Asgore - alignment?

[Spore]

This is spoilers for a very enthralling small game Undertale. For people who haven't played Undertale, go get it and return in 4-6 hours, richer in experience. DOOOOOO eeeeeet! I feel this game makes an fine example that your average antagonist has never to be evil. But I shall continue in spoilers:

While there are several alignment grids for the game, I agree to the following the most:

https://41.media.tumblr.com/45b351664998ba373feb809b0498bb12/tumblr_nwtcsvzCJp1uo9po7o1_500.png
except I would change Mettaton and Asgore (because Mettaton doesn't care about the deaths of several if he can save his future audience, the humans and Asgore does everything for the freedom of monsters but the killing deeply pains him).

However everything shifts if you switch alignment from intention to deeds. That I mean is that Asgore killed humans, and worse, trapped their souls while keeping their bodies in a room near his throne (creepy!). No matter how emotional damaged he is for killing children, he still went through with it. And while Mettaton might say he will want to kill you in order to get to the surface I am unsure if he would go through with it. If we could attribute a robot an alignment is another discussion entirely. But keep this centered on Asgore.

His action is selfless because he sacrifices his conscience in order to save his kingdom. But simultaneously it is selfish because he does wait for a human to come down and be murdered. He could've gone to the surface with ONE of the souls, got human souls from departed humans (this is marginally "gooder" but it is a step towards the light). The only thing that could've happened is that the monster would be destroyed by humans. But considering Floweys power with 6 souls inside him, I doubt that anyone without a SAVE-feature could stop him from doing that.

Also there still is a diplomatic solution, even if the game never points that out. Take a soul, get to the surface and TALK to the humans. It is quite ironic that for a game that claims to be playable as a pacifist some of the intended "good" reactions aren't really the optimum of good. Asumming a pacifist hero: Your nice mother Toriel tries to kill you for escaping (making me question that proposed LG alignment) followed by a confused and insanely naive "hero" Undyne that tries to stop the evil human who has killed noone so far, saved a little kid in front of her eyes and makes the combat entry as cheesy as possible (I imagine Undyne as a PC, less murderhoboy, more focussed on unnecessary "epicness").

But alas, if we were discussing all characters we would finish in a 20 page thread so focus on Asgore instead. For me, ultimatively Asgore is chaotic evil with strong emphasis on chaos. He wants liberation so bad he pushes back his own morals. He still has them but he does not go with them.

Happy discussing, and remember: Please tell us your short definition of alignment before you start arguing because chances are we talk about entirely different concepts. This thread is not about talking about the nature of alignment but an evaluation of intents and actions.

[Inevitability]

In my opinion, if someone seeks to do good, but resorts to evil for this 'good' to happen, he or she is LE. Take, for example, the Operative (http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Operative).

Asgore is a kind individual, who truly wishes the best for his people, but veers into morally questionable territory to do so. As you pointed out, he had several other options, but ultimately chose to kill all humans.


The argument of him wanting freedom so much it makes him chaotic is incorrect in my opinion. A Lawful character can be imprisoned and desire freedom without it affecting his alignment. Asgore doesn't seem to hold freedom as an universal value; just as an immediate need for him and his people.

[The Insanity]

Neutral Good.

[Mlmiii]

I'd say LG with suicidal tendencies (which may have pushed him to LN with E tendencies). You'll notice that even though he could've absorbed the human souls to make himself stronger (as Flowey did), he left them in glass jars. Toriel even mentions that with even one soul he could pass through the barrier and find acceptable targets for the rest of the needed soul-harvesting. Instead of either of these paths to freedom, he destroys the "mercy" option in the fight screen, forcing the player to either kill him or reinforce Asgore's guilt. He could've dispensed with the deathtrap that is the underground years ago, but instead he invites the one thing capable of killing him into his house several times over the course of the game's (back)story.

[squiggit]

Doesn't the whole "directly responsible for the cold blooded murder of six people" kind of throw Good out the window?

I agree with the LE assessment. A very nonstandard take on the alignment, but it fits nonetheless.

[Necroticplague]

Doesn't the whole "directly responsible for the cold blooded murder of six people" kind of throw Good out the window?

I agree with the LE assessment. A very nonstandard take on the alignment, but it fits nonetheless.

Actually, those six died on their own, he just got their souls. In fact, the reason Toriel and him had trouble with each other was because he was too soft-hearted to actually go out and kill some humans to get the souls to break the seal (after the first one, he could have just let himself out, killed half a dozen people, then used their souls to break the barrier once and for all. Unfortunately, he lacked the guts to do so, instead opting to wait for six more people to fall in and die of their own accord). I'd say LG. He only wants what's best for his own people, lacks the cruelty to kill even a relatively small amount of people in cold blood ()there are a lot of indicators during the fight he's holding back and regretting it badly).

[squiggit]

Actually, those six died on their own, he just got their souls.

In fact, the reason Toriel and him had trouble with each other was because he was too soft-hearted to actually go out and kill some humans to get the souls to break the seal (after the first one, he could have just let himself out, killed half a dozen people, then used their souls to break the barrier once and for all. Unfortunately, he lacked the guts to do so, instead opting to wait for six more people to fall in and die of their own accord).
Half right. Yeah, he lacked the guts to go out and do it himself, but it's never really stated anywhere that the six souls died of their own accord. The royal guard are actively trying to hunt down and capture or kill the humans on the King's orders, after all.

In fact, Toriel outright tells you that if you leave the ruins Asgore will have you killed... and that's exactly what Undyne tries to do and Royal Guards 01 and 02 try to do and when you do reach him, refusing to fight him will simply make him a little hesitant, but nothing you do (short of beating him up first) will stop him from trying to execute you. Being regretful or remorseful or reluctant doesn't change the fact that he still does it.

There's also the whole "Destroy all of humanity" thing he's supposed to do once he gets the seventh soul.


I'd say LG. He only wants what's best for his own people, lacks the cruelty to kill even a relatively small amount of people in cold blood ()there are a lot of indicators during the fight he's holding back and regretting it badly).

I just don't see how any of that can possibly equate to Good. Even ignoring the whole destroy all humans thing, his boss fight alone should entirely preclude him from that.


That's what really makes him an interesting character. He's likable and nice and clearly doesn't want to hurt anyone, but at the same time the fact that he does makes him really the worst character in the game. It's a cool dichotomy, but it doesn't change what he's trying to do.

[ryu]

Half right. Yeah, he lacked the guts to go out and do it himself, but it's never really stated anywhere that the six souls died of their own accord. The royal guard are actively trying to hunt down and capture or kill the humans on the King's orders, after all.

In fact, Toriel outright tells you that if you leave the ruins Asgore will have you killed... and that's exactly what Undyne tries to do and Royal Guards 01 and 02 try to do and when you do reach him, refusing to fight him will simply make him a little hesitant, but nothing you do (short of beating him up first) will stop him from trying to execute you. Being regretful or remorseful or reluctant doesn't change the fact that he still does it.

There's also the whole "Destroy all of humanity" thing he's supposed to do once he gets the seventh soul.



I just don't see how any of that can possibly equate to Good. Even ignoring the whole destroy all humans thing, his boss fight alone should entirely preclude him from that.


That's what really makes him an interesting character. He's likable and nice and clearly doesn't want to hurt anyone, but at the same time the fact that he does makes him really the worst character in the game. It's a cool dichotomy, but it doesn't change what he's trying to do.

Someone forgot Flowey. You know the insane flower psychopath who will unrepentantly murder and/or steal the souls of everyone and everything he can just so he can get stronger and more proficient at doing it. In true pacifist he finally has a change of heart with no small amount of prompting, but so does asgore and with significantly less fuss. He just got smacked upside the head by toriel.

Asgore is a fluffy pushover who said something extreme in a moment of extreme anger then couldn't go back on it because he couldn't shunt his people back into despair. Nevermind that there are more efficient ways of getting what he wants done done without ever having to kill anyone. Namely wait for humans to fall and accept them as members of society to be cared for. Humans aren't eternal and their souls are still good if they die of old age. Asgore and Toriel are ageless so long as they have no children. They can totally pursue plans in the long term. Considering the events of the pre-game supposedly take centuries? It would only be slower than what they were doing by a few decades.

[The Vagabond]

I'd say LN, with some points leaning to a very nonstandard evil.

As listed above, they have provided reasons why Asgore could be considered LE, however, I would argue that it's more lawful: He only continues because he cannot risk breaking hope in the monsters hearts, to keep them whole, and to protect those he care for. In the end, he does everything he does in the name of his family of monsters. Asgore destroys the mercy button, because he realizes that, if you show mercy, he won't be able to keep fighting. He's king of the monsters, and he is their servant. He declared war on the surface out of rage, and couldn't muster up the will to turn back when his subjects are so full of hope.

In the end, he's not defined by good or evil. He's defined by his subjects. His rage. His emotions. The rules. He's very Lawful in his behavior, I think, but not Good or Evil. He doesn't like killing, because murder is wrong. So he sent someone out to do it for him, because he didn't have the strength.

And, to be fair, to many monsters, humans are like Goblins: Dangerous threats that must be destroyed to maintain their way of life. To them, we are the goblins that raid their village, or the Giants that stab their homes. If a giant wandered into your village, quite plausibly killing a few people, would you not kill it? If a Goblin Tribe murdered your village, would you not destroy them? If this kept happening, wouldn't you adopt a kill on sight policy?

And, more importantly, would you make a Paladin fall for that?

[Spore]

I would really love to see a reasonable LG villain in a game once and Asgore is very close to that but as you pointed out, Asgore is probably LN. Onto why you think he has evil tendencies is beyond me though. I've reread everything. Monsters are practically immortal so they can wait for their salvation. Asgore can wait for enough souls to fuel his plan without hurting a fly. If the Underground is a death trap enough so that no human would come close to him but be killed by his servants or traps. And if it weren't for the save system, most incarnations of the main character would have stopped as early as Undyne.

He is sooo close to the good axis of alignments but two things keep him from being truly a good character:

- Cowardice: He waits for humans to fall down yet he hopes that they perish in what he has created of the underground. Be it a killer robot you only get behind because its creator wants a friend. Be it the entirety of his royal guard trying to bring the human down. Or be it the two animal girls setting trash and inducing food poisoning in you.

- Insecurity: He cannot go back on his word for one human who has miraculously survived everything. The one human that resembles his adoptive child that died so many years ago. That even reminds him of his own lost son. It is a weird mix between selflessness (for the monsters of the Underground) and selfishness (not wanting to delay his plans further by letting the human pass, and maybe adding to the hypocrisy that is the deathtrap underground vs. his supposed mercy).

I know Asgore doesn't recognize it in you because you reach him in a neutral playthrough but maybe he knows of the past of Chara? Isn't the first lost child a sociopathic murderer in all timelines that had exterminated its hometown? And as you reach the neutral ending Chara must've either killed someone or not show full compassion towards any being in the underground and thus the king decides that you are too dangerous to keep around?

[squiggit]

I agree with everything about his intentions being good and him being driven more by insecurity and cowardice than malice (I don't think he has a malicious bone in his body) but actions are at least just as important as thoughts and Asgore still engineers everything around trying to kill you.


I know Asgore doesn't recognize it in you because you reach him in a neutral playthrough but maybe he knows of the past of Chara? Isn't the first lost child a sociopathic murderer in all timelines that had exterminated its hometown? And as you reach the neutral ending Chara must've either killed someone or not show full compassion towards any being in the underground and thus the king decides that you are too dangerous to keep around?

Chara's never a nice kid, but they never actually kills anyone unless you do genocide, and it's more or less outright stated at the end of that run that it's pretty much all the player's fault. What Chara is during the neutral or pacifist run is intentionally vague and there's a lot of weird fan debate about that. As for Asgore, I don't think he was ever really aware of Chara being a bad apple (at least the idea is never mentioned) and he tries to kill you in Pacifist too, he just gets stopped. Oddly enough, the only time he doesn't try to kill you is in said Genocide run, despite being warned twice in advance that you were bad news and were coming for him. Never really liked that part

[mythmonster2]

Chara's never a nice kid, but they never actually kills anyone unless you do genocide, and it's more or less outright stated at the end of that run that it's pretty much all the player's fault. What Chara is during the neutral or pacifist run is intentionally vague and there's a lot of weird fan debate about that.

Actually, going back to the very first game in the room in the playable epilogue and talking to Asriel gets you the truth on Chara. According to Asriel, when he fused with Chara and went to the surface, Chara wanted to kill all the humans there.

As for Asgore, I think the Lawful part is pretty much undebatable. He's the leader of the monsters and holds his promise to destroy all humans, even when it's obvious that he would really, really rather not. Keeping a promise even when it goes against your own wishes seems like one of the most Lawful things you could do. His goal is the liberation of his kind, and it really doesn't seem like he has a selfish bone in his body.

As for morality, well. He's the leader of an oppressed group that seeks to break free from the barrier they were trapped behind as a result of a preemptive attack. Seems Good... except for the fact that 7 people have to die for it to happen, and the promise he made that all humans would have to die. Granted, the last part was when he lost two children in one night to the humans, but D&D alignment doesn't care about circumstances. Regardless of his intentions, his actions force him into the Evil corner.

So, Lawful Evil, but I think a more sane system than D&D that takes intentions and circumstances would put him as Lawful Neutral, with his Good intentions and Evil actions balancing out right about in the middle. (though this may be my own personal bias, since he is my favorite character in the game).

[Kurald Galain]

Actually, those six died on their own, he just got their souls.

"I mean, there's probably some ubermagic that would bind [their] soul or something..." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html)

Yeah, definitely evil. Also, as The Giant has stated, competence at reaching one's goals has no impact on the morality of those goals. So wanting to do evil and being too weak to go through with it? Yeah, still evil. Not being cruel also doesn't make him any less evil.

Although he's clearly more lawful than he's evil.

Now, Flowey and Chara are hands-down chaotic evil, obviously.
Chara as in the First Child. The player character is Frisk, and only gets taken over by Chara on the genocide route.

[NichG]

I tend to go by the interpretation that on a genocide route, Chara is part of the player's internal psychology, but on any other route Chara is more literally the first child. Undertale seems like the kind of game where the actual metaplot and background cosmology could be route-dependent.

Of course Toby could surprise me and make an expansion/additional game where you can play as the first child, making both viewpoints equally 'true'.

[Kurald Galain]

i tend to go by the interpretation that on a genocide route, chara is part of the player's internal psychology, but on any other route chara is more literally the first child. Undertale seems like the kind of game where the actual metaplot and background cosmology could be route-dependent.

Of course toby could surprise me and make an expansion/additional game where you can play as the first child, making both viewpoints equally 'true'.


SINCE WHEN WERE YOU THE ONE IN CONTROL? jumpscare!

[NichG]

SINCE WHEN WERE YOU THE ONE IN CONTROL? jumpscare!


A lot scarier if that thing is an actual part of your real self within your real mind and the game is just revealing it to you by provoking you to simulate doing horrible things, than if it's just a character in the story of the game, no?

[squiggit]

Actually, going back to the very first game in the room in the playable epilogue and talking to Asriel gets you the truth on Chara. According to Asriel, when he fused with Chara and went to the surface, Chara wanted to kill all the humans there.
Yeah, but to be fair, those humans were trying to murder them



A lot scarier if that thing is an actual part of your real self within your real mind and the game is just revealing it to you by provoking you to simulate doing horrible things, than if it's just a character in the story of the game, no?


Isn't that pretty much why Toby suggested people use their own name for the Fallen Child?

Plus at the end of genocide it's pretty much outright stated that you're the one who made them that way. Your choices as the player create the "Demon".

[Necroticplague]

Yeah, definitely evil. Also, as The Giant has stated, competence at reaching one's goals has no impact on the morality of those goals. So wanting to do evil and being too weak to go through with it? Yeah, still evil. Not being cruel also doesn't make him any less evil. Killing a handful of children wasn't something he wanted to do. He wanted to set his own people free. It's just unfortunate that or 7 human deaths are required for it, to the best of his knowlege.


Although he's clearly more lawful than he's evil.

Not gonna get any disagreement from me on this one.

[Xuldarinar]

Lawful, that is a definite.

The question is, In D&D terms, what is it that deciders Evil vs Good vs Neutrality? Is it intent, the actions one takes, or the result of said actions?

[ryu]

Lawful, that is a definite.

The question is, In D&D terms, what is it that deciders Evil vs Good vs Neutrality? Is it intent, the actions one takes, or the result of said actions?

I would also point out that in their world humans are hardly neutral or innocent. They literally exterminated most of his race and drove them underground for centuries if not millenia. D&D characters get to remain good while having a kill on sight disposition with races guilty of much less severe harm. To put this in perspective, based on the final fight with mettaton pacifist style I wouldn't estimate the total population of monsters that exist as more than twenty-thousand and that's very conservatively high.

[Rakoa]

I would also point out that in their world humans are hardly neutral or innocent. They literally exterminated most of his race and drove them underground for centuries if not millenia. D&D characters get to remain good while having a kill on sight disposition with races guilty of much less severe harm. To put this in perspective, based on the final fight with mettaton pacifist style I wouldn't estimate the total population of monsters that exist as more than twenty-thousand and that's very conservatively high.

That number strikes me as wildly inflated, as well. Mettaton was going on about how he had 12 viewers once, or something similar to that. Anyone with his own resort and every product being part of his brand name does not achieve that level of fame in the underground unless 12 viewers is a significant portion of the population.

[ryu]

That number strikes me as wildly inflated, as well. Mettaton was going on about how he had 12 viewers once, or something similar to that. Anyone with his own resort and every product being part of his brand name does not achieve that level of fame in the underground unless 12 viewers is a significant portion of the population.

I was going by his ratings number in the pacifist fight. Assuming each number was a TV and that not the entire population was watching. Again I was being very conservatively high with the number. By all means let the population be still less than that. It makes my point more.

[Rakoa]

I was going by his ratings number in the pacifist fight. Assuming each number was a TV and that not the entire population was watching. Again I was being very conservatively high with the number. By all means let the population be still less than that. It makes my point more.

Oh, don't worry, I wasn't trying to dispute you. I just got the impression from Mettaton talking about his objectively low viewercount as indicative of the incredibly low population of monsters in the underground.

[ryu]

Oh, don't worry, I wasn't trying to dispute you. I just got the impression from Mettaton talking about his objectively low viewercount as indicative of the incredibly low population of monsters in the underground.

No worries. I take that more as an indication that he's a more recent development. More specifically that Alphys made his ghost inhabited body recently and he just hasn't become popular yet. Your pacifist fight was objectively his big break in other words.

[Xuldarinar]

I would also point out that in their world humans are hardly neutral or innocent. They literally exterminated most of his race and drove them underground for centuries if not millenia. D&D characters get to remain good while having a kill on sight disposition with races guilty of much less severe harm. To put this in perspective, based on the final fight with mettaton pacifist style I wouldn't estimate the total population of monsters that exist as more than twenty-thousand and that's very conservatively high.


We hardly know the totals before the humans began their extermination of monsters, but the point is taken. We could guess at the total one way, by counting the total number of kills during the genocide play through.

To put this throughly into perspective, do we consider humans to be closer to drow or to demons?



To my point of view on alignment, I must draw upon BoED and BoVD. With the conceits that humans in the setting are.... evil;

Killing humans: Not in of itself an evil act. But.. The motivations are where we get caught up. It is explicitly stated revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence.

Killing human children: "Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncom- batants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures)."

Collecting souls: Its an evil means, ultimately aimed at bringing about genocide. So, while it was in part to give hope and bring about peace, I would say its an evil means to an evil end.

[ryu]

We hardly know the totals before the humans began their extermination of monsters, but the point is taken. We could guess at the total one way, by counting the total number of kills during the genocide play through.

To put this throughly into perspective, do we consider humans to be closer to drow or to demons?



To my point of view on alignment, I must draw upon BoED and BoVD. With the conceits that humans in the setting are.... evil;

Killing humans: Not in of itself an evil act. But.. The motivations are where we get caught up. It is explicitly stated revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence.

Killing human children: "Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncom- batants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures)."

Collecting souls: Its an evil means, ultimately aimed at bringing about genocide. So, while it was in part to give hope and bring about peace, I would say its an evil means to an evil end.

Neither of those two books are in any way an adequate measure of alignment in the system. They repeatedly and violently clash with what literally any other book and sometimes even themselves on the subject and thus I refuse to respect them as sources in an alignment debate. This is before we get into things that are objectively stupid within the books themselves like ravages, or sanctify the wicked.

[Lord Raziere]

hm, the thing about Undertale is that "death" in this instance means something different for the protagonist than it does in DnD.

in Undertale, if you've got Determination- which humans simply have a lot of- you can simply save and come back as if nothing happened. the most powerful person in Undertale is not Asgore, Flowey, or even the Fallen Child, its you and the decisions you make. your victory is inevitable no matter what path you choose as long as you stay determined.

Asgore is not fighting against a normal child who has fallen into a cave- they're fighting against the most determined person in the underground who has already made it past all his subjects who will just keep resetting again and again until they win. he knows that you can save and come back, if you talk to him and tell him how many times hes killed you, he will just nod sadly as if he already knows that you can do this. his only hope is to beat you up so much that you give up playing the game entirely, presumably leading to an unseen ending where Asgore succeeds and frees them from the underground.

in short, to the monsters who realize it, your an unstoppable threat rampaging across their kingdom whether your a hero or a villain. and the only Chaotic Evil people in the game are Flowey and the Fallen Child who do the least amount of fighting- everyone else is some form of neutral and good, and are fighting for good reasons on any play through. everyone in the kingdom looks up to Asgore, who tries to rule as justly and kindly as he can, the PC confronting him is only one situation we can't judge him on.

I'd say he is LG, facing off against an unstoppable being hoping that being will give up, because he tries to rule as best he can and takes as little actions as he can to not stain his hands with murder- reducing harm and refraining from killing is not an evil act. and someone who regrets a decision made in emotional turmoil doesn't sound evil to me.

that and even if you say he is trying to kill you and take your soul, well here is the rub: the only way you can escape, is if you take HIS soul and escape, and you have far more power over the situation than he does, thing is, you taking his soul would be a purely selfish thing just to escape the barrier and leave the monsters to their fate of being trapped underground forever. if he takes your soul he will be able to break the barrier for everyone and get them out, and since he is the king, and since he doesn't like killing, well, he will probably order people to NOT kill humans since well...he can't bear the thought of seven dying, why bear the lives of thousands or millions, and since he is the king and everyone respects him who is going to argue with him once they're able to walk around the surface?

that and there is the fact that if you try to fight again on a neutral playthrough after beating him once, he will choose to skip the fight and instead try to sacrifice himself so that you can go through the barrier, and if you choose to spare him the first time around he promises to adopt the character and take good care of him, moved by the selflessness of not taking his life and remaining trapped here with the rest of the monsters.

one evil act, does not define a character. Undertale is pretty much the opposite in regards to DnD in that the entire point of the game is to be anything but a DnD murderhobo who just assumes that all the monsters they see are out to kill them, so they have to kill them and take their stuff. so I'd say Lawful Good, because the game is all about forgiveness in a sense, and DnD's alignment system is designed to be anything but forgiving. trying to apply a system of morality designed to give you excuses to kill things to a game all about trying to not kill anyone is frankly an absurd endeavor. mostly because its missing the point of both games.

[NichG]

Isn't that pretty much why Toby suggested people use their own name for the Fallen Child?

Plus at the end of genocide it's pretty much outright stated that you're the one who made them that way. Your choices as the player create the "Demon".


Yeah, the 'demon who comes when its name is called' is a bit of a weird line, but if you think about it it makes sense if you take Genocide Undertale to be a story about the characters of a video game being self-aware but still being subject to all the usual video game things.

As the player, you take control of a character in the game. But if that were a real person you were controlling, they had a life before the start of the game. So why is it that you get to name them as the player? That is, in some sense, an ultimate erasure of identity for that being. In other words, in the Genocide mindset, that's the point where you first make contact with 'everyone is just pixels'. This guy wasn't real, he never existed before you went in and gave him a name; he was born and placed in the story just to be the player's avatar.

That's why when you go on other routes, the protagonist has a name of their own, and the culmination of their journey is to reveal that name. But when you go Genocide, there is no Frisk, just 'the player character'.

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, the 'demon who comes when its name is called' is a bit of a weird line, but if you think about it it makes sense if you take Genocide Undertale to be a story about the characters of a video game being self-aware but still being subject to all the usual video game things.

As the player, you take control of a character in the game. But if that were a real person you were controlling, they had a life before the start of the game. So why is it that you get to name them as the player? That is, in some sense, an ultimate erasure of identity for that being. In other words, in the Genocide mindset, that's the point where you first make contact with 'everyone is just pixels'. This guy wasn't real, he never existed before you went in and gave him a name; he was born and placed in the story just to be the player's avatar.

That's why when you go on other routes, the protagonist has a name of their own, and the culmination of their journey is to reveal that name. But when you go Genocide, there is no Frisk, just 'the player character'.



Its more like that Frisk and the Fallen Child are two different people, and that the Fallen Child is able to possess Frisk when Frisk kills enough people. if you put in the name "Frisk" into the name screen at the start, it will activate a joke hard mode that ends things long before the game endings ever happen. your actually naming the Fallen Child, who just so happens to only able to get their plan going on a certain playthrough by possessing Frisk.

[Spore]

one evil act, does not define a character. Undertale is pretty much the opposite in regards to DnD in that the entire point of the game is to be anything but a DnD murderhobo who just assumes that all the monsters they see are out to kill them, so they have to kill them and take their stuff.

Ultimatively D&D is not a Hack & Slasher for our group and only the most shallow (or prejudicing) characters would kill anything they come across. If we ever devolved into these kind of monsters believe me our DM(s) rub that fact in like there's no tomorrow. Any sentient being is able to solve the dispute diplomatically if they haven't shown aggression and inability to cooperate before.

It is a main plotpoint for one of our groups and mostly our pyromancer who doesn't really understand how to disable people without burning them to a crisp ruins the possibility. We try to use blunt arrows and nonlethal combat and then in the first round of combat usually an empowered Fireball follows. We fight versus a noble house trying to create an ultimate warforged army AND torturing angels to the point where they fall and obey. Everywhere we go, slaves, soldiers, scholars and other non combatants are thrown in our way. If the Pyromancer takes up Merciful Spells ironically the Paladin is the last one not able to do nonlethal damage with her guns.

[Xuldarinar]

-snip- If the Pyromancer takes up Merciful Spells ironically the Paladin is the last one not able to do nonlethal damage with her guns.

Guns... guns...

No "rubber bullets"?
Salt shot (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/ammunition/alchemical-cartridges/salt-shot-cartridge) is something to consider, though PF.
A merciful weapon enchantment should also do, something a paladin would be able to do with Craft Magical Arms and Armor.

[NichG]

Its more like that Frisk and the Fallen Child are two different people, and that the Fallen Child is able to possess Frisk when Frisk kills enough people. if you put in the name "Frisk" into the name screen at the start, it will activate a joke hard mode that ends things long before the game endings ever happen. your actually naming the Fallen Child, who just so happens to only able to get their plan going on a certain playthrough by possessing Frisk.



It's kind of both. At the end of a Genocide run, Chara suggests going off to some other world to wreck that one too - e.g. 'we've finished this game, lets play another'. So in the Genocide run interpretation, the Fallen Child was also in some sense possessed by Chara, in that the Fallen Child is the player's actual avatar (but who died before the game even began), which then transfers to/replaces Frisk. That is to say, the thing doing the possessing is literally your ability as a player to control the character.

In non-genocide routes, the amount of meta is reduced, and so the interpretation also changes. Instead of there being some player who formed an avatar in the form of the Fallen Child, got killed during the intro, and then transferred to Frisk, the Fallen Child is actually literally Chara, rather than Chara being abstract things like 'that feeling you get when your numbers go up'.

[ryu]

It's kind of both. At the end of a Genocide run, Chara suggests going off to some other world to wreck that one too - e.g. 'we've finished this game, lets play another'. So in the Genocide run interpretation, the Fallen Child was also in some sense possessed by Chara, in that the Fallen Child is the player's actual avatar (but who died before the game even began), which then transfers to/replaces Frisk. That is to say, the thing doing the possessing is literally your ability as a player to control the character.

In non-genocide routes, the amount of meta is reduced, and so the interpretation also changes. Instead of there being some player who formed an avatar in the form of the Fallen Child, got killed during the intro, and then transferred to Frisk, the Fallen Child is actually literally Chara, rather than Chara being abstract things like 'that feeling you get when your numbers go up'.


Actually Chara is neither a child nor the player. Chara is a literal demon that possessed the body and soul of the first child likely through temptation. After a genocide run if you start the game and wait ten minutes he attempts the same talking directly to YOU. He literally offers to remake the world in exchange for your soul. Demons can't simply take souls through force you see. They have to have a willing participant. The net effect of this is that while the game is mostly back to normal it's physically impossible to get the true pacifist ending ever again because Chara visibly wakes up and takes control of the body during the ending. Chara never stopped being part of the dust of the Asriel/Chara hybrid. He starts the game inside Frisk because Frisk fell on the same flowerbed where they dumped that dust. The same flowerbed that Flowey came from.

[rrwoods]

Minor complaint: can we remove the last name of the character from the title? If I remember correctly "King Dreemurr" and "ASGORE" aren't obviously the same character until a decent way into the game, so "Asgore Dreemurr" is actually a spoiler.

I could be wrong about this, if so just ignore me :-p

[NichG]

Actually Chara is neither a child nor the player. Chara is a literal demon that possessed the body and soul of the first child likely through temptation. After a genocide run if you start the game and wait ten minutes he attempts the same talking directly to YOU. He literally offers to remake the world in exchange for your soul. Demons can't simply take souls through force you see. They have to have a willing participant. The net effect of this is that while the game is mostly back to normal it's physically impossible to get the true pacifist ending ever again because Chara visibly wakes up and takes control of the body during the ending. Chara never stopped being part of the dust of the Asriel/Chara hybrid. He starts the game inside Frisk because Frisk fell on the same flowerbed where they dumped that dust. The same flowerbed that Flowey came from.


Consider that several points in the game, characters address you - the player - directly. Not Frisk, not Chara, but the person behind the screen.

Undertale is a very self-aware game. It's written such that it takes those aspects of video games being video games seriously and integrates them into the story. That's why there are things like characters being aware of Save/Load, or how a single human can defeat the most powerful monsters (think of any RPG ever, where your team of 2-6 humans churns through goblins, dragons, demons, gods, demon gods, etc). And that's why when you complete True Pacifist, if you go back to the game, Flowey talks directly to you and basically says 'the only way for this ending to stick is for you, the player, to put the game down and never touch it again'.

One thing Toby is very good at is overlaying multiple, simultaneously consistent interpretations. So there are in-universe explanations for the weird video game-isms, but at the same time there is actually the reality: the game is nothing but a game, nothing but code and pixels. The point of the Genocide run is that you've basically embraced that idea - you don't have a problem killing everyone because you know that its just a game and you aren't actually killing anyone real. But that pushes you into the meta-level interpretation: if you won't treat anything in the game as real, then the game stops pretending that its real and just addresses you directly (e.g. Chara addressing the player).

When you 'sell your soul' to Chara, that isn't so much an element of the plot of Undertale as it is the game informing you about how what you're doing is denying you the ability to have anything about the game ever feel real again. Even if you play the game, your emotional reaction will be blunted and nothing you do will matter or have integrity or self-consistency to it - you will have lost your 'soul' so to speak, the ability to see the game as being meaningful beyond just being a game.

And of course, since Toby is good at overlaying multiple consistent interpretations, you also get your pacifist ending spoiled. But ultimately that's just another dig at you, reminding you that as nice as this ending seems, you already ruined your ability to really experience it the way other players who didn't emotionally numb themselves to the characters already would.

[ryu]

Consider that several points in the game, characters address you - the player - directly. Not Frisk, not Chara, but the person behind the screen.

Undertale is a very self-aware game. It's written such that it takes those aspects of video games being video games seriously and integrates them into the story. That's why there are things like characters being aware of Save/Load, or how a single human can defeat the most powerful monsters (think of any RPG ever, where your team of 2-6 humans churns through goblins, dragons, demons, gods, demon gods, etc). And that's why when you complete True Pacifist, if you go back to the game, Flowey talks directly to you and basically says 'the only way for this ending to stick is for you, the player, to put the game down and never touch it again'.

One thing Toby is very good at is overlaying multiple, simultaneously consistent interpretations. So there are in-universe explanations for the weird video game-isms, but at the same time there is actually the reality: the game is nothing but a game, nothing but code and pixels. The point of the Genocide run is that you've basically embraced that idea - you don't have a problem killing everyone because you know that its just a game and you aren't actually killing anyone real. But that pushes you into the meta-level interpretation: if you won't treat anything in the game as real, then the game stops pretending that its real and just addresses you directly (e.g. Chara addressing the player).

When you 'sell your soul' to Chara, that isn't so much an element of the plot of Undertale as it is the game informing you about how what you're doing is denying you the ability to have anything about the game ever feel real again. Even if you play the game, your emotional reaction will be blunted and nothing you do will matter or have integrity or self-consistency to it - you will have lost your 'soul' so to speak, the ability to see the game as being meaningful beyond just being a game.

And of course, since Toby is good at overlaying multiple consistent interpretations, you also get your pacifist ending spoiled. But ultimately that's just another dig at you, reminding you that as nice as this ending seems, you already ruined your ability to really experience it the way other players who didn't emotionally numb themselves to the characters already would.


Never said the game wasn't meta. Just stating openly that Chara isn't you. Through careful examination of various flavor texts and objects it's actually determined (Ha!) that he's the flavor text generator for objects. This is most obvious in the mirror at the start of the game in Toriel's house. If you do a run that isn't Genocide the flavor text reads: It's you. In a genocide run it reads: It's me. I will also point out that Toby deliberately hid many things in the code and has even stated things learned from messing with the code as canon. That's why he made so much of it easy to read and parse. Most everything related to Gaster, an entire pile of hidden rooms, and all manner of data used in fan theories is taken from code experimentation. For that matter so has a method of teleporting between save points. I've spent a great many hours pouring over everything the community could find in this game. Most of the things I state are actually the most dominant theories on their given subjects at the community forum.

[NichG]

Never said the game wasn't meta. Just stating openly that Chara isn't you. Through careful examination of various flavor texts and objects it's actually determined (Ha!) that he's the flavor text generator for objects. This is most obvious in the mirror at the start of the game in Toriel's house. If you do a run that isn't Genocide the flavor text reads: It's you. In a genocide run it reads: It's me. I will also point out that Toby deliberately hid many things in the code and has even stated things learned from messing with the code as canon. That's why he made so much of it easy to read and parse. Most everything related to Gaster, an entire pile of hidden rooms, and all manner of data used in fan theories is taken from code experimentation. For that matter so has a method of teleporting between save points. I've spent a great many hours pouring over everything the community could find in this game. Most of the things I state are actually the most dominant theories on their given subjects at the community forum.


These sometimes-contradictory multiple possible interpretations are an intentional piece of how the game was crafted. It's not just one intended thing and a bunch of accidental things on the side. Look at, for example, the various multiple-meaning puns.

Determination - the will to continue.
De-termination - the ability to undo death.
Determine-ation - the ability to decide the outcome.

This is a pretty strongly repeating theme, even in minor irrelevant things (like how 'Doggo' is a dog-sounding word, but it also means to do something quietly in concealment, relating to the 'don't move to avoid the attack' mechanic).

[ryu]

Again I'm not saying the game isn't meta. It constantly breaks the fourth wall. Just making the claim that anyone who addresses you directly cannot literally be you. I also consider this comment vague enough to not warrant spoiler tags.

[squiggit]

Again I'm not saying the game isn't meta. It constantly breaks the fourth wall. Just making the claim that anyone who addresses you directly cannot literally be you. I also consider this comment vague enough to not warrant spoiler tags.

At that point, no, but he's not entirely an outside force either. The game makes it clear they only exist because you create them (through your decisions to kill everyone) and there's a reason Toby insisted players use their own name. The demon isn't literally you, at least not at the end, but it is a creation of your choices and not entirely an outside force either.

[ryu]

At that point, no, but he's not entirely an outside force either. The game makes it clear they only exist because you create them (through your decisions to kill everyone) and there's a reason Toby insisted players use their own name. The demon isn't literally you, at least not at the end, but it is a creation of your choices and not entirely an outside force either.

He has history from before you ever interacted with the world. He has a clear goal, and a clear plan for achieving that goal. The fact that Toby suggested using your own name is likely for the purpose of hiding the coming twist. It's harder to disassociate the name you enter at the start from your character if the name is yours. That element can be explained by psychology. It doesn't need to have higher meaning.

[NichG]

Again I'm not saying the game isn't meta. It constantly breaks the fourth wall. Just making the claim that anyone who addresses you directly cannot literally be you. I also consider this comment vague enough to not warrant spoiler tags.


Of course, nothing in the game can 'literally' be anything but software and pixels.

But in terms of a story, you can absolutely have something that functions as an allegory or metaphor. Something whose presentation is meant to represent the viewer, and give them a hook to relate the story to themselves. That's the whole deal with the 'silent protagonist' trope in video games - they don't say things so that the player can imagine them as themselves, responding how they would respond, rather than having a fixed persona applied on top due to the dialogue. There's no reason why you can't have an allegory for the viewer address the viewer in such a story, and doing so carries the implication that there are parts of the viewer's psyche that they don't fully internalize - e.g. things they don't accept about themselves.

That's the whole point of the Chara conversation at the end and the 'since when were you the one in control?' jumpscare - to create the momentary impression in the player of not being in control of their own mind.

[ryu]

Of course, nothing in the game can 'literally' be anything but software and pixels.

But in terms of a story, you can absolutely have something that functions as an allegory or metaphor. Something whose presentation is meant to represent the viewer, and give them a hook to relate the story to themselves. That's the whole deal with the 'silent protagonist' trope in video games - they don't say things so that the player can imagine them as themselves, responding how they would respond, rather than having a fixed persona applied on top due to the dialogue. There's no reason why you can't have an allegory for the viewer address the viewer in such a story, and doing so carries the implication that there are parts of the viewer's psyche that they don't fully internalize - e.g. things they don't accept about themselves.

That's the whole point of the Chara conversation at the end and the 'since when were you the one in control?' jumpscare - to create the momentary impression in the player of not being in control of their own mind.


I understand the point you're making, but find it off for a very simple reason. Chara isn't silent. He speaks with some regularity and with dialogue you don't choose. He has goals, connections to other people, a fleshed out personality, and even an active working knowledge of things that you don't before the game even begins. He doesn't fit the trope. If we were to allow someone to count as an allegory for the player in genocide despite all this, Flowey is a much more supportable candidate.

[Spore]

How does this discussion about the fourth wall connect to Asgore again? I don't remember that D&D alignments are linked to the alignment they fight against.

[ryu]

How does this discussion about the fourth wall connect to Asgore again? I don't remember that D&D alignments are linked to the alignment they fight against.

Started when i brought up Chara and Flowey as examples of actual evil in this game in response to calling Asgore evil. It started tangenting from there. I'll gladly continue the Asgore discussion if anyone has anything else to say about him.

[NichG]

I understand the point you're making, but find it off for a very simple reason. Chara isn't silent. He speaks with some regularity and with dialogue you don't choose. He has goals, connections to other people, a fleshed out personality, and even an active working knowledge of things that you don't before the game even begins. He doesn't fit the trope. If we were to allow someone to count as an allegory for the player in genocide despite all this, Flowey is a much more supportable candidate.


No, Chara isn't a 'silent protagonist' trope; that's not necessary, just a particular way in which people do it. Another example would be the protagonist of a harem anime - generally you have an average-joe type surrounded by exotic and amazing women who like them for some undefined, vague reason. The protagonist has lines that the viewer doesn't get to write, of course, because its a TV show and not a tabletop RPG, but its designed specifically so that the major demographic of those shows could imagine themselves in the protagonist's place.

The thing that makes it tricky in Undertale is that if you don't go genocide, the game favors the 'Chara is actually the fallen child' interpretation. The more you go towards True Pacifist, the more the game actively seeks to distance the player persona from Chara - to the extent that at the very end, if you go talk to Asriel in the garden, he says a bunch of stuff about how 'you and Chara are really different, aren't you?'.

But on the Genocide route, the game seeks to integrate the player persona and Chara, to the extent that maybe even the Fallen Child was just another PC - a puppet for the player to exert their will. The Fallen Child is named 'Chara' (or whatever) there not because that's their actual name, but because the player named their avatar after themselves. All the horrible things the Fallen Child might have done was just an extension of the way that the player approaches video games. But that connection can't be made unless the player behaves in a way which fully gives into the sort of gamer completionist behavior that Chara exemplifies.

In other words, the player can choose which thing is 'real' (well, inasmuch as anything can be more or less real than anything else in a game) by playing in a way that either makes the allegory make sense (Genocide), or in a way which denies the allegory (non-Genocide, True Pacifist). If the player plays as if they're treating the characters in the game as real, then the game tells a story in which everything that the game presents lies within the game's reality. If the player plays as if they're treating this like a game, the game tells the story of 'I'm just a game'. And if you play it like its just a game, but then try to fake it out by playing as if the characters are real, the game calls you on it - both at small scales through Flowey accusing the player of just wanting to see what would happen, and at the large scale if you go through with Genocide and then try True Pacifist.

The two stories are different stories - they aren't just two views of the same hidden truth, but they're actually different hidden truths that the player can choose between. The cosmology shifts to suit the person in front of the monitor.

[Spore]

Started when i brought up Chara and Flowey as examples of actual evil in this game in response to calling Asgore evil. It started tangenting from there. I'll gladly continue the Asgore discussion if anyone has anything else to say about him.

As I am not sure about Chara's motivation to be evil and that is all that matters in D&D to my knowledge. People mostly shift their alignments when you cannot explain their deeds with their intentions anymore. At least not convincingly. When you have a Paladin slaughtering infected people Stratholme-style he doesn't fall instantly. His intent is good but his methods ambiguously evil.

Same thing here if we apply cross-universe ethics. If Arthas doesn't loose his powers after purging Stratholme (sure his light flickers in the novels but it supports him still) then Asgore is still good aligned, even if he indirectly killed 6 children.

Maybe there are two other questions:

1) Would soul harvesting be considered evil in the context of Undertale? The only thing we know about their afterlife is that of monster funerals and that they get sprinkled over their favorite thing in order to live on in that thing. If we think about Asgore knowing that and extrapolating that to humans it might be evil. But being heavily mechanical like D&D is, we don't KNOW how the afterlife actually works in that game.

2) Is indirect killing less evil (or not evil at all) than directly executing? Both yes and no. In my personal opinion it is both evil and while I think there are "shades" of evil both intents the death (or injury) of something living. But in a context of D&D, a sprung bear trap killing a kid doesn't automatically make the hunter evil.

[ryu]

As I am not sure about Chara's motivation to be evil and that is all that matters in D&D to my knowledge. People mostly shift their alignments when you cannot explain their deeds with their intentions anymore. At least not convincingly. When you have a Paladin slaughtering infected people Stratholme-style he doesn't fall instantly. His intent is good but his methods ambiguously evil.

Same thing here if we apply cross-universe ethics. If Arthas doesn't loose his powers after purging Stratholme (sure his light flickers in the novels but it supports him still) then Asgore is still good aligned, even if he indirectly killed 6 children.

Maybe there are two other questions:

1) Would soul harvesting be considered evil in the context of Undertale? The only thing we know about their afterlife is that of monster funerals and that they get sprinkled over their favorite thing in order to live on in that thing. If we think about Asgore knowing that and extrapolating that to humans it might be evil. But being heavily mechanical like D&D is, we don't KNOW how the afterlife actually works in that game.

2) Is indirect killing less evil (or not evil at all) than directly executing? Both yes and no. In my personal opinion it is both evil and while I think there are "shades" of evil both intents the death (or injury) of something living. But in a context of D&D, a sprung bear trap killing a kid doesn't automatically make the hunter evil.

As mentioned previously you don't have to take any action direct or indirect to obtain your souls. Just wait for humans to fall in and take them in as members of society. Unlike the royal family monsters (read goats) humans lack agelessness. You don't have to kill them directly or indirectly. Just take them in, raise them well, and don't waste the soul that pops out when they die of old age.

Asgore's actions are suboptimal in either of two ways. Either he claims one soul before going through the barrier taking six more, coming back and breaking it, or he just raises humans that fall. One is faster. The other involves less killing which he obviously doesn't want to do. The reasons Asgore is trapped with his current actions are that he already made the declaration of war in rage that he doesn't dare go back on, and because he lacks the temperament to play offense. As he needed Toriel to tell him one of those plans, I don't think he thought of either.

Having covered that Asgore is either stupid or addled by guilt the question now is what flavor of ethics you think his actions are based on. As his only goal in life is to help and befriend people, his most ''evil'' actions are taken under extreme duress and relatively common in D&D even among the good aligned, and he still deeply regrets every moment of what he's doing? Asgore is LG. Stupid/Addled LG, but LG nonetheless.

[Rakoa]

You can't call somebody that murders children Lawful Good, or even Lawful Neutral. He has murdered a minimum of one child personally, and has indirectly caused the death of those he didn't murder through the Royal Guard. He made the decision to do this in a fit of raging grief, he clearly regrets his decision, but he doesn't go back on it. That is Lawful Evil to the core.

[The Vagabond]

You can't call somebody that murders children Lawful Good, or even Lawful Neutral. He has murdered a minimum of one child personally, and has indirectly caused the death of those he didn't murder through the Royal Guard. He made the decision to do this in a fit of raging grief, he clearly regrets his decision, but he doesn't go back on it. That is Lawful Evil to the core.

While I am not certain in terms of 3.5, on the Pathfinder prd, Lawful Evil is defined thusly:




Lawful Evil

One day, I will rule. A strong leader is admired, a weak leader overthrown. I have principles and I am right. Chaos brings death. In this world there is only order or oblivion. Rank must be respected and feared. The weak will follow sure leaders. Sin is satisfaction. Everyone has vices.
Core Concepts: Calculation, discipline, malevolence, might, punishment, rationality, subjugation, terror
A lawful evil character goes about her business motivated by her own interests, but knows that ultimately order protects her. She seeks to achieve her own ends—but through order, not chaos. Even when boiling with anger, she is more likely to carefully plot vengeance than risk her own death through hasty actions. Sometimes that revenge will take years to happen, and that is acceptable.
A lawful evil character at the extreme end of the spectrum is zealous in her aims and will make any sacrifice to achieve them. Her twisted philosophy can make her paranoid of her closest followers, even family and friends. She stops at nothing to gain control, for only through control can she have peace. Yet even the most powerful and ordered society has its enemies, and to a lawful evil character only the destruction of those enemies can bring fulfillment.
Order is everything, at any cost.



This... Does not match with Asgore. He declared the war in a fit of anger. He does not want power. He isn't scared of his family. He didn't plot vengeance, he flat out stated he would murder every human without having a plan. She doesn't try for control. He risks his death via hasty actions. He wasn't working to protect himself. He does want to achieve his own goals, but not via law or chaos, but by war.

Order isn't much to him. Literally every single line on the Lawful Evil alignment page goes against everything we've seen and heard about Asgore. He isn't malevolent. He doesn't subjugate them, he wasn't rational, he didn't use terror, he didn't calculate whether they could win the war, and he wasn't discipled.

And, keep in mind, humanity to Monsters isn't particularly good. You could probably describe humanity as the equivilent of Giants: Wandering, dangerous creatures. Dangerous creatures who, on multiple occasions, tried to kill your people, and have easily.

You are literally a small child. You can kill damn near every monster you come across, sometimes in one hit. With ballet shoes, you become a whirling dervish of death. With a dagger, you become terrifying efficient at killing. This is presuming that you were not raised with monsters being seen as monsters, like a goblin. That you were not raised in such a way that, let's say, dungeon crawls are not a socially acceptable pastime.

One of them came with a goddamn gun. One came armed to the teeth with knowledge. One came with a fully loaded pan.

[Rakoa]

While I am not certain in terms of 3.5, on the Pathfinder prd, Lawful Evil is defined thusly:

This... Does not match with Asgore. He declared the war in a fit of anger. He does not want power. He isn't scared of his family. He didn't plot vengeance, he flat out stated he would murder every human without having a plan. She doesn't try for control. He risks his death via hasty actions. He wasn't working to protect himself. He does want to achieve his own goals, but not via law or chaos, but by war.

Order isn't much to him. Literally every single line on the Lawful Evil alignment page goes against everything we've seen and heard about Asgore. He isn't malevolent. He doesn't subjugate them, he wasn't rational, he didn't use terror, he didn't calculate whether they could win the war, and he wasn't discipled.

And, keep in mind, humanity to Monsters isn't particularly good. You could probably describe humanity as the equivilent of Giants: Wandering, dangerous creatures. Dangerous creatures who, on multiple occasions, tried to kill your people, and have easily.

You are literally a small child. You can kill damn near every monster you come across, sometimes in one hit. With ballet shoes, you become a whirling dervish of death. With a dagger, you become terrifying efficient at killing. This is presuming that you were not raised with monsters being seen as monsters, like a goblin. That you were not raised in such a way that, let's say, dungeon crawls are not a socially acceptable pastime.

One of them came with a goddamn gun. One came armed to the teeth with knowledge. One came with a fully loaded pan.

Any definition is a generalization, and the one Pathfinder goes with is no exception. It is riddled with likelihoods, probabilities, and suggestions. None of it is set in stone. It is a way of teaching the topic to someone completely unfamiliar with the topic, not a catch-all term. But the definition is not so far from Asgore as you make it seem. No, he isn't paranoid (a suggestion of a character trait provided, not a blanket one) and doesn't calculate. But he does seek power. The entire point of the game is that Asgore wants the human souls so he can gain incredible power (I believe Undyne said he would become a God with that power) so he could shatter the barrier and kill every human on the planet. With that kind of power, he doesn't need a plan. Or, to put it differently, that is the plan. His plot of vengeance against the humans for taking away his two children.

You state the he doesn't want to achieve his goals via law or chaos, but by war. I think you misunderstand what war is, being an incredibly lawful concept. You say he isn't malevolent, but he is without a doubt malevolent. He doesn't kick puppies for fun, but he murders children for gain. He isn't rude, but he is evil. He doesn't subjugate his own people, but he isn't above destroying another completely. I agree that he isn't rational, but rational is not a concept that can be fairly tied to alignment. Any alignment can display rationality or the lack of it.

I'd say he's the most interesting character in the game because he is a man that is evil not because he lacks good traits, but in spite of them.

To address the second part of your argument, sure, humans are scary. But that argument is an excuse for Asgore's evil, not a justification for it. (But the one with the pan deserved death on sight, no arguments there.)

[ryu]

You can't call somebody that murders children Lawful Good, or even Lawful Neutral. He has murdered a minimum of one child personally, and has indirectly caused the death of those he didn't murder through the Royal Guard. He made the decision to do this in a fit of raging grief, he clearly regrets his decision, but he doesn't go back on it. That is Lawful Evil to the core.

Nonsense. D&D parties regularly have to kill off children much less threatening than the human children in undertale. The orc and goblin raiders of local towns have to be repopulating to sustain their own population. Even if you aren't directly dealing the finishing blow to the children yourself they still die as a result of you killing their source of food and protection. The paladin doesn't even fall for it. He was killing Evil combatants to protect harmless innocents. Doesn't matter to the system that other currently harmless beings who were benefactors die as result.

I'll also remind you that those human children were far FAR more dangerous than the equivalent mentioned above. Need I remind you that they can only leave by killing the most powerful resident in the underground and taking his soul? How about how based on various locations where you found weapons literally all but one of those children had to have actively pursued this goal? And the last one is inconclusive rather than actively denied at that? Is it evil to fight to the death that which would kill you now?

[Rakoa]

Nonsense. D&D parties regularly have to kill off children much less threatening than the human children in undertale. The orc and goblin raiders of local towns have to be repopulating to sustain their own population. Even if you aren't directly dealing the finishing blow to the children yourself they still die as a result of you killing their source of food and protection. The paladin doesn't even fall for it. He was killing Evil combatants to protect harmless innocents. Doesn't matter to the system that other currently harmless beings who were benefactors die as result.
You're right, it doesn't matter. Luckily, there is a big difference between direct and indirect killing, and I think you know that. If you do, good, but why are we having this conversation? If you don't, you're beyond my ability to debate.


I'll also remind you that those human children were far FAR more dangerous than the equivalent mentioned above. Need I remind you that they can only leave by killing the most powerful resident in the underground and taking his soul? How about how based on various locations where you found weapons literally all but one of those children had to have actively pursued this goal? And the last one is inconclusive rather than actively denied at that? Is it evil to fight to the death that which would kill you now?

They can only leave by taking the soul of the most powerful resident of the underground, thereby killing him, yes. The children were likely (but not certainly) on their way to Asgore's palace (those that weren't murdered before they could get there, at least). Your last point is where your entire argument falls flat. On a Pacifist run, Frisk hasn't hurt a single creature, and still Asgore is out for blood. Is he afraid that Frisk will try and kill him? Maybe. But guess which alignment "strike first just in case" is? If you assume that every child that fell down is a murderous psychopath, that says more about you than it does about Asgore. There is at least one child that fell that isn't, and no proof to indicate anything about the others. Perhaps they were on their way to try and work out a peaceful resolution with the King so that his Royal Guards would stop trying to kill them for doing nothing but falling down a hole? At the very least, Undyne would mention something about every other child being homicidal to try and further justify her actions.

[ryu]

You're right, it doesn't matter. Luckily, there is a big difference between direct and indirect killing, and I think you know that. If you do, good, but why are we having this conversation? If you don't, you're beyond my ability to debate.



They can only leave by taking the soul of the most powerful resident of the underground, thereby killing him, yes. The children were likely (but not certainly) on their way to Asgore's palace (those that weren't murdered before they could get there, at least). Your last point is where your entire argument falls flat. On a Pacifist run, Frisk hasn't hurt a single creature, and still Asgore is out for blood. Is he afraid that Frisk will try and kill him? Maybe. But guess which alignment "strike first just in case" is? If you assume that every child that fell down is a murderous psychopath, that says more about you than it does about Asgore. There is at least one child that fell that isn't, and no proof to indicate anything about the others. Perhaps they were on their way to try and work out a peaceful resolution with the King so that his Royal Guards would stop trying to kill them for doing nothing but falling down a hole? At the very least, Undyne would mention something about every other child being homicidal to try and further justify her actions.

Indirect killing is only different from direct killing if you can't identify a direct causal from your actions and the deaths caused. The goblin children dying as a result of your killing your caretakers is undeniably no different than killing them directly if you know full well that they exist and were dependent on those adult goblins. It's actually more merciful to go for a direct finish in that case. A quick finish is relatively painless and bearable than starving over several days I would think. Oh maybe you had a more humane idea about letting them cannibalize the corpses of their parents, then each other to give them a few months? Sometimes direct killing is the least awful thing you can do in a situation. Let's not dance around that.

You seem to be forgetting that every child that fell got through Toriel if they managed to leave the ruins. They had a free chance at a genuinely peaceful existence with warning that they would face violence if they left. Further you don't have to be a murderous psychopath to want to leave and thus have reason to make a goal of killing Asgore. It is disingenuous to claim that the only practical option other than dying or staying traped in the same ruins for the rest of your life necessitates psychopathy.

[Rakoa]

Indirect killing is only different from direct killing if you can't identify a direct causal from your actions and the deaths caused. The goblin children dying as a result of your killing your caretakers is undeniably no different than killing them directly if you know full well that they exist and were dependent on those adult goblins. It's actually more merciful to go for a direct finish in that case. A quick finish is relatively painless and bearable than starving over several days I would think. Oh maybe you had a more humane idea about letting them cannibalize the corpses of their parents, then each other to give them a few months? Sometimes direct killing is the least awful thing you can do in a situation. Let's not dance around that.

Killing in defense of yourself and others is a permissible act even if it results indirectly in the death of children as long as this outcome is not intended (even if it is foreseen) as a result of your actions. Killing a child directly to further your own goals is immoral. How can this be made any clearer?



You seem to be forgetting that every child that fell got through Toriel if they managed to leave the ruins. They had a free chance at a genuinely peaceful existence with warning that they would face violence if they left. Further you don't have to be a murderous psychopath to want to leave and thus have reason to make a goal of killing Asgore. It is disingenuous to claim that the only practical option other than dying or staying traped in the same ruins for the rest of your life necessitates psychopathy.

You're arguing that because a child didn't want to spend their life trapped in a house with Toriel that they are to be blamed for the actions perpetrated upon them in seeking some kind of freedom? Even if that freedom they seek is a community outside her house, peacefully with monsters that aren't an old lady? Or maybe they wanted to speak peacefully with Asgore on even ground to reach an agreement? Or any number of things that aren't murder the man, if they were lucky enough to not be murdered beforehand? There are an extensive list of possible motivations for a child to venture forth, and only one of those is to kill Asgore. You are very generous with yourself to think that every child would have that goal in mind.

But I've just thought of another point. Alphys doesn't tell you until JUST before Asgore's palace that you have to kill Asgore to proceed past the barrier. Up to that point in the game, you play under the impression that you can walk through the barrier without any problem. The other children would be similarly in the dark about this, believing themselves to be advancing towards the final destination of home without the need to kill anybody. It is very unlikely that Alphys was kind enough to get involved with each of them as she did you (and is in fact implied by her that this is a completely new experience for her in how it helped her come out of her shell), and so no conclusion can be reached except for the one that the children had no motivation to harbour ill-will towards Asgore of any kind (except for the fact that he had brought an entire kingdom's resources to bear upon exterminating their lives for the horrible crime of being human, of course).

[Lhurgyof]

I stand with Lawful Evil. The reasoning for evil actions is pretty much moot in the world of D&D. Evil actions are evil, good actions are good. If a paladin cheats, bullies, or uses poison to do a good deed he has still committed an evil action, and has still lost his paladin powers.

In a game other than D&D with a more in-depth alignment system, there would be an argument that he is not evil. However, in D&D he is evil. Though he is an interesting character.

[ryu]

Killing in defense of yourself and others is a permissible act even if it results indirectly in the death of children as long as this outcome is not intended (even if it is foreseen) as a result of your actions. Killing a child directly to further your own goals is immoral. How can this be made any clearer?



You're arguing that because a child didn't want to spend their life trapped in a house with Toriel that they are to be blamed for the actions perpetrated upon them in seeking some kind of freedom? Even if that freedom they seek is a community outside her house, peacefully with monsters that aren't an old lady? Or maybe they wanted to speak peacefully with Asgore on even ground to reach an agreement? Or any number of things that aren't murder the man, if they were lucky enough to not be murdered beforehand? There are an extensive list of possible motivations for a child to venture forth, and only one of those is to kill Asgore. You are very generous with yourself to think that every child would have that goal in mind.

But I've just thought of another point. Alphys doesn't tell you until JUST before Asgore's palace that you have to kill Asgore to proceed past the barrier. Up to that point in the game, you play under the impression that you can walk through the barrier without any problem. The other children would be similarly in the dark about this, believing themselves to be advancing towards the final destination of home without the need to kill anybody. It is very unlikely that Alphys was kind enough to get involved with each of them as she did you (and is in fact implied by her that this is a completely new experience for her in how it helped her come out of her shell), and so no conclusion can be reached except for the one that the children had no motivation to harbour ill-will towards Asgore of any kind (except for the fact that he had brought an entire kingdom's resources to bear upon exterminating their lives for the horrible crime of being human, of course).

You have quite drastically changed your position. Now it's no longer about direct killing versus indirect killing. Now it has to be direct killing with intent to accomplish a goal rather than mercy kills, and all indirect deaths are sacrosanct even if you planned for them. By that logic just build a wall in front of the ruins entrance with a door that only unlocks from the snowdin side with a viewport to check without opening it. Have someone check once per year for corpses and souls. Perfectly fine by your logic.

I have very limited sympathy for those who take a suicidal path with no plan for success. This goes double if the vague goal is peace and they go in armed with tools that don't aid them in peaceably staying alive. The only child with an item useful for things other than causing harm is the one with the notebook. Every other child that planned to enter in peace would've had a better time of it unarmed. At least then it's immediately apparent they've no intent to kill anyone. This is why I find the idea of truly peace motivated children in those places untenable. None of their implements do anything but cause harm.

[Rakoa]

You have quite drastically changed your position. Now it's no longer about direct killing versus indirect killing. Now it has to be direct killing with intent to accomplish a goal rather than mercy kills, and all indirect deaths are sacrosanct even if you planned for them. By that logic just build a wall in front of the ruins entrance with a door that only unlocks from the snowdin side with a viewport to check without opening it. Have someone check once per year for corpses and souls. Perfectly fine by your logic.


My position is exactly the same: indirect killing is morally permissible, direct killing is not. You're particularly obstinate about this for some reason. My point is exactly that indirect killings are NOT okay if you planned for them. As I said above, and will restate in hopes that you understand this time, it is okay to kill in self-defense as long as your intent is just that: to defend yourself. Side effects of that intent might be the death of your attacker. A side effect of that might be the attacker's children in some other place, if there exists nobody else to care for them and no way to fend for themselves. That is acceptable, though obviously not ideal.

As for your...rather interesting take on my logic, that would indeed be fine if the intent of this device weren't placed there with the intent of killing. If the ruins have a sustainable environment within which survival is possible, then sure. But that'd be rather counterproductive, as then you're just waiting for a human to die of natural causes near this door. At which point you'd be better off inviting the humans into the main land to live a happy life that will eventually end and collecting the soul then, taking out the "dying near the door" luck part of the equation.

....what was your point again?



I have very limited sympathy for those who take a suicidal path with no plan for success. This goes double if the vague goal is peace and they go in armed with tools that don't aid them in peaceably staying alive. The only child with an item useful for things other than causing harm is the one with the notebook. Every other child that planned to enter in peace would've had a better time of it unarmed. At least then it's immediately apparent they've no intent to kill anyone. This is why I find the idea of truly peace motivated children in those places untenable. None of their implements do anything but cause harm.

Really? The stick is a deadly weapon? Are we to fear a plastic knife? The wrath of some kid's glove? The dreaded ballet slippers? The unspeakable horror of a pan? An antique gun without any ammo in it? Even the worn dagger is described as "perfect for cutting plants and vines". Not flesh. So no, I can't really see this children as "armed and dangerous". One at the very most.

As for your "very limited sympathy for those who take a suicidal path"... I think we call that "victim blaming", not to mention carrying a lot of assumptions about these children. Perhaps it would have been safer for them to cower in the ruins and hope that Asgore doesn't come and kill them later, or send someone to do it for him. That doesn't make him less Evil for lack of trying, though. I don't blame them for going out, with whatever hopes they might have had, be it escape or peace, and being murdered for the effort.

[ryu]

My position is exactly the same: indirect killing is morally permissible, direct killing is not. You're particularly obstinate about this for some reason. My point is exactly that indirect killings are NOT okay if you planned for them. As I said above, and will restate in hopes that you understand this time, it is okay to kill in self-defense as long as your intent is just that: to defend yourself. Side effects of that intent might be the death of your attacker. A side effect of that might be the attacker's children in some other place, if there exists nobody else to care for them and no way to fend for themselves. That is acceptable, though obviously not ideal.

As for your...rather interesting take on my logic, that would indeed be fine if the intent of this device weren't placed there with the intent of killing. If the ruins have a sustainable environment within which survival is possible, then sure. But that'd be rather counterproductive, as then you're just waiting for a human to die of natural causes near this door. At which point you'd be better off inviting the humans into the main land to live a happy life that will eventually end and collecting the soul then, taking out the "dying near the door" luck part of the equation.

....what was your point again?



Really? The stick is a deadly weapon? Are we to fear a plastic knife? The wrath of some kid's glove? The dreaded ballet slippers? The unspeakable horror of a pan? An antique gun without any ammo in it? Even the worn dagger is described as "perfect for cutting plants and vines". Not flesh. So no, I can't really see this children as "armed and dangerous". One at the very most.

As for your "very limited sympathy for those who take a suicidal path"... I think we call that "victim blaming", not to mention carrying a lot of assumptions about these children. Perhaps it would have been safer for them to cower in the ruins and hope that Asgore doesn't come and kill them later, or send someone to do it for him. That doesn't make him less Evil for lack of trying, though. I don't blame them for going out, with whatever hopes they might have had, be it escape or peace, and being murdered for the effort.

There's grass, the odd bit of snow and possibly edible fungus in the underground environment. This way you have no risk of lost lives to direct confrontation and no need for direct murder. This is also assuming Toriel never lets people back into the basement ruins entrance. If she does it's not even a slightly fatal trap. Just a defensive structure. Further not all children are peace loving. As a matter of fact I'd argue pretty hard that peace loving humans seem to be the minority in that world. Just look at the history.

Further I don't much care how the implements are characterized. I care what they do. Have you ever checked how many turns it takes to kill a monster with a given weapon? Also the stick is one of the most overpowered distraction implements in the game. Entire classes of encounter are rendered null in a single turn by it.

It ceases to be victimhood when the person involved is actively making choices with knowledge of consequences given more reasonable and safer alternatives from benevolent third parties. Victims aren't the people taking action in a situation. You stop being a victim when you make plans to work towards a goal. You'll end up a hero, a villain, or a martyr for some ideal or another from there. The difference between a victim and a martyr is that the martyr chose to die or accept risk of death for some purpose. It requires its own kind of strength and is a different position from victim.

[Rakoa]

There's grass, the odd bit of snow and possibly edible fungus in the underground environment. This way you have no risk of lost lives to direct confrontation and no need for direct murder. This is also assuming Toriel never lets people back into the basement ruins entrance. If she does it's not even a slightly fatal trap. Just a defensive structure. Further not all children are peace loving. As a matter of fact I'd argue pretty hard that peace loving humans seem to be the minority in that world. Just look at the history.

Further I don't much care how the implements are characterized. I care what they do. Have you ever checked how many turns it takes to kill a monster with a given weapon? Also the stick is one of the most overpowered distraction implements in the game. Entire classes of encounter are rendered null in a single turn by it.


Peace loving humans "seeming" to be the minority in that world is a pretty vague and wholly unsupported statement. All we know is that there was a war at one point and the monsters lost. We also know that in the pacifist end, they are welcomed back pretty well with open arms and are happy on the surface. As for the weapons, you're just arguing against the mechanics of the game now rather than anything remotely reasonable. All humans are apparently deadly Monks as well, because their bare hands do plenty of damage. I guess they should've chopped of their limbs before going outside so nobody would think they were hostile. If anything, all you've proven is that monsters are weak, not that slippers are deadly weapons, and that is really pushing it.



It ceases to be victimhood when the person involved is actively making choices with knowledge of consequences given more reasonable and safer alternatives from benevolent third parties. Victims aren't the people taking action in a situation. You stop being a victim when you make plans to work towards a goal. You'll end up a hero, a villain, or a martyr for some ideal or another from there. The difference between a victim and a martyr is that the martyr chose to die or accept risk of death for some purpose. It requires its own kind of strength and is a different position from victim.

No. There is a difference between being a martyr that chooses to die, and being a victim that ends up dying. If there is known to be a serial killer in my town, and I go outside and get killed by him, I'm a victim, not a martyr. Just knowing he exists doesn't make me a martyr, a hero, or a villain. To say that a victim is no longer a victim when they "make a plan" doesn't even remotely make sense. Legitimately, it makes no sense. Please tell me how being murdered in an attempt to progress to a goal such as freedom makes you less a victim, rather than state it as an objective fact. Because "accepting the risk of death" does not make that difference by any stretch.

[Thiyr]

Peace loving humans "seeming" to be the minority in that world is a pretty vague and wholly unsupported statement. All we know is that there was a war at one point and the monsters lost.

While I mostly feel like observing this thread, I do want to point out that if my memory serves correct, we do know a bit more than that.

I seem to remember reading somewhere (I think in the history on the walls of Waterfall) that the humans were the ones to declare war against the monsters in the first place, and we know that they did it as a preemptive strike against monsters due to their ability to absorb human souls after humans die. With that in mind, it seems fairly reasonable to think that humans have something of an aggressive streak to them.

[The Insanity]

Sorry, but where does it say that the 6 human souls are from children?

[NichG]

Sorry, but where does it say that the 6 human souls are from children?

It doesn't directly, though there are indications that at least several of them were probably children. You can find various items belonging to them as you play the game, which is kind of confirmed when you interact with attacks powered by those souls during the finale. In a couple cases, its clothing that fits Frisk, so that points towards children for those particular souls at least.

[ryu]

Yes ALL humans are deadly. Did you miss the writing on the wall that explicitly states just how severely humans outmatch most monsters just naturally? The part where it states that it would take the combination of all monster souls to equate to one human soul in terms of raw power? Humans are objectively much more fighting capable than monsters on average.

As for the difference between martyrs and victims look at some our greatest historical events that involve people either directly sacrificing themselves or putting themselves in otherwise suicidal situations with no realistic plan to survive just to change the status quo. That's a martyr, not a victim. Some of them were even successful martyrs and thus also heroes. If they end up succeeding they've left an important mark on society. If they fail they've died for nothing. That's the method of martyrdom. It's what people do when they desire change above all else and don't have access to any practical alternative.

[Rakoa]

A martyr is defined as someone who is killed for their beliefs. That doesn't fit anybody we know. Even if it did, the distinction between a victim and a martyr is completely pointless. Call the children whatever you will. Blame them if you want for going outside. If the only justification Asgore has for his actions is "Hey kids, I told you that I would kill you / have you killed if you came out here and you came out here so now I'm gonna kill you and I am completely innocent in this situation," then guess what? He's Evil. And bad at justifying his actions.

Could you imagine that playing out in a trial? "Yes, your honour, I did stab 11 people to death, but I put up a sign to say that I would stab anyone who went into my alleyway past midnight. What do you mean I'm still going to jail?"

FURTHERMORE, what Godlike ability does Asgore possess that tells him Toriel is in the ruins and that she is warning every child that comes through about his plan? Spoiler alert: none. He has no way of knowing that these children knew what they were in for. And even if I did, as I explained above, he's still the bad guy.

[ryu]

A martyr is defined as someone who is killed for their beliefs. That doesn't fit anybody we know. Even if it did, the distinction between a victim and a martyr is completely pointless. Call the children whatever you will. Blame them if you want for going outside. If the only justification Asgore has for his actions is "Hey kids, I told you that I would kill you / have you killed if you came out here and you came out here so now I'm gonna kill you and I am completely innocent in this situation," then guess what? He's Evil. And bad at justifying his actions.

Could you imagine that playing out in a trial? "Yes, your honour, I did stab 11 people to death, but I put up a sign to say that I would stab anyone who went into my alleyway past midnight. What do you mean I'm still going to jail?"

FURTHERMORE, what Godlike ability does Asgore possess that tells him Toriel is in the ruins and that she is warning every child that comes through about his plan? Spoiler alert: none. He has no way of knowing that these children knew what they were in for. And even if I did, as I explained above, he's still the bad guy.

You think the prerequisite for good is innocence do you? Despite the fact that the system that gives you that title never once requires innocence, that some acts of killing are explicitly good rather than simply not evil, and that explicitly and clearly depicts humans in this game as a worse threat than the same races where killing is always considered a good act?

Also I'm pretty sure the court example might fall under the realm of forum rules to speak on, thus I'm not even gonna acknowledge it outside this extremely brief paragraph.

As for how Asgore knows where Toriel is, have you forgotten the network of cameras that covers every room outside the ruins entrance, the agelessness of boss monsters, and the undeniable fact that having seen what happens when a monster human hybrid dies none of the kids could've taken her soul? Oh how about the known reason for why she left? The fact there are only like four distinct environments even in this underground? Logic and a wellspring of very good clues does not a godlike power make. This is assuming the cameras didn't catch the traveling live.

[Xuldarinar]

A question relevant to this discussion, and asked previously but glossed over because BoED;

Should the killing of a human (child) for the purpose of this discussion be considered on the level of killing an orc/drow/goblin/ect. (child), or killing a demon?




If the former, then lets explore this;

A paladin sees an orc child wandering around in human lands. If the paladin kills the kid, does he need to atone?

Adding on, killing this child and harvesting their soul is instrumental to ultimately wipe all orcs from existence, allowing his people to reclaim lands from the orc and more. If the paladin kills the kid and takes their soul, does he need to atone?

Does it change anything if the paladin tells someone else to kill the kid and take their soul instead of doing it himself, whether he ultimately is going to be the one to use it or not?

[ryu]

A question relevant to this discussion, and asked previously but glossed over because BoED;

Should the killing of a human (child) for the purpose of this discussion be considered on the level of killing an orc/drow/goblin/ect. (child), or killing a demon?




If the former, then lets explore this;

A paladin sees an orc child wandering around in human lands. If the paladin kills the kid, does he need to atone?

Adding on, killing this child and harvesting their soul is instrumental to ultimately wipe all orcs from existence, allowing his people to reclaim lands from the orc and more. If the paladin kills the kid and takes their soul, does he need to atone?

Does it change anything if the paladin tells someone else to kill the kid and take their soul instead of doing it himself, whether he ultimately is going to be the one to use it or not?

Depends. Is the child enough of a legitimate power to be a combat threat? Can it it kill virtually everything it comes across in a matter of seconds? Does it have the power to reset time anytime it wants? Has it tried at all to harm anyone? Can it be contained if hostile or moved to a place where it endangers no one and can be endangered by no one if non-hostile? Ideally with livable conditions if the latter? There are many important differences between this hypothetical and the other hypothetical world that need to be accounted for. Those were just the first few.

[Lord Raziere]

Again, it makes no sense to say Asgore is evil.

Rakoa, you say that he is Lawful Evil, why?

.....because he oppresses humans but not monsters? that is a little early judge isn't it? The humans declared war on HIM, they were forced underground and the barrier erected around his people, he hasn't even began to make any acts against any other humans. Since he is behind the barrier, there is no real telling how he would've planned to deal with humanity, and since he was the leader, the monsters would've had listen to him even if he gone back on his promise.

.....because he is killing a child? well then every adventurer who kills a baby dragon should be evil as well, because they are the only monster that is explicitly killing an infant version of that monster. and when the child keeps returning alive and fighting him over and over again, demoralizing him into weakening his attacks by playing on his guilt, and constantly fighting him to try and get out, is said child really all that helpless? said child really only has to win once to kill him. He has to win over and over again until the child gives up fighting him at all. the nature of Undertale is that every fight the protagonist engages in is an unfair one- slanted in their favor. No matter what weird gameplay tricks, or puzzles or anything the monsters throw at you, it all pales in comparison to the simple power of being to keep trying over and over again until you get it right. its like arguing that your evil for shooting Kyubey because he is a cute little critter, he is just going to come back and keep on doing his plan no matter how much you struggle against him.

the protagonist of Undertale is again, the strongest person there, the person most responsible for their moral decisions in the game is the one who can quite literally keep redoing anything they like until its exactly the way they want it. Asgore is powerless compared to the person who can undo all his decisions if said person doesn't like it. He knows enough about Determination to nod sadly about what he has done, and knows that if he does any other action- it will become meaningless anyways. lets take a look at the options he has:

try and take the child in? monsters attack the child because he went back on his promise to them and will try to make sure the soul is put into the jar to break free anyways, Child then resets.

let the child take his soul and go beyond the Barrier? won't solve his kingdom's problems, and his replacement is either even softer than him and won't ever break the barrier, or will be UNDYNE, who is even worse about going to war against humans. Child then resets.

absorb the six human souls he already has? not enough to break it.

take a human soul and go beyond the barrier to go get a seventh human soul to take back with him to break it: 1. it lets humanity know that they're coming which the humans may not want 2. it involves somebody dying anyways 3. why bother when there is a human soul already here? except since he knows that the human has determination enough to reset, even if he does try that now, the Child can choose to just reset so that he never makes the trip outside at all.

Thus, he is stuck at killing the child, why? Because if he doesn't the child will kill him from his point of view, and seeing as how he explicitly makes sure Mercy is off the table, that isn't an unreasonable assumption to make. He can't let his kingdom fall into ruin in the hands of less capable leaders, and he can't let the Child, whom he does not know, keep resetting and changing his kingdom on their whims, since said Child has the potential to kill them all if they Determined enough, so what does he have to do? Keep killing the child over and over again until said child gives up on trying come to life and just allows him to win, by making fighting him as hard as he can so that it seems hopeless.

Sans pretty much is trying to pull the same thing in the Genocide run, but the situation is more obvious in that the Child is quite explicitly a mass-murdering psychopath at max LOVE who is about to destroy everything if he isn't stopped. Meanwhile a Neutral-ending Child....is well, NEUTRAL. thus we can't assume that they're completely pacifist and must've have killed some monsters on the way here. Asgore can't assume the best here, he has to assume the worst, especially against a foe so powerful as to make any action he takes pointless.

the only way to beat a foe who can regenerate from anything....is to keep beating him until their will to going is spent and they give up trying to beat you. not an easy thing to accomplish. I can't see any action that Asgore could take that would actually allow him to be anything more than helpless in this situation, since he knows enough to notice the protagonist having experienced all this before.

he is literally taking the only action he can take that can keep an unstoppable juggernaut of power from messing around with his subjects and keep his crown so that the underground doesn't fall into chaos because he wasn't there to keep things peaceful. He is Lawful Good, as he is suffering for his kingdom, selflessly doing his best to make sure the best outcome he can make in his position, sure the Child can make sure a better outcome is achieved, but he doesn't know that, and couldn't exactly help even if he knew of it.

that and if you knew of someone who can reset time any time they want and redo things until they succeed, how would you react hm? that sounds a grave threat to everyone around them to me. especially if the person could reset everything and take all your happiness away, with nothing you could possibly do about it. you don't even know if they already have done that and used it to abuse their power over others. so how can you assume the best? you can't. there is no way to enforce against or stop their behavior or determine what acts they have done in other timelines. you don't even remember if they have ALREADY killed you and are just resetting back to fight you again. you have to assume the worst and that they will abuse their power for dark ends.

so yeah. I don't see how Asgore is evil...when he all his options are not only bad, but pointless, and his real power over the situation is actually quite limited.

[Xuldarinar]

Depends. Is the child enough of a legitimate power to be a combat threat? Can it it kill virtually everything it comes across in a matter of seconds? Does it have the power to reset time anytime it wants? Has it tried at all to harm anyone? Can it be contained if hostile or moved to a place where it endangers no one and can be endangered by no one if non-hostile? Ideally with livable conditions if the latter? There are many important differences between this hypothetical and the other hypothetical world that need to be accounted for. Those were just the first few.

I'll agree it does depend, but the hypothetical situation here and the one present with Asgore and frisk do hinge on a simple point. What is known to Asgore (or the paladin in the hypothetical situation I presented)?

Given a pacifist run;
Is it known they are/could be a combat threat?
Is it known they could kill anyone in seconds (given sufficient exp and lvl)?
Is it known they can reset time?

Does any of it justify the imprisonment of a soul for the intent of genocide?

Does Asgore's alignment change dependent upon the ending pursued?



And again, do we consider humans in Undertale comparable to orc, or to demons? That answer changes things. Not so much the matter of the soul, but the latter justifies far more than the former.



edit:


-snip-
.....because he is killing a child? well then every adventurer who kills a baby dragon should be evil as well, because they are the only monster that is explicitly killing an infant version of that monster. -snip-.

I just had to comment on this specifically upon noticing it. I think the thing is that while the situation largely depends, if we are looking at undertale the point is that how most RPGs function is largely evil. In D&D/PF, one might consider a few things first, not the least of which being the color of the dragon. But then again, many would just kill it because thats how the game works. It is a dragon, which killing provides experience, there is bound to be loot, and it certainly is far easier than considering an alternative.

[Rakoa]

Again, it makes no sense to say Asgore is evil.

Rakoa, you say that he is Lawful Evil, why?

.....because he oppresses humans but not monsters? that is a little early judge isn't it? The humans declared war on HIM, they were forced underground and the barrier erected around his people, he hasn't even began to make any acts against any other humans. Since he is behind the barrier, there is no real telling how he would've planned to deal with humanity, and since he was the leader, the monsters would've had listen to him even if he gone back on his promise.


Yes, they would have listened to him regardless. He could have stopped at any time, but he didn't. He continued to kill children and never stated that his goal to commit genocide upon humanity had changed.




.....because he is killing a child? well then every adventurer who kills a baby dragon should be evil as well, because they are the only monster that is explicitly killing an infant version of that monster. and when the child keeps returning alive and fighting him over and over again, demoralizing him into weakening his attacks by playing on his guilt, and constantly fighting him to try and get out, is said child really all that helpless? said child really only has to win once to kill him. He has to win over and over again until the child gives up fighting him at all. the nature of Undertale is that every fight the protagonist engages in is an unfair one- slanted in their favor. No matter what weird gameplay tricks, or puzzles or anything the monsters throw at you, it all pales in comparison to the simple power of being to keep trying over and over again until you get it right.


No, not because he is killing a child (though that still makes him Evil). Because he has killed children. I agree that the protagonist is incredibly powerful. The other six children were not. And I agree that killing the baby dragon as an adventurer is indeed evil. This applies to everything you say below that I didn't bother to quote, as your argument is limited to a single child rather than those that came before who clearly did not possess the power to reset anything.


You think the prerequisite for good is innocence do you? Despite the fact that the system that gives you that title never once requires innocence, that some acts of killing are explicitly good rather than simply not evil, and that explicitly and clearly depicts humans in this game as a worse threat than the same races where killing is always considered a good act?


There is no race that killing is always considered a Good act.



As for how Asgore knows where Toriel is, have you forgotten the network of cameras that covers every room outside the ruins entrance, the agelessness of boss monsters, and the undeniable fact that having seen what happens when a monster human hybrid dies none of the kids could've taken her soul? Oh how about the known reason for why she left? The fact there are only like four distinct environments even in this underground? Logic and a wellspring of very good clues does not a godlike power make. This is assuming the cameras didn't catch the traveling live.

Have you forgotten that those cameras are Alphys', not Asgore's? Have you forgotten that those cameras are NOT in every room? That killing children because there is even a probable chance that they were warned in advance is still Evil? That killing children even if there was a guarantee they knew the risks is still Evil? Even if he did have a Godlike power and knew they are pre-warned, this excuses nothing and justifies nothing.

I'm legitimately confounded by you, ryu. Legitimately. Your insistence on defending the actions of a child murderer under grounds of "they were warned, they should have known better" are honestly mind-boggling and I don't think I want to continue debating with you any longer. I just hope you're not being serious here.

[Lord Raziere]

No, not because he is killing a child (though that still makes him Evil). Because he has killed children. I agree that the protagonist is incredibly powerful. The other six children were not. And I agree that killing the baby dragon as an adventurer is indeed evil. This applies to everything you say below that I didn't bother to quote, as your argument is limited to a single child rather than those that came before who clearly did not possess the power to reset anything.


Oh really? your so sure? that they were they children, and were they unable to reset everything?

the power to come back from the dead like that isn't a constant thing, its about how DETERMINED you are. as long as you keep playing the game, you still have it. you only lose it when.....you stop playing it. those other humans? they could've kept doing it over and over again just like you, but then just.....stopped trying, lost the will to keep going and just allowed them to take them. Asgore knows enough about Determination and what it can do, to not be surprised when you talk to him about how many times he has killed you- despite the fact that he cannot travel through time or remember himself killing you.

So WHERE does that knowledge come from? Flowey wouldn't tell him, he is FLOWEY, and doesn't want anyone knowing of the things he can do

Sans? Alphys? Sure they could've told him, but where did THEIR knowledge come from? they had to have some way to observe and detect time travelers/ Determination- Alphys was the one who gave Flowey Determination without a soul after all, and Sans is the guy with a broken time machine, so the knowledge of Determination predates Flowey! so, knowing that all monsters cannot handle Determination, as that makes them melt, where is the source of all this knowledge of people capable of resetting using Determination coming from?

Oh right, the six humans who came in before you! the only six others aside from Flowey who could've done that, without breaking down like Undyne the Undying. Thus they must've observed those humans using Determination to come back and act as if they've seen it all before, thus they must've then conducted experiments to figure out how to replicate it in other ways to counter or to use it themselves, which led to WD Gaster being scattered across space and time, Alphys making the Amalgamates and Flowey, and Sans becoming the lazy person he is today because of he knows that everything he does does not truly have any consequences. Asgore, being the king who employs the royal scientist, thus gets knowledge from them as well as the hearts of the six humans and knows of the resetting nature of Determination.

Thus the previous humans were just as dangerous as you, otherwise people knowing about Determination and time-travelling does not make any sense. And since all other options have proved to be horrifying and unworkable? The only surefire they know of to defeat someone with this power is: killing them repeatedly until they give up.

there is no info on whether the other humans were kids or not, and even if they were, the setting makes no sense if you assume they can't reset like you. your argument is based on an assumption that can't be true, as evidence in the setting itself contradicts it!

[Rakoa]

Oh really? your so sure? that they were they children, and were they unable to reset everything?

the power to come back from the dead like that isn't a constant thing, its about how DETERMINED you are. as long as you keep playing the game, you still have it. you only lose it when.....you stop playing it. those other humans? they could've kept doing it over and over again just like you, but then just.....stopped trying, lost the will to keep going and just allowed them to take them. Asgore knows enough about Determination and what it can do, to not be surprised when you talk to him about how many times he has killed you- despite the fact that he cannot travel through time or remember himself killing you.

So WHERE does that knowledge come from? Flowey wouldn't tell him, he is FLOWEY, and doesn't want anyone knowing of the things he can do

Sans? Alphys? Sure they could've told him, but where did THEIR knowledge come from? they had to have some way to observe and detect time travelers/ Determination- Alphys was the one who gave Flowey Determination without a soul after all, and Sans is the guy with a broken time machine, so the knowledge of Determination predates Flowey! so, knowing that all monsters cannot handle Determination, as that makes them melt, where is the source of all this knowledge of people capable of resetting using Determination coming from?

Oh right, the six humans who came in before you! the only six others aside from Flowey who could've done that, without breaking down like Undyne the Undying. Thus they must've observed those humans using Determination to come back and act as if they've seen it all before, thus they must've then conducted experiments to figure out how to replicate it in other ways to counter or to use it themselves, which led to WD Gaster being scattered across space and time, Alphys making the Amalgamates and Flowey, and Sans becoming the lazy person he is today because of he knows that everything he does does not truly have any consequences. Asgore, being the king who employs the royal scientist, thus gets knowledge from them as well as the hearts of the six humans and knows of the resetting nature of Determination.

Thus the previous humans were just as dangerous as you, otherwise people knowing about Determination and time-travelling does not make any sense. And since all other options have proved to be horrifying and unworkable? The only surefire they know of to defeat someone with this power is: killing them repeatedly until they give up.

there is no info on whether the other humans were kids or not, and even if they were, the setting makes no sense if you assume they can't reset like you. your argument is based on an assumption that can't be true, as evidence in the setting itself contradicts it!

I don't even know where to begin, but I might as well start somewhere. First off, the other humans were definitely kids. Toriel laments when Frisk leaves her that she will be unable to save even a single child, because all the children before her died. The items throughout the game (remnants of the murdered children) that Frisk equips fit, because they are child sized.

To address your main argument, it is nothing at all but a series of assumptions. Ridiculous assumptions at that. If Determination is innate to humans, it is easily possibly (and far more likely) that monsters knew about it collectively from their time on the surface. Any determination possessed by the previous children is speculative, not proven. That is the case here, and that would be the case for Asgore. Until you tell him how many times he's killed you, he has no way of knowing if your determination is doing anything, or if you even have any. He might know it exists, and he might know that some humans have it, but the only guarantee he has of it is what he receives personally from the children that speak to him, if they get the chance to speak to him, because not all of them survived that long.

Compare your Asgore to Lex Luthor. Both are afraid of the powers possessed by an incredible being, and both will stop at nothing to crush that being out of a vague fear of what that being is capable of doing, regardless of the morality of that being. Lex Luthor, by the way, is the poster boy of Lawful Evil.

You'll notice, though, that I refer to "your" Asgore. That is because every rationale you've put forward to justify Asgore's actions contradict Asgore himself. Your arguments to justify his actions come from a place of cold, dark logic from careful analyzing of multiple outcomes and learned helplessness. This is nothing like the Asgore in game. When beaten, he explains sadly that he made a promise in a fit of rage when his son died and stood by it. That's it. Flaming emotion and enraged passion were behind his decision, not anything you've pulled out of your hat to come up with for a justification. It is quite a lot simpler than that.

[ryu]

I'll agree it does depend, but the hypothetical situation here and the one present with Asgore and frisk do hinge on a simple point. What is known to Asgore (or the paladin in the hypothetical situation I presented)?

Given a pacifist run;
Is it known they are/could be a combat threat?
Is it known they could kill anyone in seconds (given sufficient exp and lvl)?
Is it known they can reset time?

Does any of it justify the imprisonment of a soul for the intent of genocide?

Does Asgore's alignment change dependent upon the ending pursued?



And again, do we consider humans in Undertale comparable to orc, or to demons? That answer changes things. Not so much the matter of the soul, but the latter justifies far more than the former.


1: It is explicitly written in public monster history that the raw power of any one human's soul is equivalent to that of all monsters that exist. Even assuming that souls grow in power with age it's pretty clear that even a child is a credible threat to any monster opponent.

2: Given the above point about monster history and the allowances I made, exact kill-times may vary but would still be fast. With exp and lvl? There's an article in the library that articulates in stunning clarity exactly how deadly any human can become. As opposed to just fast the maximum speed is one-hit kills.

3: If Asgore defeats you in battle and you try again you unveil an unsurprised but sad nod when you tell him he managed to kill you. Dude knows. Straight up.

4: Souls are physical things in this game that can only persist after death if you're human or briefly if you're a boss monster. There is no afterlife the soul just leaves to if you put it in a jar. If left alone it would just float where you left it or perhaps float around after a while. I point this out because many of the core assumptions of souls are just different. Honestly it's even debatable how aware of their environment they are without the sensory organs their body had. We have no way to know how much sensory data they even get.

5: We don't actually know if Asgore would continue with the genocide. It's explicitly stated he only does what he does so his people won't lose hope. It's very possible he would stop at freeing his people and acting as a powerful deterrent for violence against them.

6: They can't die unless they lose will to live, they wield far more power than your average orc especially relative the only other sentient species, they can manipulate time in ways openly superior to what any demon can even do, and they have a shown aggressive streak. On power alone they're clearly more comparable to demons if not further. You could make an argument that alignment distribution is closer to orcs or perhaps drow. Fact of the matter is though that sheer danger of encountering just one is much more directly relevant in determining a minimum amount of caution and wariness.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't even know where to begin, but I might as well start somewhere. First off, the other humans were definitely kids. Toriel laments when Frisk leaves her that she will be unable to save even a single child, because all the children before her died. The items throughout the game (remnants of the murdered children) that Frisk equips fit, because they are child sized.

To address your main argument, it is nothing at all but a series of assumptions. Ridiculous assumptions at that. If Determination is innate to humans, it is easily possibly (and far more likely) that monsters knew about it collectively from their time on the surface. Any determination possessed by the previous children is speculative, not proven. That is the case here, and that would be the case for Asgore. Until you tell him how many times he's killed you, he has no way of knowing if your determination is doing anything, or if you even have any. He might know it exists, and he might know that some humans have it, but the only guarantee he has of it is what he receives personally from the children that speak to him, if they get the chance to speak to him, because not all of them survived that long.

Compare your Asgore to Lex Luthor. Both are afraid of the powers possessed by an incredible being, and both will stop at nothing to crush that being out of a vague fear of what that being is capable of doing, regardless of the morality of that being. Lex Luthor, by the way, is the poster boy of Lawful Evil.

You'll notice, though, that I refer to "your" Asgore. That is because every rationale you've put forward to justify Asgore's actions contradict Asgore himself. Your arguments to justify his actions come from a place of cold, dark logic from careful analyzing of multiple outcomes and learned helplessness. This is nothing like the Asgore in game. When beaten, he explains sadly that he made a promise in a fit of rage when his son died and stood by it. That's it. Flaming emotion and enraged passion were behind his decision, not anything you've pulled out of your hat to come up with for a justification. It is quite a lot simpler than that.

1. Ah so, the other kids were fighting through the underground and were therefore dangerous then? they wielded weapons after all, they must've used them on monsters that honestly are all good- the entire premise of Undertale is that no one HAS to die, that all the monsters you see before you- are NOT malevolent, and that any of them you kill- is on YOU, because they don't mean to kill you, aside from Flowey whose entire philosophy is "kill or be killed". and even the ones that force you to fight them- Flowey and Asgore- can be spared. so if they were using weapons, they killed monsters, and weren't good themselves.

2. oh? every monster knows? doesn't seem to be known. the monsters in fact seem quite ignorant aside from those clued in (Sans, Asgore, Flowey and possibly Alphys) notice how all the people who talk about the important stuff in the game are someone of the royal guard and thus have some connection to Asgore and keeping the secrets of the kingdom safe. everyone else are normal citizens, why would they be clued in to the true secret of determination? it does nothing to make their lives better after all, and there is no need to bother them with it. they certainly didn't speak of that in their ancient drawings, the only one who seems to outright know the full story is Flowey, who can reset and come back himself, while Sans while close isn't quite sure what your power is. Papyrus, who isn't part of royal guard at all, doesn't know a thing despite being Sans's brother who knows far more.

3. oh right, cause adventurers destroying evil orcs and powerful monsters out of the vague fear that they might someday come and destroy other people is so much better. unless your going to wait and let an entire village be destroyed for your inaction. does a village have to die every time just so you can be SURE that your not evil in fighting back, hm?

4. and he is a king, a good king, and kings consider their options, even after they made a promise. a king does things for the greater good at the cost of the lesser good. he is not a paladin, he is a king, and paladins make horrible kings, as kings have to make decisions that paladins never could if they want to rule effectively. there is more to lawful good than a paladin who can't take certain actions ever. there is the lawful good of a king, whose actions must be good- but are not always soft or nice. and Good is not soft to its enemies, who as I said above, are six humans who used weapons, and if they count as weapons...well somebody had to die to them.