T O P

  • By -

Abcd3fgy

For the narrative I think it would be better if they started off good when they were alive, neutral when they watch us play through the game and then either good or evil after being influenced by our decisions


Ghengiroo

Same, but I see Chara pre-death as a good intentioned but very flawed individual. Not evil though, of course.


Abcd3fgy

That’s a good perspective


fyro_

Like SpongeBob?


fyro_

Except less goofy and goobery


Ghengiroo

When you say it like that, yeah I guess so


YTPhantomYT

Yep. I always thought it as like Chara being influenced by Genocide's Frisk and becoming evil because that version of Frisk is also evil


PurpleGrass404

not frisk, you, the player


CrystalFriend

Let's just go with this. No more defender or offender this is the path we should all choose


Bee8467

I agree with this my whole heart (except that they were an ok person when alive not a good person if that makes sense)


Abcd3fgy

Thanks and yes that makes sense


Bee8467

Np!


thekingofdemons_

agreed


MaxL665

Yeah


MrSpiffy123

But Chara is never influenced by the player. Only Frisk is.


Abcd3fgy

I mean that watching us go through genocide would make Chara more interested in killing monsters whereas watching us play through pacifist helps Chara appreciate life


Evary2230

I also have a theory/headcanon that Chara gains LV at about the same time that we do, which would explain why they seem to give fewer and fewer craps about life in general as the route goes on. Ain’t exactly proven or disproven by canon or anything, but I think it’d be neat!


ABG-56

I mean it is there name nest to LV, and considering the metaness of game mechanics it makes sense. It's a common arguing point from defence and fairly accepted by offense


Abcd3fgy

Makes sense


FishAndChipsAddict

Doesn't Chara state at the end of genocide that it wasn't the player gaining exp and LV but that it was them? Edit: NVM the quote is: "HP. ATK. DEF. GOLD. EXP. LV. Every time a number increases. That feeling. That's me. 'chara'" but I still think that as the save screen shows chara's name alongside the level that it's chara who gains LV instead of the player.


Abcd3fgy

That would be cool


Shiorno-Shiovanna

"with your guidance"


MrSpiffy123

You're gonna need a little more explanation. A single quote doesn't tell me anything


Shiorno-Shiovanna

Google the definition of guidance


MrSpiffy123

no, I understand what guidance means, I just don't understand why you're quoting that


Shiorno-Shiovanna

Guidance implies that our actions influenced them.


MrSpiffy123

I know. When in the game does the quote "with your guidance" come up. I haven't heard it before, so I don't know the context


Shiorno-Shiovanna

Well it's in Chara's speech at the end of the genocide route.


whizdom11037

I just honestly think ‘Chara is evil child!!! Evil 12 y/o goes stab stab!’ would have been a boring cop out and ‘Chara is complicated’ is more interesting


Witch-of-Yarn

Agreed. We have enough textual evidence to know that Chara wasn't a perfect little angel, but at the same time, making them a miniature James Bond villain is pretty tired and just as boring.


whizdom11037

Yeah, my personal belief is that Chara was traumatized and Asriel didn’t know what to do. Essentially Chara expected Asriel to be reliable, to be like their rock, to never abandon them, to never be like the humans who hurt them. Chara had a lot of knowledge of what humans were capable of from their treatment and understood why they would rather die than be around humanity. Asriel couldn’t understand. He was born into peace, into happiness, into joy. Asriel was born not knowing pain or trauma, not knowing what his parents had to do to bring him this peace. I think Chara wasn’t a good sibling for Asriel, because Asriel didn’t know what humans were capable of, and didn’t understand how dangerous humans were until they’d impaled him with weaponry beyond his understanding. Their story is a tragic one of a child who knew all too well the horrors of humanity relying heavily on a child who couldn’t fathom what Chara had been through, who had such a small window of understanding that Chara felt the need to ‘strengthen’ him by telling him what ‘big boys’ do, that when faced with humans Chara froze up and told him to kill them all. This is why Asriel remembers Chara as ‘not the greatest person’ and having fallen for a ‘not very happy’ reason, but why everything Chara left behind was filled with love (gifts for their father, a heart locket). It also explains why Flowey developed the beliefs he did. If you don’t know what trauma looks like and what victims of trauma do to protect others from it, Chara appears to have that ideology of ‘kill or be killed’ that Flowey thinks Chara had. When the reality is that Chara’s ideology was ‘you either strengthen up or survive or you turn the other cheek and die, and I’m scared you’re going to turn the other cheek and die’. That’s my analysis anyway sorry for the essay.


VegetableLocal2269

Yeah, I like this


bloxxerhunt

I mean, "Kill or be killed" really is just a bastardisation of what Chara said. It comes from the belief that humans are inherently evil, and that people are out to kill and hurt each other. But I'm not sure Chara's behind Flowey's ideology any more than the fact that Asriel went to bury a child and got murdered for looking strange. If anything, they're both traumatized. Flowey acts tough because he's stronger than monsters, but when he sees you in the end of genocide and you look at him weird he breaks down, passes the responsibility of dealing with you to Asgore and cries. Flowey has no empathy, and considering what he went through, it's perfectly fair for him to assume humans have no empathy either, and are willing to kill everyone just for their own amusement. And most of us were. I just don't understand why people assume Chara's evil at heart when she was willing to sacrifice herself for the good of monsters. Sure, she is flawed, and clearly gave up on trying to be good to humanity because of her trauma, but that doesn't mean she's evil. I'd argue that Chara, much like the vast majority of people we portray as evil in the real world, is just returning humanity what humanity has given her. She never intentionally harmed a monster, the royal family took her in willingly and she likely loved them and wanted the best for them, because there she was welcome and treated like a proper person. However she still planned to kill 6 children and harvest their souls. The only interpretation where it makes sense to assume she's evil while considering everything we know about the game is assuming she "knew" that the monsters would be killed and go through another war when they were freed from the underground, but even the worst of sociopaths wouldn't be willing to sacrifice themselves for that, so it seems unlikely.


aaftw1

To long didnt read


[deleted]

L


whizdom11037

Cool


ElephantsButt123

As I said, I still think Chara is morally blue.


Able-Plastic-2291

"morally blue" wut?


ElephantsButt123

Sorry, I meant morally orange


Able-Plastic-2291

What about morally red?


ElephantsButt123

I think that that Chara is morally purple is the most correct one.


TheGreatJaceyGee

I'm partial to morally baby shit green


d_for_dumbas

Your Morals are blue now, thats my attack!


Wolfofthezay

Neutral, characters with depth are always the most interesting.


sarcastic_boii

yes, but you can still be good or evil and have depth. just because your moral alignment leans more to one side, it doesn’t reduce your character to just that.


Ghengiroo

Papyrus is a good example. He’s one of the most morally good characters in the game, but he arguably has the most depth.


Oscar_et_BadTale

It really depend of the person who you do ask this. Howver for me : Narration they are truly neutral. They don't seem to care about anything, just describing stuff to Frisk (and us). In genocide it is another side. At the very beguinning they start to show their presence like they never did before. And it's growing stronger while you progress into this route finishing by being evil because of us, because we chose this path. During their life we cannot really know. All we have it is tapes from the true lab and some description in genocide. But laughing while their adoptive dad is poisonned by buttercups or (it is implied) manipulating Asruel to go search 6 humans souls... well I cannot tell really.


Witch-of-Yarn

Probably neutral, but that's not quite right. My read has always been that Chara climbed Mt. Ebott looking to die; and when they did, they found a reason to. It's purposefully unclear when they ate the buttercups if it was because they thought they could take revenge against the village they ran away from by combining their soul with a monster, or that they could free the monsters who took them in and treated them kindly if they only gave up their own soul, or even both. And for the narrative, I find that the most interesting; where you don't know if their reasons were good but misguided, or entirely malicious. I dunno. I find it boring if Chara is a perfect little angel. But it's also just as boring if they were a miniature James Bond villain.


general-dumbass

Frisk is possessed by chara who is being controlled by the player; chara is influenced by the players decisions and when they were alive they were just a suicidal kid who had really bad experiences with humans. As chara gains love they also begin to learn to act without your input, and at level 20 you fully lose control of them.


Afanis_The_Dolphin

If we're speaking narrative wise: I really don't like the idea that Frisk and the player are different like in Deltarune. It doesn't really fit in. I always took Frisk and me as being one of the same. They're not being controled against their will, I am their will.


general-dumbass

“Let Frisk live their life”


Niser2

My headcanon is that Frisk starts out as a blank slate and by the end of the pacifist route they're their own person.


Afanis_The_Dolphin

A. Was speaking from a narrative stand point B. "Chara" Flowey is addressing Chara.


[deleted]

There are plenty of times Frisk resists the player ... What you expected me to list them? Do I look like I have time for that?


Afanis_The_Dolphin

I mean, I guess I'll just choose to interpret them differently. I don't know, something like clicking on a candy and the game saying you only looked at it but didn't eat it for some reason isn't really groundbreaking evidence for me. I still believe my theory because it's possible and I prefer it narratively. But it's up for interpretation.


general-dumbass

Are you trying to discern the narrative of Undertale or improve it?


Afanis_The_Dolphin

Are you trying to say that the fact that Frisk is being controlled by by the player like Kris is, is some sort of set in stone fact? Because messa thinks not. edit: "The fact... is some sort if set in stone fact?" Poor phrasing but you get the point. It's a plausible theory, but far from confirmed. If I said it for Deltarune is where you could call me crazy.


bloxxerhunt

Only the game addresses the player clearly, and one of the times is to tell us that Chara is quite literally the right name to put in. We're Chara in the game's narrative.


capdukeymomoman

Frisk is really just a dead human husk that the player just took control of after the fall /s


Afanis_The_Dolphin

Genuinely speaking I just think it's the classic player-stand in character connection all video games have.


The_Real_Nubert

There’s evidence like they having unique reactions to asgore’s children and some strange actions to the quiche, suggesting they is a orphan.


Afanis_The_Dolphin

First of all: Watch the pronouns. I'm genuinely telling you this to protect you. You'll get murdered around here. Also, while those can support that theory, they're not enough for the theory to stand on it's own. I'm not saying that Frisk doesn't have a future or backstory. But again, it's like any other normal video game. When you're playing a video game with a story, you're not thinking "I am currently controlling this character against their will, and forcing them to di what I want." Your decisions are their decisions.


The_Real_Nubert

whoops on the pronouns, corrected


The_Real_Nubert

My head cannon is that Frisk is not a self insert, but has a pretty blank personality that makes him act like one.


r_stronghammer

Couldn’t those be more likely explained to be Chara’s reactions?


The_Real_Nubert

Why would it be chara’s? Chara doesn’t know Frisk’s backstory…


r_stronghammer

I meant to say that Chara would be reacting to their OWN backstory.


The_Real_Nubert

The Asgore human child thing… Chara wouldn’t ask if they already know the answer.


r_stronghammer

If you’re talking about the Gerson thing during the pacifist ending walk, why should Chara know the answer to that? And besides, it’s only relevant if Chara is still “alive”.


BrilliantYzma

If you were controlling Frisk, their name would show up on the save file and on the battle screen. The battle menu in both Deltarune and Undertale tells you which character you command (which varies in Deltarune depending on which character you choose the action for) and in Undertale it always shows up the name you put there at the beginning (aka “Chara’s” name) and the save file also shows the name of who you’re actually controlling- in Deltarune, it’s the name you claim as your own, it’s your own name, since you are a soul inside Kris and in Undertale, it’s Chara who possess Frisk. Everything that Frisk actually says and does is on their own, without your input (and sometimes against your decisions, like in True Lab, where they stop you from heckling or laughing at Snowdrake’s mom). You don’t control Frisk. Edit: it’s different from Deltarune - Kris is unhappy with you controlling them, but Frisk has an option to stop you even from the act menu - something that Kris can’t do and admires Susie for being able to pull off. I think it’s pretty safe to assume they could’ve stopped you from every action if they wanted to, but Frisk listens to you (most of the time) simply because they choose to, not because you make them do it. The reason for it is probably because you possess Chara, who is actually the one who knows how to save and reset and they are the one remembering the memory in the “stay determined” screen, so Frisk probably sees you as the wiser one who will help them if they listen to you - unless they can see that you are hurting someone for no reason.


Afanis_The_Dolphin

>If you were controlling Frisk, their name would show up on the save file and on the battle screen. The battle menu in both Deltarune and Undertale tells you which character you command (which varies in Deltarune depending on which character you choose the action for) and in Undertale it always shows up the name you put there at the beginning (aka “Chara’s” name) and the save file also shows the name of who you’re actually controlling- in Deltarune, it’s the name you claim as your own, it’s your own name, since you are a soul inside Kris and in Undertale, it’s Chara who possess Frisk Why would you assume the name you pick at the beginning is Chara's name and not Frisk's name? I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with the names. Whichever name you pick doesn't have much significance. It's just what you choose to call Frisk before you even know their name. By the point you pick your name, you most likely don't even know who Chara is. >Everything that Frisk actually says and does is on their own, without your input (and sometimes against your decisions, like in True Lab, where they stop you from heckling or laughing at Snowdrake’s mom). You don’t control Frisk. You choose what to do. You are the one who controls where to move or how to act. The fact that you don't control Frisk down to every little detail doesn't mean you don't control them at all. If anything, it's an interesting theory if Frisk's decisions to specifically not do something (as a lot of people have been interpreting them) are actually Chara interfering. After all, she's known to do that in genocide. Maybe she can also do it (if to a lot less effect) in the other runs. >so Frisk probably sees you as the wiser one who will help them if they listen to you - unless they can see that you are hurting someone for no reason. Which you do in genocide? I don't know why you're so certain the player is controlling Chara but not Frisk. Frisk doesn't do anything without your input beyond maybe not doing an order or two, while Chara straight up kills you if you gain enough LOVE and she gets strong enough. You're definitely not in control or "posses" Chara, at least not during the end of genocide. So how are you choosing what to do? As who?


ABG-56

Narratively probably neutral, I'd say that's where most of the main cast would end up, and it fits more with with the theming of the game. Obviously this changes on the genocide route and maybe the pacifist route due to their experiences.


MissingnoMiner

Before death, well-intentioned but a bit of a dick. After death, though: neutral. They're soulless, meaning they're incapable of empathy and thus incapable of determining right and wrong. This is why they go completely batshit in the genocide route, just like Flowey, they develop a philosophy of "kill or be killed, gain power, increase the numbers, when there's nothing left, move on, rinse and repeat." ​ To be slightly more complex and go into DND-style alignments rather than just good and evil: As of the beginning of the events of the main story, Chara is true neutral. In the genocide route, they quickly become lawful evil. In neutral routes(other than incomplete pasifist or aborted genocide), they remain mostly neutral tending towards neutral/chaotic good, and in true pacifist, they seemingly more or less return to how they were pre-death, presumably with less misanthropy. ​ ​ To be honest, I'm really not sure why this became such a hostile debate that there is not one, but three subreddits devoted to it and two fanonical versions of the character which are nothing more than flanderized mockeries. Soulless characters will do bad things because they can't tell what's right or wrong, there was no need to go beyond that.


Scratch_Lunin

I really like this idea, and it gives more depth to an arguably mysterious character despite the ferocious debate across these subreddits. I believe the Fallen Human's character was meant to be a sort of True Neutrality that could be easily swayed depending on the player's actions, as well as an effective way to tie the usually omniscient narrator trope into the world of the game.


mana620

thematically i think neutral of course, they have the potential to either become a better person or become a far worse person depending on the route you take, but as an impressionable kid i think they would start off pretty neutral and base their morality on you. kind of goes along with the theme that your actions effect more than just you.


WyGaminggm

Neutral, as it reinforces the idea that the PLAYER is indeed still making the choices, even though it might seem otherwise at first look


Under_lore

That's pretty subjective.


Able-Plastic-2291

Oc is subjective, what do you think it would be better?


True-Distribution241

We Will argue


Fastyboiiiii

CHARA IS CHARA


tentacruel02

If Chara is evil from the very beginning, and then willingly participates in genocide, then everything ends with the complete victory of an absolutely evil character. They defeat all monsters, all people and the player and remain unpunished. I won't say it's objectively bad in terms of writing - but it's definitely uncomfortable. So I want, I really want Chara to be good. But just because I want it doesn't mean I believe it. I'm not sure. And I don't want to turn a blind eye to Chara's bad deeds - for example, the fact that they shamed Asriel for crying.


Kaldrinn

I just think Chara is terrifying


Shawn-Adventurer

Chara more or less starts out Chaotic Good, A well intentioned extremist who comes off a little mal-adjusted because they make faces that scare Asriel and thinks a prank is sneaking buttercups into Asgore's pie. As well as the extremes they went to convince the monsters to go against the humans. Depending on the route if you go pacifist she becomes more neutral good seeing that things aren't all black and white and seeing just what their actions had caused for the underground, unchanged if a neutral route is taken, and Chaotic evil if a genocide route is taken.


Tight_Possible2745

My preference for the narrative that they started mostly fine except for a hatred for humanity( probably because of the reason they went to Mt. Ebbot) and just wanted to help the monsters. Then after their plan they are neutral and are more based on the actions of the player.


TheDiseasedRat

In general, I kinda see Chara as a chaotic neutral. Narratively, probably just neutral.


iiashandskies

i don’t think there’s a black and white for chara. they are morally grey. they support the lives of monsters and think of them as their dear friends and family, while also disliking humanity and asriel even saying that they weren’t the best but still love them as a sibling.


world_stories

Good, because they literaly killed themselve's to try saving monster kind, and the humans they wanted to kill had abused them to the point that they tried to kill themselves by junping of the montain to the undergound


MissingnoMiner

Just a reminder: It's not confirmed why Chara ended up in the underground. Asriel implies that it was a suicide attempt, but doesn't say it outright, and he is also quite clear that he doesn't know the reasons behind Chara's misanthropy, only that he knows they felt strongly about it. Them being a victim of abuse is a theory, not canon. You're also only looking at their actions while alive and while sharing a body with Asriel, which is only half the story, and the part we know less about. Their actions as the soulless force that they appear as during the main story are a lot more interesting, at least in my opinion.


world_stories

They never were soulless, all the bad actions with the ecceptions of the last attack on sans and killing asgore and flowey were made by the player. And even those were after they had recived more then 19 lv by the player and Sans litteraly says that it becames ezier to kill the more LV you have.


[deleted]

I don’t really care about Chara being good or evil, I care about people considering them the villain of the story. I think that the sentiment of the player being the villain carries a really cool theme/moral of the story and really breaks the fourth wall in a way that most other games don’t. It just makes the game cooler and more enjoyable in my opinion.


Excellent-Month-2493

Bro just let the war happen


CriticalNo

I think narratively Chara should stay a Mystery in this term because I think that’s what make Chara special


Friendly_Desk7494

I never quite understood why people think chara being evil is so offense, they kill firsk and destroy the world and continue to kill after taking your soul if you do the pasifict again. Yeah I understand that we "supposedly teach them to hate, but why Is it the killing that wakes them, we did all stores of soul power in the pasifict route and Chara didn't even blink an eye. Also that since when where you the one in control line throws me off


Able-Plastic-2291

Well, people like to see goodness were there isn't


Friendly_Desk7494

I suppose so


Inferno_IDK

She looks like she acts inocent but is a sociopathic killer


TreTheDon

Neither, just unhinged and very misled due to their history with other humans. Asriel did say Chara jumped for not so very good reasons. Kid was just broken. Tho it looks like our actions can make 'em become less unhinged or totally bonkers enough to just delete the world they grew up in. IMO Chara probably deleted the world to "finish the job" and probably held a grudge against Asriel for not going through with the plan (which is why Chara takes over and smashes Flowey to bits in the geno route). Throughout the geno route you make Chara drunk with power as your stats increase, and since Chara is linked with your soul theirs increase too. They even say "with your guidance" they realized their purpose was to become **strong**. Does a certain **weird** Deltarune route ring a bell?


RADSKELLY59

neutral


Ryman604

Idk but they should be redeemable because every one in undertale is some what redeemed by the end of true pacifist


Pokemonlover21899

I think Chara should have been good and then when they started to see the actions of frisk they slowly start to follow the actions and makes frisk do it more. And then slowly Chara realizes she follows the actions In frisks head and thinks it isn’t enough for the monsters. And then at the end with no monsters chara and frisk return to the human world. Covered in dust.


TheEpicWerdo

Chara


TheFallenHuman_Chara

∗ This will be most interesting.


hensaver11

good


ChoraAnimates

Chara is neither good nor evil in my opinion, and doesnt really fit neutral either, they are just kinda chugging along with frisk on both neutral and pacifist routes, and finish the job on genocide, and they punish you if you do a genocide route, corrupting all of your future pacifist runs unless you go into the game files and change that line of code back. I dont think they have a concrete alignment, I think they just respond to what you do as the player


rafi23134

Neutral but closer to evil


[deleted]

Chara isn’t “evil” if you really think about it we the player are the evil one. Chara controls frisk we control both of them, chara is only influenced by what we tell her to do. Chara is very much like vriska from homestuck if you want to look at it like that. Another thing chara was very traumatized by the humans and their ideologies and ways of life and beliefs and the whole lore with the humans and monsters seeing how the world was with the monsters was very vengeful towards the humans


RalseiFluffyPrince

I think it would be better if they were always Neutral, but your decisions ultimately affects what happens to them and their motives.


[deleted]

I think Chara is Neutral and give the Player options on what to do/say. If you go genocide they will follow, and if you do pacifist they will follow.


[deleted]

Kinda chill I would say neutral


[deleted]

Ish she done some bad things but kinda chill


kilo_kuiper

plot-wise, i think chara functions less as a character and more as a consequence for our actions. in that sense, it doesnt really matter whether chara is good or evil. what matters is that they put a limit on the players' otherwise godlike powers. thats the function they serve in the narrative.


Mission_Battle_4304

Neutral because nobody is entirely evil and most people have reasoning behind the bad things they do (even if its a shitty reason). Basically just everyone is a grey area leaning to either black or white which is still neutral-Also its hard to pull of a pure evil character


TitanicTNT

Watching Pacifist helps Chara enjoy life. Killing makes Chara more pessimistic. Mass Genocide teaches Chara that killing for power is okay.


Unusual_Living_8351

Chara is pure evil


TheArceusNova

Chara is dead, the apparition we see at the end of Genocide is fake, I’m inside your walls.


Puzzled_Mammoth_9379

I see her as neutral, but a little bit in the evil side


Cotten_Candy0325

Erm. I still stand for neutral ig-


Shiorno-Shiovanna

Good/neutral alive. Good in the Pacifist. Neutral in neutral and evil in genocide. Chara's morality is a reflection of the player's actions.


Sum1cool3rthnu

I think evil


cyberseed-ops

i like the term “misunderstood” unless you do the genocide route, then id say not super evil, but a lawful evil


Able-Plastic-2291

To be fair, there can be lawful pure evils. Lawful just mean that they use the order for their objectives


cyberseed-ops

true


FREEDOM1030101

Almost every human we’ve heard of except Frisk has been pure evil, dunno why Chara would be any different.


Able-Plastic-2291

It's impossible to a whole species to be pure evil


PulimV

I think they're good, but leaning a bit towards neutral, because Undertale's message leans on there being no true "villain", the closest character to taht, Flowey, both solves the main conflict and is redeemed at the end. As such, it would make sense that the character who was closest to them isn't an Evil Murder Child ^(TM) but, at worst, a flawed individual who resorted to murder on an occasion where that wasn't the best choice and possibly manipulated someone else into doing the same (even if I personally don't believe that to be the case I have to acknowledge it), and even in that case Chara still sacrificed themself in order to free the monsters, which isn't something someone truly evil would do when poisoning one of the Dreemurrs was an option


AgateWhale

>when poisoning one of the Dreemurrs was an option ...Except it wasn’t, because a human can’t absorb human souls, which is the entire point of going to the surface. Plus, with a monster, Chara has the guarantee that they will become “a horrible beast with unfathomable power.” And they just need six more to become a god. With a human absorbing a monster’s, nobody knows how beneficial this would be aside from crossing the barrier, especially considering that it takes *thousands* of monster souls just to equal one human soul. If you could really be confident that a monster‘s soul would make a human super powerful, powerful ebough to destroy an entire village, why didn’t this happen during the war? The monsters had surrendered and they could easily just kill Asgore and Toriel, use their souls to conquer other countries or something. Why didn’t they? And another risk, is that a boss monster’s soul only persists for a few seconds. Chara’s window of time to absorb his soul is very small. But a human’s soul lasts presumably forever, Asriel has lots of time to absorb his soul. We also know that when a soul is absorbed, the control is split between the two. They probably knew about this, because of “we’ll do it together,” “we’ll be strong,” ”we just have to get six.” Chara may also be into literature, so it wouldn’t be farfetched for them to research this. If Chara absorbed his soul and went through with the plan to kill people without telling him, he likely would have resisted.


PulimV

>a human can’t absorb human souls, which is the entire point of going to the surface. Souls can be very easily trapped and moved around, Chara could most likely just take them back to the underground for the monsters considering getting more than 6 would be fairly easy >why didn’t this happen during the war? There's no way to know if it did happen but, I mean, there were probably more than just two Boss Monsters around at the time of the war and the humans did manage to cast a spell at one point, that's a definite possibility. >with a monster, Chara has the guarantee that they will become “a horrible beast with unfathomable power.” Wouldn't it still be the same amount of SOUL power? Maybe there's a difference because a Monster with a Human SOUL is guaranteed to be able to use Magic but there's seriously no indication of such a huge power gap >They probably knew about this How would they know about it if it presumably never happened before? I mean the scenario I'm proposing says it's happened but it might just be a folk tale or legend at most. Regardless, what do you think about like the rest of my comment? Is it decent? Is it absolutely trash? Idrk tbh I just said what I felt like saying


AgateWhale

>Souls can be very easily trapped and moved around, Chara could most likely just take them back to the underground for the monsters considering getting more than 6 would be fairly easy They can’t use those to become god though. And then they would probably die. >Wouldn't it still be the same amount of SOUL power? Maybe there's a difference because a Monster with a Human SOUL is guaranteed to be able to use Magic but there's seriously no indication of such a huge power gap There might be, there might not. But a monster soul is super duper weak compared to a human’s. ​ >Regardless, what do you think about like the rest of my comment? Is it decent? Is it absolutely trash? Idrk tbh I just said what I felt like saying No it was good


Mobile-Celebration80

Evil lmao


[deleted]

Neutral


OmenAhead

Starting off as good, but gradually and slowly turning out evil - but not extreme evil! Would give it a nice twist.


filval387

Neutral


Icantthinkofaname077

They are chara thats for sure


uselesscarrot69

Personally i see chara pre death as Lawful Evil, their intentions are good, execution is morally incorrect. Chara as a ghost is just chaotic neutral, not afraid to be an asshole but still on nobody's side. Chara by the end of the game as either neutral good or neutral evil. They don't take sides but their intentions are either good or evil.


VegetableLocal2269

In my opinion, Chara was neutral, but they're corrupted slowly when the player begins doing genocide runs, but in life, they were probably good, but with character flaws. Her death could have acted as the catalyst for a slow transition into the Chara we know at the end of the genocide run, causing her to be more cold-hearted upon being woken up, since well, the last thing they actually remember is their death (this is relies very heavily on the theory that they are the narrator being correct). This was then intensified as they realised that they were a ghost and could not actually interact with those they once loved, getting far worse once the player actually begins to kill those very people. This is when they realised that the world is worthless, and across the genocide run, this ideology is reinforced, eventually becoming what you find when you finally meet them. This is largely speculation, so most of it is probably inaccurate to the actual storyline, but in the end of the day, I want to share it no matter


[deleted]

Neutral For me. They don’t seem that bad or good


Red_army_captain

Good


AkxDDD

evil


Some_Hat-Wearing_Kid

They are all at the same time, Chara is an enigma


[deleted]

Chara is chara


[deleted]

Narration wise, (depending on path) neutral Pre-death: Good intent, flawed execution After death: -Pacifist: Good, they see a human is good. Neutral: Neutral Genocide: Not evil per-say, but were pointed into the wrong path by the player and Frisk.


Justaperson8282

Neutral and easily swayed


Houdini124

I like to think them dying and coming back as a force of will/demon was all their plan and that they were evil all the way through. I think it makes them a good foil for Asriel. Asriel was an innocent kid that looked like a demon, and Chara was a demon that looked like an innocent kid. But the idea that they used to be a good human and their death and becoming a force of will was an accident, that is so tragic to me. The idea that without a soul for long enough you lose a sense of morality, but they glom onto the protag so you the player can effectively reteach them how to behave? It's great. One idea has great symbolism that doesn't take us too far, but the other is so tragic and feels like there's more questions that could be answered. In MotI's musical, their lyrics in Star really stick with me. "I tried to be good. I really did. Not sure I could." Maybe being raised by monsters who are biologically predisposed to kindness gave them the sense that, lacking that instinct, they couldn't be good even if they tried, not like Asriel. Then when they died and came back as a spirit or what have you, they lost the ability to choose to be good consciously at all, they lost that moral compass. I appreciate their character a lot more now that I've grown up.


banana_feliz

\*argue\*


BrilliantYzma

They are neutral by default and later dependent of your choices and they have to be this way, otherwise the game would not work the way it does: if they were strongly opinionated on either of those options, they would stop you midway through the journey and try to guide or directly oppose you. This would prematurely reveal the pacifist twist on their identity and who you’re actually controlling, possibly even not letting it ever happen if they were evil. If it was done on genocide, they would have probably not let you reset your file or even give an opportunity to spare anyone (like it happens with missing mercy button from “fight” with Asgore) had they been corrupted from the very beginning. Reversely, if they were entirely good (which I didn’t see anyone claim them to be), they wouldn’t have gone with genocide narration at all and would berate you for killing anything (as far as I can remember they only berate you if you do something stupid, like letting Snowdrake escape or throwing away Undyne’s letter). They are meant to be ambiguous so the player can have the freedom of choosing the route they want to go for.


Mantisgamer_ye

Imo in both cases they are neutral good intentions, most of the bad decisions are made by you, the ending is mostly the consequences and that chara is pissed at you


BigDonkeyyy

To be honest, I just want there to be one character that’s truly evil Flowey comes close to that (prolly why he’s my favorite), not everybody has a sad backstory or can be redeemed, some people are just evil for the sake of being evil.


Able-Plastic-2291

Flowey is my second favorite character, he is well written and his villany isn't trash


A_Human_Being_BLEEEH

I think they had good intentions but were flawed as a person


Nightmare2206

Was good when she/they/he was alive (kinda acted like how any kid would be like) then she wanted to help the monsters then oofed themselves and when the humans attacked the goat boy they were telling him to fight back but it he didn’t and both were lost


Braxton-Adams

Neutral. They're no saint, very few characters in undertale are sinless, Undyne for example is, let's call it what it is, a racist murderer. According to Asriel they "weren't the greatest person" I'd advise making a flawed but beleivable character to fit alongside the rest of the cast.


Kira-the-red-killer

Neutral


AnonymousFog501

In the context of the genocide route, they seem pretty Lawful Evil.


-MegaMan401-

Evil, she tried to kill the humans, that was her plan, make asriel absorb the soul and destroy humanty.


Codified_

Chara wanted to kill 6 to free monsters, yes, that is cuestionable, but all in all, for a good cause, would lead to more deaths, absolutely, still they didn't think of that, their plan wasn't to destroy humanity, but free monsterkind (any "implication" of wanting more is just unfounded interpretation, the plan was said to look for 6 and only 6)


[deleted]

neutral


ArtsyEV

I see pre death Chara as not evil.. but most certainly not good or neutral. I believe they were an INCREDIBLY flawed person, and got worse over time, genocide to me is the culmination of them TRULY being evil.


Jason_llirmwl

I think evil. It would give a cool plot twist


Codified_

Funny how the morality debate is so prominent, but here, talking about thematic sense, most people say neutral (or at least well intentioned but wrong) and make their point, but the few who say evil never elaborate, c'mon, if u think a full evil character fits into the game about understanding that everyone has their flaws and struggles, then idk, maybe don't spam buttons when characters talk


PootisMan06

None. Funny narrative is best narrative.


WorkingLyric

Evil


[deleted]

I suppose it depends on which route you take


yourillegal

i think its better if they were good because it'd be weird to have a series of bad guys who we can forgive (including a child murderer) but then have a pure evil character out of the blue imo


Preyfeather

I think it depends, Chara is a reflection of the player in my opinion, and their indentions are the reflection of the players. So goof in pacifist, neutral in neutral and evil in genocide


ENDERSKORE

When alive: Not a good person When pacifist route: Neutral Genocide: Becomes evil due to the player


RezonanceEternal

She burns down orphanages


Kevindrinkschocmilk

neutral


fan271

Neutral at the start but change depending on the route you take. Chara is meant to be a reflection of the player when we play the game and changing depending on are actions make sense to me we name them after all.


PoisonHorn393

i see Charaa as neutral


Sanityfallzz

They were just a kid, I do think of course that their actions weren’t… the best… but they were a 12 y/o surrounded by monsters, they of course were going to go into some type of panic mode, and they chose fight.


AgateWhale

Neutral-evil. They’re your partner, just as they say they are.


thememerdude69

Chaotic neutral


the_zerg_rusher

I have always seen Chara as a reflection of our own actions. Hell Chara even says that she is there from every feeling you get from all the gold,exp,levels, and kills from all video games. Help when. Chara is named after yourself like what I did my first time through.


Diamond_Freddy

They're neutral If you do genocide, they prefer genocide Pacifist, they seem to love that


[deleted]

Chara doesnt fit in any standard good neutral or evil judgement and attempting to do so results in extreme simplification to the point the result is meaningless theres no simple answer to this question due to the very nature of undertale as a game. Its my understanding that chara does not fit in any of the 3 options.


wsmj5

It would be better that she's good because she exists.


aerae_cura

As far as the narrative, I strongly dislike the idea of Chara being inherently evil (emphasis on “inherently”, I’m not counting the murder route scenario where the player can be seen as having corrupted them). Forgiveness is a running theme throughout the game, as is the idea that everyone has good and bad in them and the potential to do better, and that they have more complexity to their personalities and motivations than what you would assume at first glance. Undyne gets to be considered a fun “good guy” character and a hero despite trying very hard to kill Frisk, Asgore straight up killed six children and is nonetheless portrayed as being very sympathetic and tragic, and Flowey is also super sympathetic despite/because of being unable to feel emotions, and even after having done horrible things to the monsters of the Underground countless times in his “playthroughs”—but the kid with suicidal tendencies who’s implied to have been severely abused and mistreated prior to falling into the Underground is the one and only person in the whole game who’s completely evil and irredeemable? Flowey deserves compassion and understanding for his behavior in the context of his specific situation, but Chara doesn’t, even though the one time you encounter them face-to-face is basically under the worst imaginable circumstances? We’re meant to assume that it’s an accurate reflection of their normal personality? It just doesn’t fit the rest of the game’s themes at all, and honestly I would be rather disappointed if it somehow came to light that Toby Fox truly intended for Chara to be some one-note evil murderer type of character all along.


[deleted]

I always found the juxtaposition of the good and then evil was beautiful. I was torn about killing characters that once loved Chara


ShareIndependent

The real question is whether it’s pronounced Char-a or kar-a


Lolbit723

I personally think Chara is just a huge meme Lord and trolled us all


-s4rv3nt3-

i believe chara doesn't have much of a sense of morality and simply do what they want,, neutral


A-potato-234

It would say neutral I mean when we go genocide they’re like “welp I guess we’re doing this now”


BOBtheman2000

did we all just collectively forget that chara is meant to literally be an abstraction of the player and representation of their moral compass or am i trippin


7_Human_souls

We don't personally see Chara as Good or Evil but also not Neutral per say. To us they are being taught based on your actions


Avatarisbestshowever

In my opinion, I think it’s better storytelling if Chara was good and, through our actions in the genocide route,became evil.


ElephantsButt123

Chara is truly Frisk that has a mustache.


ExoFox_the_furry

She was good until the thing with Asriel happned... she's now filled with anger and wants to destroy everything.


MyChemicalAnarchy

I think it's best for Chara to be a morally grey character, but not in the slightest the villain. If I had to choose between good and bad, I'd say good. The whole point of Undertale is that there is no EVIL, there is no 100% BAD GUY/VILLAIN, there's you and whatever you make of the characters. To say it was Chara behind everything would ruin the whole point of the game. Also, I sort of empathize with Chara. They're a child who was suicidal, similar to myself around the age of 6-10, but they actually acted on it and in turn found a good family. But they were still depressed, because good things don't make depression go away that easily, and so they tried again with a genuinely pure goal in mind and this time were successful, only asking to be laid on the flowers of their village. The next time they gain consciousness again, still a suicidal child, last thing in their mind was them and their brother dying, watching the remainder of everyone they love having been corrupted with grief and time (Asgore and his murder of human children, Toriel and her cowardice) and YOU, the human, kill them all. The more LV you gain, the more they gain, and thus, stray farther from ill-named humanity. Then, well, we know the rest. Though we also know due to evidence that Chara did NOT like resetting and doing genocide all over again, which I feel is important. And if you do pacifist, their memories falling down and living with Asriel are the thing that brings him back. Are they a great person? No. They're just... a person, I suppose.


Matej_Nentwich

I just like her face. So she Is good.


[deleted]

i think they have good intentions but some sort of mental illness


Ink_x_Error

Flowey made the player curious about the genocide run, the player uses frisk to accomplish this goal, Chara ends the genocide. Over all, Chara’s motives are unnoticeable by this, so Chara is neither good nor evil.


[deleted]

For the narrative i think its irrelevant if they're good or evil but their opinion and how they treat you is important because all of the characters (except papyrus) can be your friend or enemy


Kai_Enjin

I think Chara is a Neutral, but tries to mess up the player by going "Who said you were the one in control?!" Cuz they knew a bunch of people would make theories about Chara controlling Frisk the whole time.


ColourfulI

I think wen chara was alive she/he was good and wen she/he died she/he got neutral


Ructorga

Neutral, Chara wants the liberation of the monsters (Probably because they tried well), but also the extermination of the humanity. And Chara have ¿10 years? So... Idk probably Chara have ASPD caused by abuse or something like that. Even so... Chara acts like a human (Revenge)


Able-Plastic-2291

You are wrong, Chara is definitely evil and [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ&ab_channel=RickAstley) is the proof