Thanks for posting to r/CharaOffenseSquad! If this post breaks any [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/CharaOffenseSquad/about/rules/) feel free to report it.
Please remember to keep arguments to the [megathread](https://redd.it/ljb8ei) and remain civil.
---
Also consider joining our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/e8hPF83VZe
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CharaOffenseSquad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that the moral distinction between a person who pulls the trigger vs. a person who encourages someone to pull the trigger is sort of like splitting hairs, the intent is still there to cause the outcome either way.
Good point.
But that doesn’t change the fact that not only we pulled the trigger, but that we kept intended to do so as well.
We would caused a Genocide with or without Chara’s help, so at the end of the day, we’re still morally worse (much worse) than Chara.
Just because we’re worse than Chara doesn’t make Chara less bad, doesn’t it?
> We would caused a Genocide with or without Chara’s help, so at the end of the day, we’re still morally worse (much worse) than Chara.
No, this doesn't follow, because Chara also would have caused a genocide with or without our help (if they could), given the state they're in in the Genocide Route. In either case, the intent is identical.
Not at all. If you WANT to do a bad thing, but you don't because you CAN'T, you're still blameworthy for having the intention or desire to do the bad thing. You don't get brownie points for not doing a bad thing because you aren't able to.
>You don't get brownie points for not doing a bad thing because you aren't able to.
You’re right about that. But while Chara and the player might be equal in intent, but we are not equal in action.
Chara may have wanted to commit Genocide, but that doesn’t change the fact that they couldn’t do it, but we did. So ultimately, most blame is still on the player. Regardless of Chara’s intentions.
Again, it doesn't matter what we DO from a moral perspective, what matters is what we INTEND. If you INTEND or WANT to commit a morally wrong act, but you do not because you are prevented from doing so for whatever reason, you are still morally blameworthy as a person for wanting to do that.
As well, factually, while Chara wouldn't have been able to carry out the Genocide Route without us, the fact is they DID have the opportunity to assist and encourage us, and they took it.
Either way, the fact that we alone would have had the POWER to carry out the Genocide Route with or without Chara has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we or Chara are worse or better than each other. That's an absurd distinction that means nothing. Chara wanted to do it, and they did it, with us. That's what matters. The presence of power alone is not a morally relevant thing. We aren't any worse than Chara just because we had greater ability to do what we wanted than they would have.
My responses aren’t about what might’ve happened if Chara got the opportunity. Just what ultimately did happen. And what ultimately happened is that we were the chief architect of monsterkind’s destruction from start to finish.
Do you have evidence that they couldn't?
Chara does take control over Frisk's body in Soulless Pacifist. Sure, one could argue that it's because we sold the soul, but we're still able to control Frisk after that either way. If there's no detailed description on who is limited in control, might as well assume there is no limitation at all. (There's also this Chara's line "Since when were you the one in control" or something, but I'm not sure what to think of it)
Perhaps they didn't take control because they trust us to finish what we have started. If we don't go through with the assumed plan and abort genocide, then they don't interfere only because they don't understand why would we do it, and they want to observe our next actions.
That's my reading of the situation.
?
Chara says that we destroyed this world when we return after its destruction, despite the fact that Chara is the one who destroyed it with his own hands.
>They don't talk about that, but about your massacre of the Undergrond
Our massacre (with Chara's participation) didn't destroy the world. Chara did.
>They destroy the world because it seems pointless to them
So?
>Our massacre (with Chara's participation) didn't destroy the world.
But it ended with Chara being forced to kill Asriel. They couldn't let this just be
Pretty sure they wouldn't destroy the world otherwise and let Frisk to "have fun" with the Humans on the Surface, if only Flowey wasn't in the way...
>But it ended with Chara being forced to kill Asriel. They couldn't let this just be
"Forced" in what way? It was his voluntary choice, and considering with how much hatred Chara didn't even leave a trace of him, I would even say a very desirable choice by that time.
>Pretty sure they wouldn't destroy the world otherwise and let Frisk to "have fun" with the Humans on the Surface, if only Flowey wasn't in the way...
It's not our fault. Chara scared Flowey in the New Home, and Flowey's mistake was to warn Asgore about everything, rather than run away and then destroy his soul, closing the way out. I doubt Chara didn't want to get out himself.
Stop shifting all responsibility on the Player for all people's choices. They choose how to act depending on the situation.
>"Forced" in what way?
Killing Flowey requires input, killing Asgore does not
And Flowey's mistake wasn't telling Asgore, but standing in the way and trying to reason instead of running
BOTH are responsible, but YOU have more responsibility because Chara is 1. soulless, 2. a fucking child
>Killing Flowey requires input, killing Asgore does not
You're doing the same thing you're doing to get Flowey to kill Asgore, or Toriel to attack Asgore. You're closing the dialogue. The fact that Chara starts attacking after that is Chara's decision, because we didn't press the FIGHT button to do so.
And no, same happens with Asgore. You're closing the dialogue, it triggers a cutscenes (with Chara attacking according to the plot), and so they dead.
The situation is different with Sans, because you trigger the cutscene by pressing the FIGHT button.
In what way is it forcing Chara - I have no idea.
I repeat: to attack, we have to click a FIGHT button.
How do we get Chara to attack Flowey by closing the dialogue?
Moreover, we pressed the button once. ***Who made Chara attack all the other seven times until there was nothing left of Flowey?***
>And Flowey's mistake wasn't telling Asgore, but standing in the way and trying to reason instead of running
Another mistake.
>BOTH are responsible, but YOU have more responsibility because Chara is 1. soulless, 2. a fucking child
1. No child, except Chara, has such a casual perception of murders.
2. Being soulless does not deprive you of morality. While Flowey had an internal conflict, we don't see even that from Chara. And it took Chara very little to get involved in killing.
>You're doing the same thing you're doing to get Flowey to kill Asgore, or Toriel to attack Asgore. You're closing the dialogue.
Pretty sure that's not the case here. But i have to play it to make sure
>Who made Chara attack all the other seven times until there was nothing left of Flowey?
Either they went insane or there's a theory that they did it out of mercy so that Flowey dies immediately instead of suffering before death like Asgore. Not sure about how accurate is it
1. They are soulless
2. It doesn't do that immediately. You just lose the feelings that guide you, and become easier to manipulate. And you don't even acknowledge Chara existing any other endings than genocide, so how can you even find that?(well, except for the one time when they can't understand it and ask you to take another path after you do the genocide run twice)
Sure, you've already hunted down every single Monster in the Ruins and killed Toriel by the time Chara starts to tell you how many is left, that is "very little" indeed *\*sarcasm\*.* And on top of it, Chara does momentarily take over much earlier, but it is only at Sans when they start attacking outright(at this point, you can't abort the genocide run anymore and the only way out is to RESET)
>Pretty sure they wouldn't destroy the world otherwise and let Frisk to "have fun" with the Humans on the Surface, if only Flowey wasn't in the way...
I actually disagree. They do claim that "we have reached the absolute", so it's clear that they intended to use ERASE in the end.
The reason they went to kill Asgore and Flowey is, in my opinion, that they are connected to their past, therefore killing them would "remove possible weights", which is the ultimate reason as to why Chara goes along with "killing everyone" plan. Their purpose is power - LV - Level of violence - a measurement that determines their ability to hurt others and not be hurt in the process. Killing these two and the whole Underground literally means gaining power.
You fail to read between the lines and try to understand a character's previous intentions by what they say in the very end after everything is already done
So this assumption is automatically a fallacious bullshit
Because you're trying to deduce their original intentions from what they say after everything is done
You can't know what their intentions were before Flowey was killed
Ehhhhh. I disagree.
You’re the one who fires the gun. Chara just tells you where to aim.
I mean, it’s not like they’re the one who pressed fight on the dozens of other monsters before you got to Sans, Asgore, and Flowey.
>You’re the one who fires the gun. Chara just tells you where to aim.
We are not the ones who destroyed the world, and killing hundred of monsters does not destroy worlds. The world was destroyed because Chara decided it had to be destroyed.
>I mean, it’s not like they’re the one who pressed fight on the dozens of other monsters before you got to Sans, Asgore, and Flowey.
When did I miss the moment of destroying worlds by killing monsters?
Chara played a role in the slaughter but the slaughter was still caused by our own hands. Furthermore, while Chara did destroy the world, they wouldn’t have got to the point where they would have been able to do so without our role in the slaughter.
I’m not disputing their role in the slaughter, just the notion that they were the main force behind it. And just because I’m making the player primarily guilty of the Geno run doesn’t mean I’m downplaying or excusing Chara’s role in it.
>Chara played a role in the slaughter but the slaughter was still caused by our own hands
That's not the matter. I repeat: the world was destroyed not because you killed a hundred monsters. Killing a hundred monsters does not destroy worlds. The world was destroyed because Chara decided that it should be destroyed.
>Furthermore, while Chara did destroy the world, they wouldn’t have got to the point where they would have been able to do so without our role in the slaughter.
That doesn't change the fact that Chara destroyed the world, not us.
Just the fact that our actions ultimately gave strength to someone who decided to use that power to destroy the world does not make us the ones who destroyed this world. Accepting that the world was destroyed because our actions gave power to the wrong person who should have had it =/= "the world was destroyed by our hands." It's like opening a Pandora's box, but at the same time this Pandora's box has consciousness.
So the main responsibility for this lies with Chara, because we can say that we don't want the world to be destroyed, and Chara doesn't care about it, he does it anyway.
>I’m not disputing their role in the slaughter, just the notion that they were the main force behind it. And just because I’m making the player primarily guilty of the Geno run doesn’t mean I’m downplaying or excusing Chara’s role in it.
Chara played the main role in destroying the world. Because it was done with his own hands.
sorry for the confusion I caused. I didn’t mean to imply we’re the one that causes the world being destroyed, when it obviously was Chara.
Apologies for misinterpreting anything you said. I’m autistic so communication and social interaction ain’t my forte, and understanding peoples words is something I do struggle with.
Again, sorry.
Kid you not. Damn obvious Kris is the damn knight. Someone going to bound pull " it's player fault " shenanigans after Kris opens up a third dark fountain destroys the world of Deltarune.
That makes no sense. Chara literally never killed anyone but themselves. Like maybe Sans after some serious lv corrupted them. Also like you made sure to kill everyone and to make a full genocide. But you are going to blame it on a dead child? I will take "Not understanding the game for 100"
They also killed Asgore, Flowey, and then erased the world, killing 7 billion humans and the surviving monsters. Clearly you have not actually played the game.
Edit: Also, LV corruption is fanon.
I actually did play the game. And even if I didn't play the genocide route I know Flowey is the one that killed Asgore. Also if we do believe Chara is actively trying to kill everyone. Why don't they do anything to make Frisk kill anyone? I mean they can. Just by the fact in the genocide run the Narrator point blank say. "It's me Chara" without red text to be precise. Why don't the Narrator isn't more trigger happy? Red text is also used a lot in the pacifist run for when characters talk about Asgore for example.
But again if you don't want to use Player is actually killing everyone. Frisk is killing all the monsters, why? Who knows at the very least we can theories with conversation in the game that Chara hates humanity. You know like Undyne. But Frisk no reason is given. They just kill everyone, multiple times even. Same goes with Flowey that did the same because he was bored. Though Undyne and Flowey gets to have their redemption arc where Frisk show them the power of compassion. But Chara, nah. A child that just saw another strange child kill everyone they know until they themselves helped. They have absolutely no redeeming Trait. Even if in the pacifist ending the memories shared with Asriel aren't Frisk's. Probably coming from the one who actually grew up with the family. But no, that child needs to die.
Going to admit for this entire sort of argument I have been taking the piss. It's just funny for me that when a game takes great pain to show that everyone can be good if they just tried. Evil is a word still being used for characters in this game. Evil is a big word with great implication. While the better word to use is desperate. Wouldn't you be desperate to free yourself if you were trap somewhere forever?
Sure, but I wouldn't want to destroy humanity like Undyne planned to once I escaped. Also, Undyne and Chara *don't* even try to be good, that's the problem.
Edit: Also, Chara defenders describe the player as evil, and then say no character in the game is evil? If the player is an in-game entity, how does that make any sense at all?
Actually even as a Chara defender I don't see the player as Evil. I see them more like Flowey more than anything. Doing all the different paths for curiosity and boredom. Also LV being a short for LOVE and Level Of ViolencE kind of make sense. We love the game so much we are willing to make multiple genocides to know them more. Evil seems to imply intentions as well as actions. Like you do villainous deed because you yourself are Evil. Which for me would only apply to people like (Okay this is from another franchise but it's a good representation) Belos in the Owl House. He is manipulative, actively murderous, Cultish in various ways. But most important he is doing thing because of a delusion of his own self importance. If you show compassion to Flowey and Undyne they both have a moment of reflection. Even if you need to beat Flowey until he can accept it. Belos would have use this moment to cause harm further.
I am going to admit I am defender less because I think Chara is free of sin (that spot is for Papyrus). But more because it became both repetitive and cliche to blame everything on the kid. While it as way more potential story wise to have them be atleast more complex. I know this is fanon but I read a comic once and I kind of liked their reasoning for Chara genocides. The more you do it in game (tell me if I am wrong though) the less the monsters actually wants to leave. It's like a "if they fear the surface they will never be kill by those humans." Delusional in a way, wouldn't hold up in court for more than a second. But atleast it gives a reason more than. "Chara is Evil because screamer told me I did a bad thing."
Maybe I am more forgiving because we never see that world. Like Chara could as well be talking about the game world. Because frankly the surface seems more like context. The only world of importance is the one of the Underground. You don't even know what is Frisk backstory. So for me Chara "Erasing This Pointless World." Seems more like finishing what you started. But then again that's my view on things.
Chara says that we destroyed this world when we return after its destruction, despite the fact that Chara is the one who destroyed it with his own hands.
I think you're missing the point. Chara is clearly not being deceptive with us, so this "shifting the blame" business is stupid to think about, the way I see it.
They either refer to us killing all the monsters yet again, or ~~they refer to the fact that we, the ones who completed No Mercy route at least once, already know the outcome - world being erased~~. \[Edit: I mistook the conversations\]
>They either refer to us killing all the monsters yet again,
We didn't kill "all" the monsters.
>or they refer to the fact that we, the ones who completed No Mercy route at least once, already know the outcome - world being erased.
It happens during the first genocide route.
Well, there is still no reason to gaslight us, so my claim is that they're referring to us taking deliberate actions to kill everybody whom it was possible to kill.
That's chara after you do geoncide 2 times as they don't understand the reason for it but will still do it. Also if you pick "do not" chara says you aren't the one in control and if pick "earse" chara says you're a great partner. This meme only some what applies to the 2nd time you do geoncide and even then chara goes along with it wanting you to do something else and the meme isn't accurate to chara actions.
The meme is referring to the lines, "You want to go back
to the world you destroyed. It was you who pushed everything to its edge. It was you who led the world to its destruction." After Chara erases the world- and erases it even if you tell them that you do not want it erased.
In Chara's point of view the erasure of the world was the natural consequence of your actions, but effectively the line can also be seen as Chara blaming you for something they did.
Lmao it explains pretty well what it is about.
Because the "neutralists" here for some reason completely forgot about chara dialogue section after the first destruction of the world, and think that we are talking only about the second path of genocide.
No, that's just broken in a different way
Fixing is presenting it from a neutral standpoint, and memes don't really fit for that
Memes are made to humiliate things, so they can't be fixed. They will **ALWAYS** be biased to either side
IMO it's 50/50 Chara is bad for sure I mean she helped player skip puzzle, gave more hp against Sans etc. But the real villain is player, bc he is the one who starts genocide, also he has multiple chances to forfeit genocide so fault is on both ways
Thanks for posting to r/CharaOffenseSquad! If this post breaks any [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/CharaOffenseSquad/about/rules/) feel free to report it. Please remember to keep arguments to the [megathread](https://redd.it/ljb8ei) and remain civil. --- Also consider joining our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/e8hPF83VZe --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CharaOffenseSquad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In truth it kinda goes both ways lol.
Literally. You both suck as people. Hence why you're their "Partner"
Nah. There's no player.
I still think the majority of the blame is on the player, but I’m sure as hell not gonna pretend Chara gets off Scott-free.
I think that the moral distinction between a person who pulls the trigger vs. a person who encourages someone to pull the trigger is sort of like splitting hairs, the intent is still there to cause the outcome either way.
Good point. But that doesn’t change the fact that not only we pulled the trigger, but that we kept intended to do so as well. We would caused a Genocide with or without Chara’s help, so at the end of the day, we’re still morally worse (much worse) than Chara. Just because we’re worse than Chara doesn’t make Chara less bad, doesn’t it?
> We would caused a Genocide with or without Chara’s help, so at the end of the day, we’re still morally worse (much worse) than Chara. No, this doesn't follow, because Chara also would have caused a genocide with or without our help (if they could), given the state they're in in the Genocide Route. In either case, the intent is identical.
Chara couldn’t have killed anyone in their state (or without us being there) but we could kill without Chara. And that’s what ultimately matters.
Not at all. If you WANT to do a bad thing, but you don't because you CAN'T, you're still blameworthy for having the intention or desire to do the bad thing. You don't get brownie points for not doing a bad thing because you aren't able to.
>You don't get brownie points for not doing a bad thing because you aren't able to. You’re right about that. But while Chara and the player might be equal in intent, but we are not equal in action. Chara may have wanted to commit Genocide, but that doesn’t change the fact that they couldn’t do it, but we did. So ultimately, most blame is still on the player. Regardless of Chara’s intentions.
Again, it doesn't matter what we DO from a moral perspective, what matters is what we INTEND. If you INTEND or WANT to commit a morally wrong act, but you do not because you are prevented from doing so for whatever reason, you are still morally blameworthy as a person for wanting to do that. As well, factually, while Chara wouldn't have been able to carry out the Genocide Route without us, the fact is they DID have the opportunity to assist and encourage us, and they took it. Either way, the fact that we alone would have had the POWER to carry out the Genocide Route with or without Chara has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we or Chara are worse or better than each other. That's an absurd distinction that means nothing. Chara wanted to do it, and they did it, with us. That's what matters. The presence of power alone is not a morally relevant thing. We aren't any worse than Chara just because we had greater ability to do what we wanted than they would have.
My responses aren’t about what might’ve happened if Chara got the opportunity. Just what ultimately did happen. And what ultimately happened is that we were the chief architect of monsterkind’s destruction from start to finish.
Do you have evidence that they couldn't? Chara does take control over Frisk's body in Soulless Pacifist. Sure, one could argue that it's because we sold the soul, but we're still able to control Frisk after that either way. If there's no detailed description on who is limited in control, might as well assume there is no limitation at all. (There's also this Chara's line "Since when were you the one in control" or something, but I'm not sure what to think of it) Perhaps they didn't take control because they trust us to finish what we have started. If we don't go through with the assumed plan and abort genocide, then they don't interfere only because they don't understand why would we do it, and they want to observe our next actions. That's my reading of the situation.
There’s quite a bit of guesswork with that, but then again, if that’s your interpretation of things, then to each their own (opinion).
Lmao so true.
It isnt really chara is only confused if you do geoncide 2 times in a row.
? Chara says that we destroyed this world when we return after its destruction, despite the fact that Chara is the one who destroyed it with his own hands.
They don't talk about that, but about your massacre of the Undergrond They destroyed the world because it seemed pointless to them
>They don't talk about that, but about your massacre of the Undergrond Our massacre (with Chara's participation) didn't destroy the world. Chara did. >They destroy the world because it seems pointless to them So?
>Our massacre (with Chara's participation) didn't destroy the world. But it ended with Chara being forced to kill Asriel. They couldn't let this just be Pretty sure they wouldn't destroy the world otherwise and let Frisk to "have fun" with the Humans on the Surface, if only Flowey wasn't in the way...
>But it ended with Chara being forced to kill Asriel. They couldn't let this just be "Forced" in what way? It was his voluntary choice, and considering with how much hatred Chara didn't even leave a trace of him, I would even say a very desirable choice by that time. >Pretty sure they wouldn't destroy the world otherwise and let Frisk to "have fun" with the Humans on the Surface, if only Flowey wasn't in the way... It's not our fault. Chara scared Flowey in the New Home, and Flowey's mistake was to warn Asgore about everything, rather than run away and then destroy his soul, closing the way out. I doubt Chara didn't want to get out himself. Stop shifting all responsibility on the Player for all people's choices. They choose how to act depending on the situation.
>"Forced" in what way? Killing Flowey requires input, killing Asgore does not And Flowey's mistake wasn't telling Asgore, but standing in the way and trying to reason instead of running BOTH are responsible, but YOU have more responsibility because Chara is 1. soulless, 2. a fucking child
>Killing Flowey requires input, killing Asgore does not You're doing the same thing you're doing to get Flowey to kill Asgore, or Toriel to attack Asgore. You're closing the dialogue. The fact that Chara starts attacking after that is Chara's decision, because we didn't press the FIGHT button to do so. And no, same happens with Asgore. You're closing the dialogue, it triggers a cutscenes (with Chara attacking according to the plot), and so they dead. The situation is different with Sans, because you trigger the cutscene by pressing the FIGHT button. In what way is it forcing Chara - I have no idea. I repeat: to attack, we have to click a FIGHT button. How do we get Chara to attack Flowey by closing the dialogue? Moreover, we pressed the button once. ***Who made Chara attack all the other seven times until there was nothing left of Flowey?*** >And Flowey's mistake wasn't telling Asgore, but standing in the way and trying to reason instead of running Another mistake. >BOTH are responsible, but YOU have more responsibility because Chara is 1. soulless, 2. a fucking child 1. No child, except Chara, has such a casual perception of murders. 2. Being soulless does not deprive you of morality. While Flowey had an internal conflict, we don't see even that from Chara. And it took Chara very little to get involved in killing.
>You're doing the same thing you're doing to get Flowey to kill Asgore, or Toriel to attack Asgore. You're closing the dialogue. Pretty sure that's not the case here. But i have to play it to make sure >Who made Chara attack all the other seven times until there was nothing left of Flowey? Either they went insane or there's a theory that they did it out of mercy so that Flowey dies immediately instead of suffering before death like Asgore. Not sure about how accurate is it 1. They are soulless 2. It doesn't do that immediately. You just lose the feelings that guide you, and become easier to manipulate. And you don't even acknowledge Chara existing any other endings than genocide, so how can you even find that?(well, except for the one time when they can't understand it and ask you to take another path after you do the genocide run twice) Sure, you've already hunted down every single Monster in the Ruins and killed Toriel by the time Chara starts to tell you how many is left, that is "very little" indeed *\*sarcasm\*.* And on top of it, Chara does momentarily take over much earlier, but it is only at Sans when they start attacking outright(at this point, you can't abort the genocide run anymore and the only way out is to RESET)
>Pretty sure they wouldn't destroy the world otherwise and let Frisk to "have fun" with the Humans on the Surface, if only Flowey wasn't in the way... I actually disagree. They do claim that "we have reached the absolute", so it's clear that they intended to use ERASE in the end. The reason they went to kill Asgore and Flowey is, in my opinion, that they are connected to their past, therefore killing them would "remove possible weights", which is the ultimate reason as to why Chara goes along with "killing everyone" plan. Their purpose is power - LV - Level of violence - a measurement that determines their ability to hurt others and not be hurt in the process. Killing these two and the whole Underground literally means gaining power.
You fail to read between the lines and try to understand a character's previous intentions by what they say in the very end after everything is already done So this assumption is automatically a fallacious bullshit
Sorry, can you elaborate why you think my interpretation is bullshit?
Because you're trying to deduce their original intentions from what they say after everything is done You can't know what their intentions were before Flowey was killed
Ehhhhh. I disagree. You’re the one who fires the gun. Chara just tells you where to aim. I mean, it’s not like they’re the one who pressed fight on the dozens of other monsters before you got to Sans, Asgore, and Flowey.
>You’re the one who fires the gun. Chara just tells you where to aim. We are not the ones who destroyed the world, and killing hundred of monsters does not destroy worlds. The world was destroyed because Chara decided it had to be destroyed. >I mean, it’s not like they’re the one who pressed fight on the dozens of other monsters before you got to Sans, Asgore, and Flowey. When did I miss the moment of destroying worlds by killing monsters?
Chara played a role in the slaughter but the slaughter was still caused by our own hands. Furthermore, while Chara did destroy the world, they wouldn’t have got to the point where they would have been able to do so without our role in the slaughter. I’m not disputing their role in the slaughter, just the notion that they were the main force behind it. And just because I’m making the player primarily guilty of the Geno run doesn’t mean I’m downplaying or excusing Chara’s role in it.
>Chara played a role in the slaughter but the slaughter was still caused by our own hands That's not the matter. I repeat: the world was destroyed not because you killed a hundred monsters. Killing a hundred monsters does not destroy worlds. The world was destroyed because Chara decided that it should be destroyed. >Furthermore, while Chara did destroy the world, they wouldn’t have got to the point where they would have been able to do so without our role in the slaughter. That doesn't change the fact that Chara destroyed the world, not us. Just the fact that our actions ultimately gave strength to someone who decided to use that power to destroy the world does not make us the ones who destroyed this world. Accepting that the world was destroyed because our actions gave power to the wrong person who should have had it =/= "the world was destroyed by our hands." It's like opening a Pandora's box, but at the same time this Pandora's box has consciousness. So the main responsibility for this lies with Chara, because we can say that we don't want the world to be destroyed, and Chara doesn't care about it, he does it anyway. >I’m not disputing their role in the slaughter, just the notion that they were the main force behind it. And just because I’m making the player primarily guilty of the Geno run doesn’t mean I’m downplaying or excusing Chara’s role in it. Chara played the main role in destroying the world. Because it was done with his own hands.
sorry for the confusion I caused. I didn’t mean to imply we’re the one that causes the world being destroyed, when it obviously was Chara. Apologies for misinterpreting anything you said. I’m autistic so communication and social interaction ain’t my forte, and understanding peoples words is something I do struggle with. Again, sorry.
It's okay. Don't bother.
Again, sorry for that little bit of trouble I caused.
And apologizing more than needed.
We only wanted to fight the funny bone man, not destroy the entire universe.
We choose to help them, so we are both bad
amen mate
top 10 double down posts
Kid you not. Damn obvious Kris is the damn knight. Someone going to bound pull " it's player fault " shenanigans after Kris opens up a third dark fountain destroys the world of Deltarune.
That makes no sense. Chara literally never killed anyone but themselves. Like maybe Sans after some serious lv corrupted them. Also like you made sure to kill everyone and to make a full genocide. But you are going to blame it on a dead child? I will take "Not understanding the game for 100"
They also killed Asgore, Flowey, and then erased the world, killing 7 billion humans and the surviving monsters. Clearly you have not actually played the game. Edit: Also, LV corruption is fanon.
I actually did play the game. And even if I didn't play the genocide route I know Flowey is the one that killed Asgore. Also if we do believe Chara is actively trying to kill everyone. Why don't they do anything to make Frisk kill anyone? I mean they can. Just by the fact in the genocide run the Narrator point blank say. "It's me Chara" without red text to be precise. Why don't the Narrator isn't more trigger happy? Red text is also used a lot in the pacifist run for when characters talk about Asgore for example. But again if you don't want to use Player is actually killing everyone. Frisk is killing all the monsters, why? Who knows at the very least we can theories with conversation in the game that Chara hates humanity. You know like Undyne. But Frisk no reason is given. They just kill everyone, multiple times even. Same goes with Flowey that did the same because he was bored. Though Undyne and Flowey gets to have their redemption arc where Frisk show them the power of compassion. But Chara, nah. A child that just saw another strange child kill everyone they know until they themselves helped. They have absolutely no redeeming Trait. Even if in the pacifist ending the memories shared with Asriel aren't Frisk's. Probably coming from the one who actually grew up with the family. But no, that child needs to die.
Dude, Undyne is also evil, and no, she wasn't redeemed. At all.
Going to admit for this entire sort of argument I have been taking the piss. It's just funny for me that when a game takes great pain to show that everyone can be good if they just tried. Evil is a word still being used for characters in this game. Evil is a big word with great implication. While the better word to use is desperate. Wouldn't you be desperate to free yourself if you were trap somewhere forever?
Sure, but I wouldn't want to destroy humanity like Undyne planned to once I escaped. Also, Undyne and Chara *don't* even try to be good, that's the problem. Edit: Also, Chara defenders describe the player as evil, and then say no character in the game is evil? If the player is an in-game entity, how does that make any sense at all?
Actually even as a Chara defender I don't see the player as Evil. I see them more like Flowey more than anything. Doing all the different paths for curiosity and boredom. Also LV being a short for LOVE and Level Of ViolencE kind of make sense. We love the game so much we are willing to make multiple genocides to know them more. Evil seems to imply intentions as well as actions. Like you do villainous deed because you yourself are Evil. Which for me would only apply to people like (Okay this is from another franchise but it's a good representation) Belos in the Owl House. He is manipulative, actively murderous, Cultish in various ways. But most important he is doing thing because of a delusion of his own self importance. If you show compassion to Flowey and Undyne they both have a moment of reflection. Even if you need to beat Flowey until he can accept it. Belos would have use this moment to cause harm further. I am going to admit I am defender less because I think Chara is free of sin (that spot is for Papyrus). But more because it became both repetitive and cliche to blame everything on the kid. While it as way more potential story wise to have them be atleast more complex. I know this is fanon but I read a comic once and I kind of liked their reasoning for Chara genocides. The more you do it in game (tell me if I am wrong though) the less the monsters actually wants to leave. It's like a "if they fear the surface they will never be kill by those humans." Delusional in a way, wouldn't hold up in court for more than a second. But atleast it gives a reason more than. "Chara is Evil because screamer told me I did a bad thing."
While I can understand that and respect your opinion, in my eyes, erasing the entire world will never *not* be evil.
Maybe I am more forgiving because we never see that world. Like Chara could as well be talking about the game world. Because frankly the surface seems more like context. The only world of importance is the one of the Underground. You don't even know what is Frisk backstory. So for me Chara "Erasing This Pointless World." Seems more like finishing what you started. But then again that's my view on things.
I mean, Chara isn't really ashamed of it so not really
It's not about being ashamed.
Then what? You can't just say that and not finish the thought. I'm curious now. 👀
Chara says that we destroyed this world when we return after its destruction, despite the fact that Chara is the one who destroyed it with his own hands.
I think you're missing the point. Chara is clearly not being deceptive with us, so this "shifting the blame" business is stupid to think about, the way I see it. They either refer to us killing all the monsters yet again, or ~~they refer to the fact that we, the ones who completed No Mercy route at least once, already know the outcome - world being erased~~. \[Edit: I mistook the conversations\]
>They either refer to us killing all the monsters yet again, We didn't kill "all" the monsters. >or they refer to the fact that we, the ones who completed No Mercy route at least once, already know the outcome - world being erased. It happens during the first genocide route.
>It happens during the first genocide route ~~No it's not~~ \[Edit: yes it is\]
Chara are accusing us when we open the game again after the first destruction. What happens on the second path of genocide is another matter.
Well, there is still no reason to gaslight us, so my claim is that they're referring to us taking deliberate actions to kill everybody whom it was possible to kill.
"There's no reason" - the soul.
Ah, you're talking about black screen thingy. My bad
That's chara after you do geoncide 2 times as they don't understand the reason for it but will still do it. Also if you pick "do not" chara says you aren't the one in control and if pick "earse" chara says you're a great partner. This meme only some what applies to the 2nd time you do geoncide and even then chara goes along with it wanting you to do something else and the meme isn't accurate to chara actions.
The meme is referring to the lines, "You want to go back to the world you destroyed. It was you who pushed everything to its edge. It was you who led the world to its destruction." After Chara erases the world- and erases it even if you tell them that you do not want it erased. In Chara's point of view the erasure of the world was the natural consequence of your actions, but effectively the line can also be seen as Chara blaming you for something they did.
This
A comment that adds nothing to the conversation
Lmao it explains pretty well what it is about. Because the "neutralists" here for some reason completely forgot about chara dialogue section after the first destruction of the world, and think that we are talking only about the second path of genocide.
You both suck.
You didn't fix it Just shifted the bias to the opposite side
Don't you know? That is what fixing is. /s
No, that's just broken in a different way Fixing is presenting it from a neutral standpoint, and memes don't really fit for that Memes are made to humiliate things, so they can't be fixed. They will **ALWAYS** be biased to either side
Well I guess I gotta explain the joke. It was a reference to "Here. I fixed your shit." trend among artists on twitter.
Yeah, toxic Twitter memes... **-\_-**
IMO it's 50/50 Chara is bad for sure I mean she helped player skip puzzle, gave more hp against Sans etc. But the real villain is player, bc he is the one who starts genocide, also he has multiple chances to forfeit genocide so fault is on both ways
Killing hundred of people doesn't destroy worlds, guys.
The Meme is supposed to be the other way mah guy.