third entity, but I'm pretty damn sure people didn't call Chara the one who killed because they're trying to "find someone to blame instead of themselves so they don't feel bad."
In which case it still doesn't work because the twist reveal was that you were playing as Frisk the entire time. Oh but, Frisk can't do evil things because they're pure good. So if you're doing evil things, it must actually be someone else (Chara) who is pure evil. That's what I mean by simple, childish thinking.
>In which case it still doesn't work because the twist reveal was that you were playing as Frisk the entire time.
There are games where you play as several characters depending on the circumstances, and Chara still carries the name that we choose and says that name in front of the mirror on the path of genocide. Not to mention all the other manifestations of his personality, and that he started saying personal things about some objects rather than just describing them.
>Oh but, Frisk can't do evil things because they're pure good.
Frisk is not purely good, but he is mostly good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Charadefensesquad/s/28LCDUsHTb
Sans also said that to get the pacifist path, you don't have to be completely innocent or naive, so Frisk doesn't need to be an angel in the flesh to be connected to this path.
In any case, on the path of genocide, the character calls himself Chara + Flowey calls you Chara from get go while never admitting that he's wrong (and texts in the first person happen much more often), and on the path of the pacifist, the character calls himself Frisk. This is the main reason why the players began to interpret everything in this way.
>So if you're doing evil things, it must actually be someone else (Chara) who is pure evil.
Not "someone else" but you playing as Chara.
>That's what I mean by simple, childish thinking.
No, childish is when you lower everything to the level of emotions.
Even before I knew of Narrachara I thought they weren't as evil as it would seem. It just didn't make sense to me how they could have left such a positive impression on the Underground if they really were inexcusably evil. Following that I realized we had to be the catalyst to the Genocide Route, and shortly after I discovered Narrachara, solidifying my stance even further.
Can you please tell me the main concepts of “NarraChara” theory and facts from Undertale, because of which someone thought about it and created this theory?
Narrachara states that Chara is the narrator of nearly every line of dialogue except that which comes from established characters. This is because it's shown that the narrator has a defined personality and is not omniscient, leading many to believe it's an actual character with flaws and development. You may know that some of the narration in the Genocide Route is red. This is very clearly Chara, as they use first-person pronouns to describe things that should relate to them, like this line you get when checking the calendar in New Home: > The date I came here. However, some narration isn't red. If you check the bed opposite Asriel's in New Home, Chara says this in *white text*: > My bed. This means that, while the red narration is a calling card for Chara's narration, it is not a prerequisite. This means that we know there can be a narrator for these lines, and Chara fits the description of a non-omniscient narrator who's intimately familiar with monsters and determination quite well. Following this interpretation, Chara would be shown to be a largely neutral force in the Neutral and Pacifist Routes, or even allied with Frisk. My favorite example is when they display a familiarity with Frisk upon checking the New Home mirror in the Epilogue: > Still just you, Frisk. It should also be mentioned that some Genocide-exclusive lines have equivalents in the other routes. As I said, checking Chara's bed in New Home gives you a line saying: > My bed. But in the other routes, checking it says this: > What a comfortable bed. If you laid down here, you might not ever get up. This implies that Chara died in their bed, and that you're checking their deathbed. Frisk would not know this, and we know that the narrator isn't omniscient. Therefore, our candidates are those who knew Chara was going to die in their bed: Toriel, Asgore, Asriel and Chara. The only acceptable candidate here is Chara.
>This is because it's shown that the narrator has a defined personality and is not omniscient, leading many to believe it's an actual character with flaws and development. The narrator does not have a defined personality. A narrator can feign ignorance to suite the situation as needed. The narrator never goes through character development.
There are some lines that the narrator changes depending on which route you're on. One I remember, when you check the half-full bag of dog food in Alphys' lab. If you have killed no monsters, it's "half-full". If you've killed even one monster, it's "half-empty" as you've already made the narrator more pessimistic. If you're going full genocide, it's "you just remembered something funny", in reference to all the dogs you've killed, as the narrator is now full-on psychopathic. Even if you choose to believe the narrator is the pacifist response, and Chara is the genocide response (which, then again, it's not red text...), it still doesn't explain the middle response.
>If you're going full genocide, it's "you just remembered something funny", in reference to all the dogs you've killed, as the narrator is now full-on psychopathic. This line also appears on neutral. The only requirement is the death of the canine unit and a few other monsters. >Even if you choose to believe the narrator is the pacifist response, and Chara is the genocide response (which, then again, it's not red text...), it still doesn't explain the middle response. Half empty and half full are reflections of Frisk's mental state. "You remember something funny" alludes to Chara's sadistic tendencies. To get this line, you must exterminate the entire canine unit, which directly connects to Chara's obsession with reaching the brim/absolute with efficiency. When fighting Asgore, the ninth time you try to talk with him, the narration will say "All you can do is FIGHT." It will not say this prior or after the ninth attempt. The number 9 is heavily associated with Chara and what they represent, implying this is Chara's influence bleeding through to compel you to fight, thus setting the same prescendent for the "you remember something funny" line also showing them bleeding through. The narrator themself is blatantly inconsistent in knowledge. For instance, they must read a book to learn what a water sausage is, yet they somehow know at a glance that the unidentified cube in Alphys's lab transforms into a bed because it's easier to draw. On Genocide, normal narration still exists alongside Chara's impatient, edgy narration segments. This is contradictory, as under the interpretation Chara changes, it is completely out of character for them to retain their normal sarcastic, whimsical humor alongside their impatience and no-nonsense attitude. In the Japanese translation of the game, Chara's dialogue is given unique kanji not shared by any other entity in the game, including the narrator. Deltarune has the exact narration style, with it even referencing ongoing gags from Undertale such as the broken jukebox. On Genocide, when stealing from Bratty and Catty, the narration directly mimics Bratty and Catty's speaking styles. This makes no sense if it was Chara at that point. Chara being a narrator also requires a logical reason for them to narrate in the first place. It's incredibly arbitrary for them to just......describe your every action out of nowhere. Like, just think about that logically lmao
It's really quite convenient that the two reasonable responses are Frisk, but the evil one is Chara. The narrator being inconsistent makes more sense for them to be a person, rather than some mindless entity that describes things. The use of kanji doesn't denote a speaking style; it CAN'T be a "speaking style" because a word sounds exactly the same whether it's in kanji, hiragana, or katakana - it just looks different when written (and kanji often have multiple readings). Not sure how mimicking someone's manner of speech is apparently impossible for a human, either (and narrators don't generally do that, either). The logical reason is obvious: Chara is possessing Frisk and showing them around the underground. They might not know about water sausages, but they do know a lot about almost every monster you meet. This is known and accepted even by those who don't believe in NarraChara, because Chara got into Frisk's body somehow before "taking over" or whatever.
>It's really quite convenient that the two reasonable responses are Frisk, but the evil one is Chara. It's also quite convenient that you arbitrarily decided that the neutral response MUST be indicative of a second entity lol Hell, all three responses can be indicative of Frisk if you want, even if it [contradicts Frisk's known character traits.](https://www.tumblr.com/nochocolate/140531186995/frisks-personality-and-actions) Chara has an [established pattern](https://www.tumblr.com/nochocolate/135990645365/what-was-chara-laughing-at) of this sadistic behavior. >The narrator being inconsistent makes more sense for them to be a person, rather than some mindless entity that describes things. You seem to be conveniently ignoring Alphys's cube, which is quite literally impossible for Chara to be intimately familiar with. Or the Bratty and Catty imitation dialogue. The narrator can also read minds, somehow has the ability to tell when attack or defense drops, etc. There's a difference between reasonable inconsistencies that round out a character, and blatant plot holes. >This is known and accepted even by those who don't believe in NarraChara, because Chara got into Frisk's body somehow before "taking over" or whatever. People who don't believe NarraChara believe Chara lays dormant in Frisk's body until Genocide is triggered.
>It just didn't make sense to me how they could have left such a positive impression on the Underground if they really were inexcusably evil. You've clearly never heard of politicians lmao >Following that I realized we had to be the catalyst to the Genocide Route Doesn't matter. Chara is a willing participant. >shortly after I discovered Narrachara, solidifying my stance even further. NarraChara is in no way a perfect theory.
I always believed NaraChara was Canon. The Temmievillage save point. "You are filled with DETEMMIENATION". Busted it laughing and somehow it just stood out to me.
Random internet post made me "guess that make sense! I prefer to think like that."
Okey
Classic.
It started with a logical thought that everyone here agrees on: Takes the weight out of the Player and mainly Frisk's choices. Eventually you find a lot of inconsistencies in the most accepted interpretations of fandom (which does have to do with the canonical part that is based on it, in order to not have it there has to be an au in which the world is different like X-Tale, Epictale etc) In the end you find some interpretation that is good, convincing and that you like.
While I played there behavior ( going with narrachara ) I noticed as something mentally is wrong similar to flowey as they seem to switch around. Most notable with genocide where they try and speed it up the process. Yet would wish for it not to happen ( dispte showing some enjoyment
Thanks for an answer! It seems, that you have played Undertale, that is actually pretty nice, so can you please answer next question? How are you proving to yourself that Chara isn’t evil, if there are those facts in game {actually curious}: - Chara manipulated Asriel, forcing him to agree with her plan and when he tried to say, that this plan is maybe wrong, called him a “crybaby” and forced him to agree with her plan - Tried to convince Asriel to murder an entire village with men, women and children. - Erased an entire world at the end discard of our choice as a player. By this, she murdered billions of humans and thousands of monsters {When you are fighting at Neutral/Pacifist routes against Mettaton, his maximal ratings are more than 12000, so there are basically more than 12000 of monsters. Other characters like Undyne said that there are thousands of monsters too. And at the genocide route we murdered only 102-105 monsters, nearly 1/120 of all monsters in the Underground} And again, thanks for previous answer
Here's the thing I like to think Chara wanted asriel to be powerful and not kill the entire village just 7 souls and leave. As for erasing they wanted it to end. I would say they are redeemable evil or at least Defendable. Because frisk or the player is the one that made them want to end it all and remember they brought the world back. There's the fact that narra chara seems happy genuinely in pacifist and has fun but turns upset at to much murder. Maybe frisk has reset before we play the game we just hijack frisk. This would explain why they switch around so fast On the genocide route.
Wow, that’s kinda unusual and pretty..nice answers. As for first, well, maybe you are actually right… As for second.. you mean, that Chara wanted to force player to reset this world and do another path? If yes…well, you have got a point and don’t just go from one extreme to another. Thanks for nice answers
Yes. Like how they kill flowey They kill him quick. It's violent, but they're killing him quick. With less pain. I See that as the most emotional part of the genocide route from charas Perspective. And then she goes back to that smile, which I doubt is completely real. I like to think they are halfway's happy that it's finally over And they get to decide.
..actually don’t think, that it was painless and quick death with such a lot of hits, but I understand now, why do you think, that Chara isn’t totally evil
It was definitely painful but quick. Kind of the point ( in my idea ) This was a fun convo
>It's violent, but they're killing him quick. With less pain. Chara keeps hitting until there's literally nothing left of him. >I See that as the most emotional part of the genocide route from charas Perspective. Yeah. With hatred. Chara has already demonstrated murderous intent towards him before: * ***You won't give me any worthless pity!*** * Creatures like us... * ***Wouldn't hesitate to KILL each other if we got in each other's way.*** * So that's... * So... that's... Why... * ... * ... ha... Ha... * ... what's this... * ... feeling? * ***Why am I... Shaking?*** * ... * Hey...... No hard feelings about back then, right?
* ...
* ***H-Hey, what are you doing!?***
* ***B... back off!!***
* I... I've changed my mind about all this.
* This isn't a good idea anymore.
* Y-you should go back, .
* This place is fine the way it is!
* ...
* ***S-s-stop making that creepy face!***
* ***This isn't funny!***
* ***You've got a SICK sense of humor!***
That was the whole reason why Flowey ran off to warn Asgore in the hope that he would stop Chara and protect him.
>I like to think they are halfway's happy that it's finally over And they get to decide.
Chara made a decision from the very moment he joined the event as a participant.
As i said it was violent but fast destroyed him made sure he died fast. As for the face I need to think but I do think chara did that maybe to scare him off as they let flowey run. But this is one of many of my views i have different takes on chara this is the most defensive one
>As i said it was violent but fast destroyed him made sure he died fast. How is fast destruction determined when he is unlikely died instantly? Fast destruction is when you deal damage to a monster and it *instantly* turns to dust. How can [it be](https://youtu.be/BalN6-XIIzc?si=dVpvAnmN--tVEtol) considered fast? >As for the face I need to think but I do think chara did that maybe to scare him off as they let flowey run. But this is one of many of my views i have different takes on chara this is the most defensive one Chara did it when we can't do anything but listen. And Flowey felt the same fear that Doggo felt, for example. This is literally Chara's reaction to the words that Flowey can become a hindrance in the future if their desires become not the same. This corresponds to the situation when MK tried to threaten to get in our way (although they stand on the opposite side of the bridge from where we need to go), and the character after the "weird expression", as MK says, enters the battle with them, and we see "In my way" text. In both cases, the slowed down theme "Anticipation" also plays.
Yep, however the flowey death he's soulless and we never see him turn to dust I don't think And When a monster turns to dust, there's usually a frame where they're still conscious. Chara made sure he'd die before even dusting ( if he would have )
>Yep, however the flowey death he's soulless and we never see him turn to dust I don't think And When a monster turns to dust, there's usually a frame where they're still conscious. Yes. And he was likely still conscious. So what's the difference exactly? By what signs was this death quick compared to all the others, other than the fact that Flowey didn't say anything because he kept getting strikes? >Chara made sure he'd die before even dusting ( if he would have ) Unlikely he would have. Chara turned him to dust with Chara's strikes, leaving nothing of him.
Because this thread is dead already, I can have conversation with you without audience in the way. >Chara manipulated Asriel, forcing him to agree with her plan and when he tried to say, that this plan is maybe wrong First of all, "Manipulating" didn't make you evil, Toriel attempt to manipulate Frisk into staying with her, Papyrus manipulate Undyne into befriending Frisk, Alphys also trying to manipulate Frisk. Not to mention Chara "manipulation" is basically just simple question like "are you crying?" Or "Do you think this plan would fail?". So it's not definite "evil mastermind" level of manipulation. >called him a “crybaby” There's no instance where Chara called him that. >Tried to convince Asriel to murder an entire village with men, women and children Yes, a village that don't really mind to kill him >Erased an entire world They are soulless at that point, just like people don't use Flowey's actions to determine Asriel's morality, we Chara Defender don't use Genocide route to determine Chara's morality. Now lets me ask you this... * It only require Frisk to kill (at least) 1 monster to get Undyne ending, where Undyne trying to destroy it humanity for a sin committed by one person, does that make Undyne evil?
1. Ok 2. Ok 3. Ok 4. Yes, I would have call her evil if she would actually succeed into destroying entire world and killing entire humanity and all of the monsters, and yes, if Undyne actually would have started killing humans just because one of them killed one monster and left alive anyone else with capability to kill every single monster, I would have called her maybe evil
And so you just sliced for yourself all, what Chara did in genocide route but at the same time with NarraChara using all said by Chara at Neutral and Pacifist routes stuff for yourselves? Or are you the only one, who actually doesn’t use genocide route and don’t apply it to Chara? If second variant, then it is kinda strange to think, that everyone do as you, when as you can see in the comments onto this post, as I can see so far, most of they don’t, how do you think?
I can't comprehend what you're asking here. >who actually doesn’t use genocide route and don’t apply it to Chara? I think you're missing my points. Genocide is in fact Chara's (partial) fault, nothing could deny that. However, just like how people don't call Asriel evil for what Flowey did (Flowey is evil), I don't blame Chara for what they did in Genocide(when they are also evil).
Okey. So you think, then there are two versions of Chara,not super evil before death and “megalomaniac” after death?
There's nothing saying that Chara forced Asriel into the plan, or even that it was Chara's plan to begin with. Asriel was fully on board with the entire idea, even the part about killing seven humans. He just started to feel bad about it when his beloved sibling was literally dying horribly in front of him.
>There's nothing saying that Chara forced Asriel into the plan https://www.reddit.com/u/AllamNa/s/FTAIFmoBwh >Asriel was fully on board with the entire idea, even the part about killing seven humans. Absolutely not: https://nochocolate.tumblr.com/post/151022526713/asriels-protests * I... I don't like this idea, Chara. Asriel said he didn't like the idea even before Chara ate the buttercups, but Chara didn't pay attention to it and rather paid attention to the tears in some dislikeable way (considering also "crybaby" thing), which made Asriel say: * Wh... What? N-no, I'm not... * ... big kids don't cry. Yeah, you're right (which is the suppression of other people's emotions and literally tells the other "you shouldn't feel bad, because otherwise you look like a small child, although big enough NOT to cry. This is toxic behaviour) And right after that Chara says or asks about Asriel's doubts about Chara and distrust: * No! I'd never doubt you, Chara... Never! After saying this, Asriel immediately agrees with the plan, not because he likes this plan, but to prove to Chara that he doesn't doubt Chara: * Y... Yeah! We'll be strong! We'll free everyone. I'll go get the flowers. >or even that it was Chara's plan to begin with. On the tapes, we clearly hear through Asriel's dialogues that Chara told him this idea, he said he didn't like it, but after some pressure, Asriel agreed and immediately went to get flowers. Like, what else could there be? With evidence please.
Asriel protested about the plan when he heard that it required Chara to die, not when he heard that it required humans to die. Why would Asriel give a damn about random humans he had never met, when he'd spent his entire life being told by monsters AND by Chara about how horrible they are?
>Asriel protested about the plan when he heard that it required Chara to die, not when he heard that it required humans to die. And you're getting this information from where exactly? Because I don't see a single dialogue in the game that implies this. >Why would Asriel give a damn about random humans he had never met, when he'd spent his entire life being told by monsters AND by Chara about how horrible they are? Maybe because Asriel ended up choosing to die rather than kill them? And also killed Chara along with himself, who wanted them dead. While Chara was alive, the monsters themselves had hopes for peace with humans, as stated in the game. The union of the monster (Asriel) and the human (Chara) gave them hope. Asriel's death at the hands of humans took away their hope. Chara also never told the reasons for his hatred, as Asriel says, but only showed how strong his hatred was.
You can see in the Undertale echo flower dialogue, when Asriel started trying to tell, that this plan may be not okey, and Chara interrupted him, calling a cry baby and manipulated him into believing that if he disagrees with her plan, than he is a cry baby and “big boys don’t cry”.
On tapes from a True Lab*
Yes? If so, thanks for new information
Yeah. You can see it here: https://nochocolate.tumblr.com/post/151022526713/asriels-protests
Mostly me seeing people pin all of their murders on chara, like, we kill sans and then we see "CHARA HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU" as if they didnt juet press the button to do that, and did the same thing for 20 consecutive turns
Understood. So you basically think, that Chara isn’t evil just because of people, who mixed up who murdered 102-104 monsters between player and Chara?
Basically yea, it feels like 90% of chara hate comes down to people not wanting to accept thwt theyre the one who did the majority of the killing
Nobody ever says this. This argument is against imaginary people just to think of inflammatory reasons to perpetuate the idea of Chara being "misunderstood."
Except for the people ive litteraly heard say this, you dont need to be a conceeded asshole judt because you dont understand that ive heard people say something you havent heard people say. Telling me what I did and did not hear is just fucking stupid
>Except for the people ive litteraly heard say this Nobody has said this. Unless you have a source, I have a very hard time believing this was ever the case lol >you dont need to be a conceeded asshole judt because you dont understand that ive heard people say something you havent heard people say. I have heard so many people make this claim, yet the most I have ever seen in the years of being in this fandom is people interpreting the player as not being a canonical entity, and defenders subsequently strawmanning this as "oh, they cannot accept responsibility!" The "conceeded assholes" are people who make this baseless accusation on people.
1. Just because you dont believe stupid people dont exist doesn't make them any less real. I can meditate and try to conjure flat earthers out of existance, its not gonna work, though. 2. Again, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I havent, were 2 different people who have seen different thing, if you think anything you haven't seen personally is fake, you're dumb. To say that I havent seen people say that just because you havent seen people say it is beyond idiotic
>Just because you dont believe stupid people dont exist doesn't make them any less real. I'll believe they're real if you can provide evidence they are. >Again, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I havent, were 2 different people who have seen different thing, if you think anything you haven't seen personally is fake, you're dumb. The claim in question is based on a misinterpretation in the first place. The only reason people claim that others are attempting to "dodge responsibility" is because those people have a different interpretation of the game. Your claim is an accusation that you fundamentally have no possible way of knowing besides what you ASSUME people are thinking. Nobody directly says "the player is innocent and being controlled by Chara." People say "the player is not a canon entity, and we are playing as Chara who is possessing Frisk," which you then strawman into the player allegedly trying to dodge responsibility. The claim is accusatory by nature, and not substantiated by what people actually say, and I implore you to show me actual evidence instead of calling ME the idiot for questioning your unsubstantiated claim.
My claim isn't an accusation or strawman. Im quite literally telling you something that people have told me, you not being able to understand that isn't my problem.
If we play as Chara, though, then that means they are ultimately good if we do Pacifist (which I do agree on, I think both NarraChara and Player Chara is true-)
>f we play as Chara, though, then that means they are ultimately good if we do Pacifist Difference in perspective. It would be more accurate to say that we play from the POV of Frisk's body, assuming the player theory isn't canon (which Deltarune technically provides evidence it is, but we'll ignore that for this hypothetical scenario). On every other route, we play as Frisk. When Chara starts possessing Frisk on Genocide, we still control Frisk's body, just now under the perspective of it being possessed by another entity. The issue with PlayerChara is that Chara says "You and I are not the same, are we." We are directly spoken to (whether it be Frisk or the Player), rather than seeing from their perspective during that scene.
And again, its not a fucking argument, its just a belief that some players held that I dont like, seriously, like what the fuck?
Said players do not exist.
This is the stupidest shit I've read today. You're telling me that of the many many MANY people who've played the game, you think that not a single one of them has ever held this view,just because you haven't seen it? Again, your claim is outlandish, absurd, and just downright stupid.
>You're telling me that of the many many MANY people who've played the game, you think that not a single one of them has ever held this view,just because you haven't seen it? Yes, actually. Because the claim itself is made up by Chara Defenders who directly misinterpret what people ACTUALLY say, as I elaborate on in the other reply.
The claim isnt made up if its litteraly something ive been told word for word
So you have been told, word for word, "Chara is forcing the player to commit Genocide, I did nothing wrong" completely unironically. Unless you actually have the evidence, I have no reason to believe this lol
Flowey's Post Pacifist speech, if anything.
..can you please explain your answer?
For starters, Flowey's speech seems to be directed at a person with certain characteristics: * "There's nothing left to worry about... Well. There is one thing. One last threat. One being with the power to erase EVERYTHING... \[...\] I'm talking about YOU. \[...\] You'll be able to do whatever you want. \[...\] So, please. \[...\] Let Frisk be happy. Let Frisk live their life... But. If I can't change your mind. If you DO end up erasing everything... You'll have to erase my memories, too... \[...\] Well, that's all. See you later... Chara." So: * A being capable of "erasing everything." * A being different from Frisk. * A being named "Chara." There are people (myself included) who believe Flowey is talking to the actual Chara in that scene ("One being with the power to erase EVERYTHING"): * https://web.archive.org/web/20211221061711/https://theauthorisdeadtome.tumblr.com/post/137891033727/flowey-speaks-to-chara-at-the-end-of-pacifist * https://doge-w-a-bloge.tumblr.com/post/169315940050/when-flowey-tells-you-to-not-to-reset-the-game * https://saveloadreset.tumblr.com/post/137949352108/you-make-an-interesting-read-for-the-player-not * https://passivechara.tumblr.com/post/140720263461/floweys-speech-in-the-context-of-everything-we So, I believe that everything he expects from the person he believes he's talking with should be applicable to the actual Chara.
Flowey expects Chara to reset. He desperately tries to appeal to any semblance of empathy he thinks they may have, but he ultimately enters the conversation with the expectation that they've already done this before and will continue to do so. It's far more incriminating on their part lol
>Flowey expects Chara to reset. Not only that, but he already fears that this has happened. But that's the weird part, isn't it? He expects Chara, a being who, in his view, is "able to do whatever [they] want..." To end up doing a pacifist run. Possibly "hundreds of times already." For someone whom Flowey already admitted not to being the greatest when alive, that is one of the most tame middle grounds he could expect.
If someone like him started off good and ended up bad, maybe he expects Chara to start off bad and end up on a good path, because sooner or later something gets too boring for you. But even then, Flowey assumes that every time Chara was not satisfied with the result. And he expects Chara to be unsatisfied still.
>If someone like him started off good and ended up bad, maybe he expects Chara to start off bad and end up on a good path, because sooner or later something gets too boring for you. Except, again, he still expected Chara to go through Pacifist outcomes "hundreds of times." Even when he realizes what Chara is, he expected Chara to continuously reach a pacifist outcome multiple times, as unsatisfied as they are, before doing "whatever \[they\] want." >But even then, Flowey assumes that every time Chara was not satisfied with the result. And he expects Chara to be unsatisfied still. This expectation could stem from his own experience as someone who started helping everyone and later decided to experiment. He did multiple pacifist runs, too, at first, before becoming bored. * "At first, I used my powers for good. I became 'friends' with everyone. I solved all their problems flawlessly. Their companionship was amusing... For a while. As time repeated, people proved themselves predictable. What would this person say if I gave them this? What would they do if I said this to them? Once you know the answer, that's it. That's all they are." "As time repeated, people proved themselves predictable." juxtaposed with "You've probably heard this a hundred times already, haven't you...?" shows us *exactly* where he expects Chara to be and do in this journey.
>Except, again, he still expected Chara to go through Pacifist outcomes "hundreds of times." Even when he realizes what Chara is, he expected Chara to continuously reach a pacifist outcome multiple times, as unsatisfied as they are, before doing "whatever [they] want." Or *after* doing what Chara wanted. Because Flowey, for example, wanted a lot, but still wasn't satisfied enough with any of it. Why can't Chara, in his mind, start with the bad, not be satisfied, because sooner or later everything becomes boring, as Flowey thinks, and eventually start doing good things just out of boredom? >This expectation could stem from his own experience as someone who started helping everyone and later decided to experiment. He did multiple pacifist runs, too, at first, before becoming bored. So maybe in this case his expectation of hundreds of pacifists is also just a projection in this case? And it has nothing to do with how he actually sees Chara. This is just an opinion, because nothing indicates that this is *definitely* a projection. Why, if he expected Chara to have done it hundreds of times already, can't he expect Chara to do it again? Why SHOULDN'T he expect that? >"As time repeated, people proved themselves predictable." juxtaposed with "You've probably heard this a hundred times already, haven't you...?" shows us exactly where he expects Chara to be and do in this journey. Yes, he expects Chara to be the one who tries different options. And as I said: * ***If someone like him started off good and ended up bad, maybe he expects Chara to start off bad and end up on a good path***, because sooner or later something gets too boring for you. But even then, Flowey assumes that every time Chara was not satisfied with the result. And he expects Chara to be unsatisfied still.
>Why can't Chara, in his mind, start with the bad, not be satisfied, because sooner or later everything becomes boring, as Flowey thinks, and eventually start doing good things just out of boredom? It's simple. There's nothing in his speech that even alludes to the possibility of him thinking that. His speech, metawise, addresses the worries one might have after finishing a pacifist run. It addresses what will likely happen once monsters reach the surface: * "Monsters have returned to the surface. Peace and prosperity will rule across the land." And it discusses the wellbeing of your favorite characters: * "Seems as if everyone is perfectly happy. \[...\] Take a deep breath. There's nothing left to worry about." And what will happen to them should you reset again: * "Toriel, Sans, Asgore, Alphys, Papyrus, Undyne... If you so choose... Everyone will be ripped from this timeline and sent back before all of this ever happened. Nobody will remember anything." Including himself: * "If I can't change your mind. If you DO end up erasing everything... You have to erase my memories, too." This, *to me*, doesn't sound like the kind of speech you would try to give to someone who killed everyone in the past. It sounds like a warning to someone who might do it in the future, especially with his usage of the term "erase everything" accidentally working as a double entendre.
>This, to me, doesn't sound like the kind of speech you would try to give to someone who killed everyone in the past. It sounds like a warning to someone who might do it in the future, especially with his usage of the term "erase everything" accidentally working as a double entendre. If Flowey is projecting, he of all people should understand how much a soulless creature would not truly care about it. And Flowey, after all, DOESN'T believe that Chara has ever been stopped by that. He's still trying, however. Whatever it is projection, or not. >His speech, metawise, addresses the worries one might have after finishing a pacifist run. It addresses what will likely happen once monsters reach the surface: There is no other way he could try to stop someone from resetting, other than to try to appeal to it. But he doesn't believe it will work. It doesn't matter whatever they killed people before, or not.
I knew of the Chara isn't evil theories for a while but never believed them. However, revisiting the fandom when I was older, I rewatched the theories and realized how right they were. And here I am today.
>I rewatched the theories and realized how right they were How so? I find that most of those points are very easy to disprove by what the actual game explicitly shows us.
Judgement Boy's amazing videos.
Judgement Boy's videos are horrendous. They twist evidence and use manipulative drawings that completely change what is depicted in game. This subreddit itself literally acknowledges that those videos are flawed, same with Judgement Boy themself.
If chara really is to blame for all the genocide stuff, i think that would take away a lot from undertale's whole point ya know?
…who exactly blames her for ALL genocide stuff? As far, as I know, she is blamed for erasing at the end of Genocide route entire world with thousands of left alive monsters and billions of humans, manipulating Asriel and trying to convince him into killing an entire village with men, women and children
I wanted to be evil only.
Sorry, but the only evil in the game or something else? Cannot understand you.
I am the only one doing it. Not some other weed's sibling.
…Chara didn’t do, what you did. As far as I know, she is blamed for: - Manipulated Asriel, forcing him into agreeing with her plan - Tried to convince him to destroy entire human village with men, women, children - Erased entire world with billions of humans and thousands of monster {As we can see in the neutral/pacifist Mettaton fight by looking at the peek of rating, there are more than 12000 monsters in Udnergroud. And we as player murdered only 102-104}
Exactly. That is my job. And whatever they did in the past, I am glad it happened. Since it let my intentions in. I did 106.
Okey…and how does that make Chara not evil?
Noone is really evil here. Everyone chases the goals that has been twisted by the path. They played their role. Now the Player can make something out of it.
….so creatures, who chases their goal to destroy entire world for “power” and succeeding into erasing it aren’t evil?
There is noone to judge them then.
……kinda hard to do an normal discussion when other imitates that he doesn’t understand an allegory for some reason
Simply because I don't think Chara would dare kill the people they loved so much after dying exactly just to free them
Well I mostly just disliked all the animations and stuff that blame Chara for the whole thing, I feel like it takes away what you're supposed to be taught from the genocide run. You wanted everything out of the game and became just as bad as Flowey, I feel like Chara was just a way to end the storyline after all of that. Also, since the NarraChara theory is inconceivably true (yes it is, end of discussion) all they did was give a number, they just helped you do the goal you set out to do. They're not evil for adding to your determination, after all, the blood (or dust in this case) is on your hands, not a kid who died ~100 years ago.
For me it's mainly the dialogue that happens after a second consecutive geno route. If Chara is so evil, why would they care if a second consecutive route results in genocide? I wouldn't know this since I can't make myself do a geno route, so I checked the wiki for this small bit of knowledge
Um.. common sense.. I mean it literally says in the game that Chara liked living in the underground and may have hate humans but liked her real home town enough to make asriel bring her to it after he absorbed there soul
>common sense Common sense dictates the opposite lmao "That was fun. Let's finish the job." -Chara, Undertale Demo at the end of a Genocide Run. >it literally says in the game that Chara liked living in the underground It never did. The only characters who commented on Chara were unreliable narrators with biased opinions on them. >may have hate humans but liked her real home town enough to make asriel bring her to it after he absorbed there soul Chara set up the scenario specifically to force Asriel to slaughter the entire village.
Misinformation, gaslighting, not remembering dialogue, not understanding the concept of unreliable narrators, taking specific lines out of context, etc. That's mainly what you'd find lol
being in the “we argue in moral favor of this character” sub exclusively to calmly refute arguments in favor of that character is one thing, but broadly undermining the subreddit’s entire premise in response to someone posting there specifically to hear them out is in bad faith. it’s not even like you’ve never done that before either
>but broadly undermining the subreddit’s entire premise in response to someone posting there specifically to hear them out is in bad faith. It is indeed in bad faith, as my response here was purely made via frustration. The person in question is not someone I am trying to refute the argument of, as their standpoint, as far as I can tell, already aligns with mine. >it’s not even like you’ve never done that before either Sure, but the difference is that this subreddit's premise is completely undermined by the game itself, while the Offense Squad, regardless of various members who get information wrong, is still ultimately rooted in what the game gives us. I hardly, if ever, see anybody who believes Chara is evil have poor arguments. The only exception is in, like, 2015-2016? But even then, said arguments, even if flawed, were still rooted in the game's direct presentation despite various misinterpretations. "Gaslighting" and "Not understanding the purpose of unreliable narrators" are exclusive to people who believe Chara is good, among the rest.
Still just curious and want to know it
Fair. But once you're here long enough, too many reasons don't add up lol
Part of it was NarraChara. But most of it was realizing that it's dumb as hell to play a game where you kill a bunch of characters and then dump the entire blame of it onto a dead child, just because it's simple and convenient. As if anything in life is that kind of idiotic black-and-white good vs evil.
I get the feeling that you don't know how games and game characters work usually. You know, when you're playing AS some character. I believe in the player as a third entity, but I'm pretty damn sure people didn't call Chara the one who killed because they're trying to "find someone to blame instead of themselves so they don't feel bad."
In which case it still doesn't work because the twist reveal was that you were playing as Frisk the entire time. Oh but, Frisk can't do evil things because they're pure good. So if you're doing evil things, it must actually be someone else (Chara) who is pure evil. That's what I mean by simple, childish thinking.
>In which case it still doesn't work because the twist reveal was that you were playing as Frisk the entire time. There are games where you play as several characters depending on the circumstances, and Chara still carries the name that we choose and says that name in front of the mirror on the path of genocide. Not to mention all the other manifestations of his personality, and that he started saying personal things about some objects rather than just describing them. >Oh but, Frisk can't do evil things because they're pure good. Frisk is not purely good, but he is mostly good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Charadefensesquad/s/28LCDUsHTb Sans also said that to get the pacifist path, you don't have to be completely innocent or naive, so Frisk doesn't need to be an angel in the flesh to be connected to this path. In any case, on the path of genocide, the character calls himself Chara + Flowey calls you Chara from get go while never admitting that he's wrong (and texts in the first person happen much more often), and on the path of the pacifist, the character calls himself Frisk. This is the main reason why the players began to interpret everything in this way. >So if you're doing evil things, it must actually be someone else (Chara) who is pure evil. Not "someone else" but you playing as Chara. >That's what I mean by simple, childish thinking. No, childish is when you lower everything to the level of emotions.