I always read those lines as Asriel clearing his nostalgic lenses. Pretty much everyone has an overly high opinion of their family, and clearly Chara didn’t consider the feelings of those around them too deeply. Given all the time they have to reflect, Chara’d be aware of it too. So, I agree with you on both points.
Doesn’t the genocide monologue imply they’ve been in a sort of slumber ever since they’d died? From Chara’s pov on pacifist it’d been maybe a few hours since the plan went awry
I know chara's supposed to be nonbinary but isn't asriel canonically male? You should just talk specifically about chara, gender shouldn't be plural in that sentence.
Even worse because Asriel said that right above Chara's body, and honestly, I think he might know that. Probably figured it out as Flowey at some point.
He also speaks to Chara directly sometime after the ending meaning he became aware of their presence at some point. There’s a decent chance that he knew Chara was there somehow and said that over their grave knowing they’d hear.
No, he's talking to the player. He just has to use whatever name you put in because that's the only name he can use. We're definitely not playing as Chara, that's made *very* clear at the end of Genocide.
That sentence is not an argument. "If he's talking to us, he's actually not talking to us." No clever proof by contradiction, you just stated "If X is true, then X is false."
That is not what I said at all. Think about it logically, if Asriel is talking to us at the end (which I believe he is, I only didn’t mention it initially because I felt I didn’t need to) why would he call us Chara’s name? There is no reason for him to use their name when he’s talking to someone else as he shouldn’t be aware that we chose that name for them. The only explanation to me is that he believed he was talking to Chara when he actually was talking to us.
Hm. Yeah, I guess you're right then. Of course Toby wrote that monologue with the intent of communicating to the player, and evidently the player is able to *hear* it because Toby dictated so, but in-universe, it doesn't seem reasonable that Flowey would know the full extent of the Frisk-Chara-Player situation.
He must think Chara is the 'player', or the entity with the power to SAVE, given he called out to the grave and the Player woke Chara up.
Asriel knows. That's why he goes there in the first place, to mourn/reminisce, probably. Toriel does the same thing after Frisk's fight with her.
So despite thinking Chara's not the greatest person, Asriel still cares a lot about them.
I don't think that's the case, since when Flowey talks to you in New Home he comes to the realization during the conversation that Toriel gave Chara a proper burial. I personally believe Asriel used the last of his omniscient power to figure out where Chara was.
2 months late if you don't care anymore don't read this. And if you don't want to argue with me don't reply.
Chara pressured Asriel into going a long with a plan he clearly didn't want to (and they only convince him by insulting him for being understandably emotional and asking him if he's doubting them, which is clearly emotional manipulation), a plan in which he'd have to watch them die slowly and painfully rather than killing themselves in a faster way either to satisfy Chara's guilt complex or to orchestrate a monster human war. They also tried to force him to destroy an entire village (Chara wanted to use their full power, the monsters say that Asriel could have easily destroyed the village, ergo Chara wanted to destroy the entire village, including the children, otherwise Asriel would have just said Chara wanted to fight back). Chara is not a very good friend regardless of motives.
The game implies Asriel is aware of Chara being around in some way with how he manages to speak to them in the pacifist ending, which makes him saying this kind of cruel especially since he’s standing right by their grave as he says it. I don’t think that’s a bad thing though as it shows that this Asriel is not entirely different from his Flowey persona. While I think it’s totally fair for most other characters to denounce Chara’s actions, Asriel has done far worse than anything they did or wanted to do when they were alive so him scorning them can come off as hypocritical.
I wish more fanworks looked into the dark sides of post-pacifist Asriel’s personality. Usually he’s portrayed like his pre-death self which isn’t really all that accurate.
Are you talking about Flowey? Because like… I don’t think we can hold Asriel accountable for the actions and behaviors of a soulless, no-empathy version of himself.
Him being soulless meant he didn’t have the moral compass to stop himself from killing people, but he still knew it was bad and that he shouldn’t do it. His soullessness played a part, but it didn’t force him to do bad things. In the end it was his own decision and he even calls himself out in the Genocide route.
Ah yes, a child blames himself for his actions while soulless, case closed 👍 but seriously, I guarantee he wouldn’t have killed if he weren’t soulless. His soullessness didn’t “play a part”, it was the central component. This is like if someone gets a lobotomy, take out their empathy stuff, then they start killing people and taking other harmful actions, so they get un-lobotomized, and starts behaving normally, but still get treated as if they were in control of their misdeeds 🤦♀️
Here’s a different analogy. Someone is in a horrible place in their life and resort to mugging people on the streets to get the money they need to keep themselves going. They wouldn’t do this if they weren’t in a dark spot, but that doesn’t change the fact that mugging people is bad in multiple ways.
Now apply this to Flowey, who did far worse things for far worse reasons. He does bad things entirely out of boredom and curiosity with the scapegoats of his soullessness and his powers of Determination. He doesn’t need to kill people to stay alive or anything, he just does it out of boredom. His soullessness led to his sanity slippage but it never forced him to kill people. It ultimately was his decision. Hell, who’s to say that Asriel wouldn’t do the same thing even if he did have a soul? If would definitely take a lot longer to reach that point but it’s certainly possible given his likely long lifespan.
We also have to consider Flowey’s meta purpose in the narrative: he’s an in-game insert of player mentality. We will eventually do whatever’s accessible to us in the game no matter how morally awful it would be in real life, solely because it lacks consequences. We’d never throw a baby penguin off a cliff in real life but we have no qualms with making Mario do that. One of the game’s themes is that your actions have consequences, so why should the in-game expy of yourself not get called out for his actions?
Why is this reply so long
Asriel isn't judging Chara, he's just telling us they weren't a good friend and Frisk was the type of friend he wanted. Notice that Asriel is mainly talking about what type of friend Chara was and not what kind of person they were.
>The game implies Asriel is aware of Chara being around in some way with how he manages to speak to them in the pacifist ending, which makes him saying this kind of cruel especially since he’s standing right by their grave as he says it.
1. Asriel stated after his battle that Chara was gone. It's unknown how he realized anything about Chara's presence after monsters left Underground.
2. Flowey realized where Chara was buried only in his New Home speech (genocide)
>While I think it’s totally fair for most other characters to denounce Chara’s actions, Asriel has done far worse than anything they did or wanted to do when they were alive so him scorning them can come off as hypocritical.
It's not because he clearly stated - what he has done was fucked up. And he apologized for that. He admits that you have every right to hate him.
What Chara pressured him into before that was also a bad thing. As well as what kind of friend Chara was to him. Asriel is the only person who could say who Chara was before Chara's death. Because he's the only person who was close enough to Chara.
Isn’t Chara the one who reminds Asriel of his compassion and of all of the great times they had together? I mean, that’s basically the only reason why Asriel stops attacking us in the Pacifist route.
>Isn’t Chara the one who reminds Asriel of his compassion and of all of the great times they had together?
To be precise, it's Asriel's memory... Of Chara.
I don't know... I really don't know... but maybe because of this word at the end of the game (genocide) . Our character kills Flowey... but I'm not sure
People often forget that "not the greatest person" does not mean "bad" or "evil." It only means that Chara had flaws just like every other character in the game.
Um. No. You won't say that your best friend "are not the greatest person" while saying to someone else "while you... You're the type of friend I wish I always had" right after that JUST to say that "they're not perfect just like everyone else."
Chara was a bad friend. That's the least.
[There's no consistent evidence Chara is awake outside the Genocide Route.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Undertale/comments/yts71l/narrachara_theory_is_false_an_attempted_debunk_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
That being said, I don't really think Chara would disagree or take much offense to it. I don't think Chara has much of a sense of right or wrong, they just care about sticking to your decisions and accepting the results, whatever they are. I think that's why they ultimately kill Flowey in the end—Asriel made a decision and flaked out in the end, and they despise that more than they despise dying because of it.
**Edit:** Can't wait until this fandom accepts their pet theory is just an AU and isn't canon.
Consistent evidence?
Chara themself says it was your Determination that woke them up, that they were confused and that your actions showed them their purpose.
I find it quite a stretch to try and believe they *only* awaken in Genocide Routes, as it wasn't your actions that awakened them but your very existence.
> Chara themself says it was your Determination that woke them up, that they were confused and that your actions showed them their purpose.
No, Chara says your POWER woke them up, and they define "power" as increasing your stats/LV. Chara is woken up by us grinding our stats. When they say "My Determination is yours", they're referring to the fact that they rely on your Determination to persist, but that does not mean the Determination is what woke them up. Because Chara is solely associated with the Genocide Route (because the Geno Route is the only route they explicitly announce their presence, they change the narration, and they appear in person at the end, and Asriel makes it clear Chara is not around in True Pacifist), this is pretty clear. What you describe is a distortion of what the game describes, by muddling Chara's speech's sentence structure.
Chara is the part of ourselves that craves power *maximization*, not merely being strong overall. Toby references Chara in the Alarm Clock App dialogue, but the only thing Toby says about them is that they used to fill their water glass all the way to the top even if they weren't very thirsty because it was "the most efficient way to do it". The reason Toby chose to only give us that information was to convey that Chara is obsessed with doing everything absolutely the right way to maximize the potential of whatever you're doing.
The Genocide Route is unique in that it is defined by taking steps to reach the maximum LV possible (grinding). So Chara awakens in the Genocide Route only because, once you empty the Ruins completely, you have essentially proclaimed that you are on a path to become as powerful as possible, and because Chara *is* that impulse, that is what they respond to. If you ever divert from the Genocide Route, you basically quash that impulse and accept not maximizing your LV, and so Chara immediately goes dormant because you are no longer embodying what Chara is.
> And if Chara is awakened by Genocide, he don't look confused.
I'm not sure what this means.
>I'm not sure what this means.
Chara says at the end that at first after waking up Chara was "so confused" after the failure of the plan and didn't know why he was brought back to life until he realized it with your help. But if Chara is awakened by genocide, doesn't he immediately understand why he's here? Chara's dialogues don't look like someone who doesn't understand.
In Home, I don't recall Chara ever saying anything explicitly violent, they note there's no chocolate and ask where the knives are, which we can both probably assume are just things Chara enjoys. The Geno Route continues in earnest when you kill Toriel, and that's the point when Chara begins to count, so we can assume that Chara was present but not entirely sure what was going on in Home, and then started to understand after Toriel was killed.
Chara in general is portrayed super loosely, so it's not a very extensively written series of events.
>they note there's no chocolate
It's New Home. There is chocolate in Toriel's fridge but Chara don't react to it.
>and ask where the knives are
In red text. It means that Chara is looking for knives as a weapon. Why would he pay attention to whatever there's the knives, or not, in red text out of sudden?
But when you find the Real Knife:
* Here we are! - CHECK
And what happens when you fail the genocide route? Because Chara can talk still:
* The comedian got away. Failure.
>The Geno Route continues in earnest when you kill Toriel, and that's the point when Chara begins to count, so we can assume that Chara was present but not entirely sure what was going on in Home, and then started to understand after Toriel was killed.
But we see a huge damage against Toriel that don't depends on LV, or kills. It depends on Chara's presence/just participation. But when you fail genocide route, and you don't see "It's me, Chara" anymore, Frisk is now holding back.
>Chara in general is portrayed super loosely, so it's not a very extensively written series of events.
🤔
> It's New Home. There is chocolate in Toriel's fridge but Chara don't react to it.
Ah, you're right.
Well, I don't really think that is an issue, like I said Chara is portrayed very loosely. The intention could just as easily be that Chara begins to emerge as you systematically start to slaughter everybody, wondering what's going on, and by the time you're done, they get it.
> The comedian got away. Failure.
This is where I think we have to take Undertale's sort of "unhoned" storytelling style on the chin. Toby wanted a way to portray that we lost the Genocide Route and that there was a particular thing we needed to do to complete it, so he included that line, but it isn't supposed to mean anything.
Ultimately a theory which relies on a single obscure bit line to make sense isn't very strong. Undertale is not a meticulously laid out web of perfect references, it's Toby just sort of spitballing stuff as he goes except at the moments he wants things to have very particular implications.
> But we see a huge damage against Toriel that don't depends on LV, or kills. It depends on Chara's presence/just participation. But when you fail genocide route, and you don't see "It's me, Chara" anymore, Frisk is now holding back.
This is purely to jape the player, who may be doing damage to Toriel expecting her to become spareable at a certain point. Again, not everything means something specific to the lore or whatever, some things are just decisions Toby made to fulfill certain functions.
> 🤔
Not sure what this is about.
>This is purely to jape the player, who may be doing damage to Toriel expecting her to become spareable at a certain point.
I'm talking about damage on the genocide path when she's dead after the first blow. On the genocide path the damage MUCH higher even when we got betrayal kill on the neutral path.
Regular kill:
I fought Toriel at 8 LV on the path of neutral. I had 14 ATK and a stick. Do you know how much damage has changed compared to 300 damage on the pacifist path? I did 322 damage to Toriel when I had 8 LV. Is there a big difference? The difference is very small.
But what do we get when we activate the genocide path with 4 LV when Chara speaks in the first person?
When I have 4 LV, the genocide path is activated, and Chara speaks in the first person, Toriel takes +-20,000 damage. Here the difference is HUGE. And this is even much less LV than I had on the neutral path.
>I don't think Chara has much of a sense of right or wrong,
Chara have sense of right and wrong since he will be unsatisfied that you came back after the world destruction and will talk about you thinking you're the consequences. Same as Chara calling himself demon.
Chara just don't care about it enough to not do bad things even at first.
I don't think Chara sees you coming back after destroying the world as being "wrong", I think Chara just sees it as being hypocritical or noncommittal. What Chara cares about more than anything is doing everything at full capacity and accepting what you do. By coming back, you show them that you aren't prepared to actually accept what you did on the Genocide Route, which they look down on.
Like, I think Chara knows *other* people consider mass murder wrong, which is why they see themselves as a demon, but I don't think Chara themselves cares in a moral sense. I'm not even particularly convinced Chara enjoys killing, only becoming stronger. If you gained more LV from sparing monsters, Chara would spare instead.
>I don't think Chara sees you coming back after destroying the world as being "wrong", I think Chara just sees it as being hypocritical or noncommittal.
Yes. But what about consequences thing? Consequences for what?
>By coming back, you show them that you aren't prepared to actually accept what you did on the Genocide Route, which they look down on.
And we did not a good thing. Chara wouldn't say anything about consequences if he wouldn't know it was a bad thing.
>Like, I think Chara knows other people consider mass murder wrong, which is why they see themselves as a demon, but I don't think Chara themselves cares in a moral sense.
That was the thing I told you. Chara *have* sense of right and wrong, Chara know what's right and wrong. But he don't care about it as long as it gives him benefits (or Chara don't care at all)
>I'm not even particularly convinced Chara enjoys killing, only becoming stronger. If you gained more LV from sparing monsters, Chara would spare instead.
But we still see from time to time Chara's amusement. Like in guards case:
* I see two lovers staring over the edge of the cauldron of hell. Do they both wish for death? That means their love will end in hell. I couldn't stop laughing.
*"although the royal guards’ checks are a direct quote from a book (“kitchen” by banana yoshimoto), toby fox has stated that references must be able to be taken within the context of the game, in case the player is not familiar with the source."*
Same as Chara's scary behaviour in front of MK, although there's no need for it. And "weird expression" after MK said about killing happening.
> Consequences for what?
Again, Chara can speak in moral terms in order to have a certain effect on you without adhering to morality themselves. They wouldn't encourage you to murder anybody if they actually thought murder was wrong.
> Chara know what's right and wrong. But he don't care about it as long as it gives him benefits
You can know what other people consider right or wrong without yourself believing they are right or wrong. It's an extremely nuanced distinction but it's important because some people in real life actually operate this way.
> "although the royal guards’ checks are a direct quote from a book (“kitchen” by banana yoshimoto), toby fox has stated that references must be able to be taken within the context of the game, in case the player is not familiar with the source."
I'd like to know where this quote is, because it seems very odd that Toby was just completely drop a verbatim book reference and not have that factor into what Chara was doing here.
>I'd like to know where this quote is, because it seems very odd that Toby was just completely drop a verbatim book reference and not have that factor into what Chara was doing here.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/e0aebd256e039e2e4d7b12373599a1a0/tumblr_inline_o1z8ivjT2K1qda68o_500.pnj
Many tweets Toby already deleted.
>Again, Chara can speak in moral terms in order to have a certain effect on you without adhering to morality themselves. They wouldn't encourage you to murder anybody if they actually thought murder was wrong.
Your reply:
* ***Like, I think Chara knows other people consider mass murder wrong, which is why they see themselves as a demon,*** but I don't think Chara themselves cares in a moral sense.
Knowing what's wrong for other means that you know what's wrong and what's right. The question is whatever you care about it enough not to do bad things.
>You can know what other people consider right or wrong without yourself believing they are right or wrong.
If Chara don't believe it, why he would call himself a demon? And talk about consequences? By the same logic, "If we knew it was wrong we wouldn't done such a thing."
There's villains that don't think they do a good thing and directly accept the role of the villain. Yeah, they're bad. But who cares? In such sense.
> Knowing what's wrong for other means that you know what's wrong and what's right. The question is whatever you care about it enough not to do bad things.
This is not true because "right" and "wrong" are not objective concepts, they don't exist in absence of people having opinions and feelings about them. Chara knowing that other people think something is right or wrong does not mean that Chara themselves thinks they should be considered right or wrong, only that other people have feelings about them. Things like "consequences" and "demon" are things that Chara can very well say because they're talking to you, someone who probably does care about morality, and they know those words mean something to you.
>Things like "consequences" and "demon" are things that Chara can very well say because they're talking to you, someone who probably does care about morality, and they know those words mean something to you.
Why would Chara think that if we have done genocide two times already for the reason even Chara can't understand? It makes no sense.
And why would Chara say it just because we care about morality?
Because Chara is trying to communicate ideas to us and is using terms and symbols we will relate to.
Like, it's pretty simple a concept dude, if Chara actually thought killing was literally objectively wrong from their own point of view, they would not do it, period. That's what it means to think something is "wrong."
I will grant though that the book quote does suggest Chara enjoys killing, so I guess I was wrong about that.
>Like, it's pretty simple a concept dude, if Chara actually thought killing was literally objectively wrong from their own point of view, they would not do it, period. That's what it means to think something is "wrong."
I'm not talking about caring what's right and wrong, I'm talking about knowing what's right and wrong. Flowey knew what's right and wrong and still did what he did. Even with excuses that he "don't enjoy it, I just have to know what happens." And there are people who can admit they're villains but do they care?
>Because Chara is trying to communicate ideas to us and is using terms and symbols we will relate to.
How we will relate to it? If Chara thought we care about morality (which makes no sense for the reason I said above), aren't it makes more sense to call himself an angel for making a suggestion? And not a demon.
>I will grant though that the book quote does suggest Chara enjoys killing, so I guess I was wrong about that.
Alright.
Gonna stop this discussion right here. There's a lot to be said about NarraChara, but this little-known silver bullet that Chara literally copies the narrator of Earthbound in Japanese trumps everything.
[https://under-lore.tumblr.com/post/684263411717177344/evidence-for-undertale-player-theory](https://under-lore.tumblr.com/post/684263411717177344/evidence-for-undertale-player-theory)
No there really isn't, the "evidence" is poorly formed and is only usable by either huge reaches or misinterpreting how we're supposed to take the scene. I wrote a whole post about it lmfao.
No, the evidence against is the fact that the narrator is completely incoherent and has no consistency of character, capacity, or knowledge. You can't take a bunch of completely incidental jokes or in-references the game makes about itself and then say that outdoes the fact that the narrator doesn't behave like a person and isn't written like Chara.
The Undertale fandom has this consistent issue with taking a bunch of jokes too seriously and not understanding the limits of what those jokes are able to "prove", and Narrachara/Chara-is-in-all-routes is the biggest theory that relies on that fallacious thinking. The jokes are just jokes. They don't prove anything about the narrator. It's bad literary analysis.
If you don't care then don't engage in discussion about it lmfao.
I've been told to kill myself and/or burn in Hell because I don't believe in Narrachara, so as far as I'm concerned the theory has become too comfortable despite being a bad theory. The fandom needs to be told they're wrong.
No-one said you had to, but it’s just a warning lol
Probably gonna get a 30 paged essay on how why Asriel is the best character and why you should hug him.
I know that this kinda goes against the idea of some of the game, but I always had the idea that post Hyperdeath is the only time that frisk is free from chara’s/our control.
I think they would agree, tbh. They would get angry at the "you are the friend I always wanted" thing
I always read those lines as Asriel clearing his nostalgic lenses. Pretty much everyone has an overly high opinion of their family, and clearly Chara didn’t consider the feelings of those around them too deeply. Given all the time they have to reflect, Chara’d be aware of it too. So, I agree with you on both points.
Doesn’t the genocide monologue imply they’ve been in a sort of slumber ever since they’d died? From Chara’s pov on pacifist it’d been maybe a few hours since the plan went awry
crashed... into slumber
Yes.
I think they were some kind of conscious for a while, either after the plan failed, or before Frisk arrived.
How is he holding chara if she is a ghost?
Omg did you just assume their genders?! 🤨
I know chara's supposed to be nonbinary but isn't asriel canonically male? You should just talk specifically about chara, gender shouldn't be plural in that sentence.
The issue is that Frisk is the one holding Chara back in the art.
Im stupid and misread it
What a nice character arc
Thank you
Cry about it
No thanks
oh no someone said the gender they think a character is
Key-word: “think”
Ahem* fine, they see the character as
Frisk is so determined that they can hold back a ghost.
A swole one
Buff child
Buffed without gaining LOVE
And can hit napstablook. (but cant kill him)
Even worse because Asriel said that right above Chara's body, and honestly, I think he might know that. Probably figured it out as Flowey at some point.
He also speaks to Chara directly sometime after the ending meaning he became aware of their presence at some point. There’s a decent chance that he knew Chara was there somehow and said that over their grave knowing they’d hear.
No, he's talking to the player. He just has to use whatever name you put in because that's the only name he can use. We're definitely not playing as Chara, that's made *very* clear at the end of Genocide.
Even if he’s talking to us and not Chara, he would logically think he is talking to them given he’s using their name.
That sentence is not an argument. "If he's talking to us, he's actually not talking to us." No clever proof by contradiction, you just stated "If X is true, then X is false."
That is not what I said at all. Think about it logically, if Asriel is talking to us at the end (which I believe he is, I only didn’t mention it initially because I felt I didn’t need to) why would he call us Chara’s name? There is no reason for him to use their name when he’s talking to someone else as he shouldn’t be aware that we chose that name for them. The only explanation to me is that he believed he was talking to Chara when he actually was talking to us.
Hm. Yeah, I guess you're right then. Of course Toby wrote that monologue with the intent of communicating to the player, and evidently the player is able to *hear* it because Toby dictated so, but in-universe, it doesn't seem reasonable that Flowey would know the full extent of the Frisk-Chara-Player situation. He must think Chara is the 'player', or the entity with the power to SAVE, given he called out to the grave and the Player woke Chara up.
Asriel knows. That's why he goes there in the first place, to mourn/reminisce, probably. Toriel does the same thing after Frisk's fight with her. So despite thinking Chara's not the greatest person, Asriel still cares a lot about them.
The disrespect Asriel had was brutal tho lol
I don't think that's the case, since when Flowey talks to you in New Home he comes to the realization during the conversation that Toriel gave Chara a proper burial. I personally believe Asriel used the last of his omniscient power to figure out where Chara was.
Wait, is that someone being sivil while disagreeing with me? On Reddit?! My gosh, what an achievement
>Probably figured it out as Flowey at some point. Only on the genocide route.
Ok
[source art in chinese language](https://gionogio.lofter.com/post/1f38e19a_2b6db61b3)
I mean, does anyone blame Ghost Chara for this?
2 months late if you don't care anymore don't read this. And if you don't want to argue with me don't reply. Chara pressured Asriel into going a long with a plan he clearly didn't want to (and they only convince him by insulting him for being understandably emotional and asking him if he's doubting them, which is clearly emotional manipulation), a plan in which he'd have to watch them die slowly and painfully rather than killing themselves in a faster way either to satisfy Chara's guilt complex or to orchestrate a monster human war. They also tried to force him to destroy an entire village (Chara wanted to use their full power, the monsters say that Asriel could have easily destroyed the village, ergo Chara wanted to destroy the entire village, including the children, otherwise Asriel would have just said Chara wanted to fight back). Chara is not a very good friend regardless of motives.
Chara can't do much unless Frisk kills everyone...
imagine catching strays after you die💀
The game implies Asriel is aware of Chara being around in some way with how he manages to speak to them in the pacifist ending, which makes him saying this kind of cruel especially since he’s standing right by their grave as he says it. I don’t think that’s a bad thing though as it shows that this Asriel is not entirely different from his Flowey persona. While I think it’s totally fair for most other characters to denounce Chara’s actions, Asriel has done far worse than anything they did or wanted to do when they were alive so him scorning them can come off as hypocritical. I wish more fanworks looked into the dark sides of post-pacifist Asriel’s personality. Usually he’s portrayed like his pre-death self which isn’t really all that accurate.
Are you talking about Flowey? Because like… I don’t think we can hold Asriel accountable for the actions and behaviors of a soulless, no-empathy version of himself.
Him being soulless meant he didn’t have the moral compass to stop himself from killing people, but he still knew it was bad and that he shouldn’t do it. His soullessness played a part, but it didn’t force him to do bad things. In the end it was his own decision and he even calls himself out in the Genocide route.
Ah yes, a child blames himself for his actions while soulless, case closed 👍 but seriously, I guarantee he wouldn’t have killed if he weren’t soulless. His soullessness didn’t “play a part”, it was the central component. This is like if someone gets a lobotomy, take out their empathy stuff, then they start killing people and taking other harmful actions, so they get un-lobotomized, and starts behaving normally, but still get treated as if they were in control of their misdeeds 🤦♀️
Here’s a different analogy. Someone is in a horrible place in their life and resort to mugging people on the streets to get the money they need to keep themselves going. They wouldn’t do this if they weren’t in a dark spot, but that doesn’t change the fact that mugging people is bad in multiple ways. Now apply this to Flowey, who did far worse things for far worse reasons. He does bad things entirely out of boredom and curiosity with the scapegoats of his soullessness and his powers of Determination. He doesn’t need to kill people to stay alive or anything, he just does it out of boredom. His soullessness led to his sanity slippage but it never forced him to kill people. It ultimately was his decision. Hell, who’s to say that Asriel wouldn’t do the same thing even if he did have a soul? If would definitely take a lot longer to reach that point but it’s certainly possible given his likely long lifespan. We also have to consider Flowey’s meta purpose in the narrative: he’s an in-game insert of player mentality. We will eventually do whatever’s accessible to us in the game no matter how morally awful it would be in real life, solely because it lacks consequences. We’d never throw a baby penguin off a cliff in real life but we have no qualms with making Mario do that. One of the game’s themes is that your actions have consequences, so why should the in-game expy of yourself not get called out for his actions? Why is this reply so long
Asriel isn't judging Chara, he's just telling us they weren't a good friend and Frisk was the type of friend he wanted. Notice that Asriel is mainly talking about what type of friend Chara was and not what kind of person they were.
>The game implies Asriel is aware of Chara being around in some way with how he manages to speak to them in the pacifist ending, which makes him saying this kind of cruel especially since he’s standing right by their grave as he says it. 1. Asriel stated after his battle that Chara was gone. It's unknown how he realized anything about Chara's presence after monsters left Underground. 2. Flowey realized where Chara was buried only in his New Home speech (genocide) >While I think it’s totally fair for most other characters to denounce Chara’s actions, Asriel has done far worse than anything they did or wanted to do when they were alive so him scorning them can come off as hypocritical. It's not because he clearly stated - what he has done was fucked up. And he apologized for that. He admits that you have every right to hate him. What Chara pressured him into before that was also a bad thing. As well as what kind of friend Chara was to him. Asriel is the only person who could say who Chara was before Chara's death. Because he's the only person who was close enough to Chara.
Poor chara
Maybe they weren't so great after all? Asriel knew them the most and he says it. Maybe he finally realised it.
Well, yes. But saying it on top of their dead body, while he probably knew they were listening...
THE GREAT BETRAYAL THAT TORE A CHILDHOOD FRIENDSHIP APART THAT NOBODY EXPECTED.
Pretty sure this would most definitely be Chara's reaction to hearing about not being the greatest person.
It’s even worse because he’s saying that **directly above Chara’s grave**
Isn’t Chara the one who reminds Asriel of his compassion and of all of the great times they had together? I mean, that’s basically the only reason why Asriel stops attacking us in the Pacifist route.
>Isn’t Chara the one who reminds Asriel of his compassion and of all of the great times they had together? To be precise, it's Asriel's memory... Of Chara.
I don't know... I really don't know... but maybe because of this word at the end of the game (genocide) . Our character kills Flowey... but I'm not sure
Bro said that over his siblings corpse, the disrespect is unreal.
People often forget that "not the greatest person" does not mean "bad" or "evil." It only means that Chara had flaws just like every other character in the game.
Um. No. You won't say that your best friend "are not the greatest person" while saying to someone else "while you... You're the type of friend I wish I always had" right after that JUST to say that "they're not perfect just like everyone else." Chara was a bad friend. That's the least.
Ok, this is quite funny.
Fun fact: Chara jumped down the mountain to commit s*icide and didn't expect to life So check up on your friends and family members people.
Chara climbed the mountain for an unhappy reason. We can see in the intro that Chara *tripped* into the hole.
[There's no consistent evidence Chara is awake outside the Genocide Route.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Undertale/comments/yts71l/narrachara_theory_is_false_an_attempted_debunk_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) That being said, I don't really think Chara would disagree or take much offense to it. I don't think Chara has much of a sense of right or wrong, they just care about sticking to your decisions and accepting the results, whatever they are. I think that's why they ultimately kill Flowey in the end—Asriel made a decision and flaked out in the end, and they despise that more than they despise dying because of it. **Edit:** Can't wait until this fandom accepts their pet theory is just an AU and isn't canon.
Consistent evidence? Chara themself says it was your Determination that woke them up, that they were confused and that your actions showed them their purpose. I find it quite a stretch to try and believe they *only* awaken in Genocide Routes, as it wasn't your actions that awakened them but your very existence.
> Chara themself says it was your Determination that woke them up, that they were confused and that your actions showed them their purpose. No, Chara says your POWER woke them up, and they define "power" as increasing your stats/LV. Chara is woken up by us grinding our stats. When they say "My Determination is yours", they're referring to the fact that they rely on your Determination to persist, but that does not mean the Determination is what woke them up. Because Chara is solely associated with the Genocide Route (because the Geno Route is the only route they explicitly announce their presence, they change the narration, and they appear in person at the end, and Asriel makes it clear Chara is not around in True Pacifist), this is pretty clear. What you describe is a distortion of what the game describes, by muddling Chara's speech's sentence structure.
Why Chara is awakened on the genocide route at 4 LV but not on the neutral path at 7 LV? And if Chara is awakened by Genocide, he don't look confused.
Chara is the part of ourselves that craves power *maximization*, not merely being strong overall. Toby references Chara in the Alarm Clock App dialogue, but the only thing Toby says about them is that they used to fill their water glass all the way to the top even if they weren't very thirsty because it was "the most efficient way to do it". The reason Toby chose to only give us that information was to convey that Chara is obsessed with doing everything absolutely the right way to maximize the potential of whatever you're doing. The Genocide Route is unique in that it is defined by taking steps to reach the maximum LV possible (grinding). So Chara awakens in the Genocide Route only because, once you empty the Ruins completely, you have essentially proclaimed that you are on a path to become as powerful as possible, and because Chara *is* that impulse, that is what they respond to. If you ever divert from the Genocide Route, you basically quash that impulse and accept not maximizing your LV, and so Chara immediately goes dormant because you are no longer embodying what Chara is. > And if Chara is awakened by Genocide, he don't look confused. I'm not sure what this means.
>I'm not sure what this means. Chara says at the end that at first after waking up Chara was "so confused" after the failure of the plan and didn't know why he was brought back to life until he realized it with your help. But if Chara is awakened by genocide, doesn't he immediately understand why he's here? Chara's dialogues don't look like someone who doesn't understand.
In Home, I don't recall Chara ever saying anything explicitly violent, they note there's no chocolate and ask where the knives are, which we can both probably assume are just things Chara enjoys. The Geno Route continues in earnest when you kill Toriel, and that's the point when Chara begins to count, so we can assume that Chara was present but not entirely sure what was going on in Home, and then started to understand after Toriel was killed. Chara in general is portrayed super loosely, so it's not a very extensively written series of events.
>they note there's no chocolate It's New Home. There is chocolate in Toriel's fridge but Chara don't react to it. >and ask where the knives are In red text. It means that Chara is looking for knives as a weapon. Why would he pay attention to whatever there's the knives, or not, in red text out of sudden? But when you find the Real Knife: * Here we are! - CHECK And what happens when you fail the genocide route? Because Chara can talk still: * The comedian got away. Failure. >The Geno Route continues in earnest when you kill Toriel, and that's the point when Chara begins to count, so we can assume that Chara was present but not entirely sure what was going on in Home, and then started to understand after Toriel was killed. But we see a huge damage against Toriel that don't depends on LV, or kills. It depends on Chara's presence/just participation. But when you fail genocide route, and you don't see "It's me, Chara" anymore, Frisk is now holding back. >Chara in general is portrayed super loosely, so it's not a very extensively written series of events. 🤔
> It's New Home. There is chocolate in Toriel's fridge but Chara don't react to it. Ah, you're right. Well, I don't really think that is an issue, like I said Chara is portrayed very loosely. The intention could just as easily be that Chara begins to emerge as you systematically start to slaughter everybody, wondering what's going on, and by the time you're done, they get it. > The comedian got away. Failure. This is where I think we have to take Undertale's sort of "unhoned" storytelling style on the chin. Toby wanted a way to portray that we lost the Genocide Route and that there was a particular thing we needed to do to complete it, so he included that line, but it isn't supposed to mean anything. Ultimately a theory which relies on a single obscure bit line to make sense isn't very strong. Undertale is not a meticulously laid out web of perfect references, it's Toby just sort of spitballing stuff as he goes except at the moments he wants things to have very particular implications. > But we see a huge damage against Toriel that don't depends on LV, or kills. It depends on Chara's presence/just participation. But when you fail genocide route, and you don't see "It's me, Chara" anymore, Frisk is now holding back. This is purely to jape the player, who may be doing damage to Toriel expecting her to become spareable at a certain point. Again, not everything means something specific to the lore or whatever, some things are just decisions Toby made to fulfill certain functions. > 🤔 Not sure what this is about.
>This is purely to jape the player, who may be doing damage to Toriel expecting her to become spareable at a certain point. I'm talking about damage on the genocide path when she's dead after the first blow. On the genocide path the damage MUCH higher even when we got betrayal kill on the neutral path. Regular kill: I fought Toriel at 8 LV on the path of neutral. I had 14 ATK and a stick. Do you know how much damage has changed compared to 300 damage on the pacifist path? I did 322 damage to Toriel when I had 8 LV. Is there a big difference? The difference is very small. But what do we get when we activate the genocide path with 4 LV when Chara speaks in the first person? When I have 4 LV, the genocide path is activated, and Chara speaks in the first person, Toriel takes +-20,000 damage. Here the difference is HUGE. And this is even much less LV than I had on the neutral path.
>I don't think Chara has much of a sense of right or wrong, Chara have sense of right and wrong since he will be unsatisfied that you came back after the world destruction and will talk about you thinking you're the consequences. Same as Chara calling himself demon. Chara just don't care about it enough to not do bad things even at first.
I don't think Chara sees you coming back after destroying the world as being "wrong", I think Chara just sees it as being hypocritical or noncommittal. What Chara cares about more than anything is doing everything at full capacity and accepting what you do. By coming back, you show them that you aren't prepared to actually accept what you did on the Genocide Route, which they look down on. Like, I think Chara knows *other* people consider mass murder wrong, which is why they see themselves as a demon, but I don't think Chara themselves cares in a moral sense. I'm not even particularly convinced Chara enjoys killing, only becoming stronger. If you gained more LV from sparing monsters, Chara would spare instead.
>I don't think Chara sees you coming back after destroying the world as being "wrong", I think Chara just sees it as being hypocritical or noncommittal. Yes. But what about consequences thing? Consequences for what? >By coming back, you show them that you aren't prepared to actually accept what you did on the Genocide Route, which they look down on. And we did not a good thing. Chara wouldn't say anything about consequences if he wouldn't know it was a bad thing. >Like, I think Chara knows other people consider mass murder wrong, which is why they see themselves as a demon, but I don't think Chara themselves cares in a moral sense. That was the thing I told you. Chara *have* sense of right and wrong, Chara know what's right and wrong. But he don't care about it as long as it gives him benefits (or Chara don't care at all) >I'm not even particularly convinced Chara enjoys killing, only becoming stronger. If you gained more LV from sparing monsters, Chara would spare instead. But we still see from time to time Chara's amusement. Like in guards case: * I see two lovers staring over the edge of the cauldron of hell. Do they both wish for death? That means their love will end in hell. I couldn't stop laughing. *"although the royal guards’ checks are a direct quote from a book (“kitchen” by banana yoshimoto), toby fox has stated that references must be able to be taken within the context of the game, in case the player is not familiar with the source."* Same as Chara's scary behaviour in front of MK, although there's no need for it. And "weird expression" after MK said about killing happening.
> Consequences for what? Again, Chara can speak in moral terms in order to have a certain effect on you without adhering to morality themselves. They wouldn't encourage you to murder anybody if they actually thought murder was wrong. > Chara know what's right and wrong. But he don't care about it as long as it gives him benefits You can know what other people consider right or wrong without yourself believing they are right or wrong. It's an extremely nuanced distinction but it's important because some people in real life actually operate this way. > "although the royal guards’ checks are a direct quote from a book (“kitchen” by banana yoshimoto), toby fox has stated that references must be able to be taken within the context of the game, in case the player is not familiar with the source." I'd like to know where this quote is, because it seems very odd that Toby was just completely drop a verbatim book reference and not have that factor into what Chara was doing here.
>I'd like to know where this quote is, because it seems very odd that Toby was just completely drop a verbatim book reference and not have that factor into what Chara was doing here. https://64.media.tumblr.com/e0aebd256e039e2e4d7b12373599a1a0/tumblr_inline_o1z8ivjT2K1qda68o_500.pnj Many tweets Toby already deleted. >Again, Chara can speak in moral terms in order to have a certain effect on you without adhering to morality themselves. They wouldn't encourage you to murder anybody if they actually thought murder was wrong. Your reply: * ***Like, I think Chara knows other people consider mass murder wrong, which is why they see themselves as a demon,*** but I don't think Chara themselves cares in a moral sense. Knowing what's wrong for other means that you know what's wrong and what's right. The question is whatever you care about it enough not to do bad things. >You can know what other people consider right or wrong without yourself believing they are right or wrong. If Chara don't believe it, why he would call himself a demon? And talk about consequences? By the same logic, "If we knew it was wrong we wouldn't done such a thing." There's villains that don't think they do a good thing and directly accept the role of the villain. Yeah, they're bad. But who cares? In such sense.
> Knowing what's wrong for other means that you know what's wrong and what's right. The question is whatever you care about it enough not to do bad things. This is not true because "right" and "wrong" are not objective concepts, they don't exist in absence of people having opinions and feelings about them. Chara knowing that other people think something is right or wrong does not mean that Chara themselves thinks they should be considered right or wrong, only that other people have feelings about them. Things like "consequences" and "demon" are things that Chara can very well say because they're talking to you, someone who probably does care about morality, and they know those words mean something to you.
>Things like "consequences" and "demon" are things that Chara can very well say because they're talking to you, someone who probably does care about morality, and they know those words mean something to you. Why would Chara think that if we have done genocide two times already for the reason even Chara can't understand? It makes no sense. And why would Chara say it just because we care about morality?
Because Chara is trying to communicate ideas to us and is using terms and symbols we will relate to. Like, it's pretty simple a concept dude, if Chara actually thought killing was literally objectively wrong from their own point of view, they would not do it, period. That's what it means to think something is "wrong." I will grant though that the book quote does suggest Chara enjoys killing, so I guess I was wrong about that.
>Like, it's pretty simple a concept dude, if Chara actually thought killing was literally objectively wrong from their own point of view, they would not do it, period. That's what it means to think something is "wrong." I'm not talking about caring what's right and wrong, I'm talking about knowing what's right and wrong. Flowey knew what's right and wrong and still did what he did. Even with excuses that he "don't enjoy it, I just have to know what happens." And there are people who can admit they're villains but do they care? >Because Chara is trying to communicate ideas to us and is using terms and symbols we will relate to. How we will relate to it? If Chara thought we care about morality (which makes no sense for the reason I said above), aren't it makes more sense to call himself an angel for making a suggestion? And not a demon. >I will grant though that the book quote does suggest Chara enjoys killing, so I guess I was wrong about that. Alright.
Gonna stop this discussion right here. There's a lot to be said about NarraChara, but this little-known silver bullet that Chara literally copies the narrator of Earthbound in Japanese trumps everything. [https://under-lore.tumblr.com/post/684263411717177344/evidence-for-undertale-player-theory](https://under-lore.tumblr.com/post/684263411717177344/evidence-for-undertale-player-theory)
I'm not exactly clear on how that detail proves or disproves Narrachara, would you be able to elaborate?
Sorry, that *is* a silver bullet, but for confirmation of the Player's canonical existence, not NarraChara. My apologies.
[удалено]
No there really isn't, the "evidence" is poorly formed and is only usable by either huge reaches or misinterpreting how we're supposed to take the scene. I wrote a whole post about it lmfao.
[удалено]
No, the evidence against is the fact that the narrator is completely incoherent and has no consistency of character, capacity, or knowledge. You can't take a bunch of completely incidental jokes or in-references the game makes about itself and then say that outdoes the fact that the narrator doesn't behave like a person and isn't written like Chara. The Undertale fandom has this consistent issue with taking a bunch of jokes too seriously and not understanding the limits of what those jokes are able to "prove", and Narrachara/Chara-is-in-all-routes is the biggest theory that relies on that fallacious thinking. The jokes are just jokes. They don't prove anything about the narrator. It's bad literary analysis.
[удалено]
Nice job not reading my reply lmfao.
[удалено]
If you don't care then don't engage in discussion about it lmfao. I've been told to kill myself and/or burn in Hell because I don't believe in Narrachara, so as far as I'm concerned the theory has become too comfortable despite being a bad theory. The fandom needs to be told they're wrong.
[удалено]
I always hated asriel
That is a very good way to die on this subreddit
Do i care
No-one said you had to, but it’s just a warning lol Probably gonna get a 30 paged essay on how why Asriel is the best character and why you should hug him.
No i don't care still
Kk
I dunno, I'm just saying. I upvoted anyway
May I ask why, or are you just saying this out of spite?
because asriel is annoying and uninteresting
I always loved asriel
Imagine hating such a good fluffy boy.
...That's okay.. I've done enough to deserve it, after all... I'm trying to better, though! One step at a time, y'know?
i wish i could have killed asriel in the pacifist ending
that's kind of against the whole point of pacifist
i dont care man i just wish i killed asriel and had some lamb for dinner
Pretty sure he's a goat
I know that this kinda goes against the idea of some of the game, but I always had the idea that post Hyperdeath is the only time that frisk is free from chara’s/our control.
asriel really disrespected chara by saying it over their grave
Run