/utg/ - Undertale General

Flowey a BIG

Thanks!

A naive child was manipulated into playing a role in a tragedy, and his parents reacted poorly to the grief with no time to work through it.

youtu.be/FGitBIedvbY
>"It's not easy having yourself a good time"
>"Oh I could bury you alive/ But you might crawl out with a knife/ And kill me when I'm sleeping/ That's why"
>"I can't decide/ Whether you should live or die"

I fucking love it when song lyrics match characters.

The mouth.

TOBY YOU FUCKING HACK, WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE US THIS ENDING

>Flowey isn't there.

I'm happy with Tobies ending.

Flowey by himself is a boring, flat character. Toby probably linked him with Asriel last minute to make him interesting.

If Toby only linked them in the last minute, then he's a miracle worker for reworking the entire rest of the endgame to capitalize on it.

The Flowey - Asriel connection is severely underdeveloped in the game's story.

Do you mean in terms of the recurring clone-not clone-same-different person argument, or in general?

There are a lot of hints scattered through the game, although most of them aren't very deep.
But the "kill or be killed" thing is based on how he died, and his "you idiot" shtick is more likely than not copying Chara.
It could be that Flowey didn't start out as connected with Asriel, but it can't have taken long.

He also says Howdy, much like Asgore does.

Flowers

>three flowers
Did Flowey clone himself?

...

No I did! Three Floweys just for ME! My Flower Boyfriends I LOVE THEM!!

Flowey enjoys Club Penguin minigames?

I HAVE ONE TOO
FLOWEY FOR EVERYONE

No just for me.
I will mercykill all Floweys except mine as they are all suffering foreverially except mine who I love and they love it and enjoy.

Happy Friday, people!

Thanks, same to you!

Do you think Sans would enjoy either watching or participating in MST3K?

I could see him doing that.

I have a question, but I hope it won't spark conflict to drama. I'm a Charafag and I need someone who's against the narrator theory to help me gain some insight on ther point of view.

People reading too much into 4th wall meta jokes that aren't suppose to be read into.

Good morning.

-Pushing an uncomfirmed theory as absolute gospel
-Genocide is unquestionable, but the theory is built from conclusion first, evidence afterwards
-Runs completely on assumptions (Chara word-for-word reciting obscure Chinese book), painfully wrung through a "why would Chara say this" filter
-Personality inferred from these assumption-based lines

Here's a very simple question for starters: if Chara is the narrator who are they talking to? If Frisk, why would they narrate physical sensations that they would clearly feel sooner that Chara spoke? If the player, why would they, since you only have eyes and hands, so describing taste and smell would be pointless.

The thing is, I'm not even against Charrator. I like the idea, I just don't think it's airtight in any way.

Toby does a poor job explaining Flowey's relation to Asriel other than, "the flower had this dead kid's essence, here's a text box that says essence can live on in objects." I don't think it would take much of a substantial rework to combine the two, outside of music changes and writing some lines. I speculate he was tying some loose ends, and giving Flowey a quick origin story related to the goat kid was a convenient way to do just that. Also keep in mind that the endgame plot wasn't in the demo release and thus could be written to fit Flowey's original appearance in the Ruins without doing any noticeable retcons. I believe this is why early Flowey dialog feels so different and distinctly not Asriel, compared to his ending lines (by that point, Toby probably had Flowey's backstory roughly figured out).

The library tells us that monster dust contains their "essence", whatever that is, which lives on in things that it touches. Then we learn that Asriel's dust was spread in the garden at New Home. Alphys injects DT into one of the flowers from the garden, bringing Flowey to life. For some unexplained reason, this essence gives Flowey all the memories of Asriel, the ability to mimic his voice and facial appearance, and even the power to transform into Asriel with enough souls. What isn't clear is if the Asriel we meet in game is some kind of clone, or the genuine Asriel himself. It's also not clear what this dust essence really is and how it impacts Flowey.

The way the community, and possibly Toby too, tends to separate Flowey and Asriel makes me think they were originally two unrelated characters. Indeed they likely were, as I'm inclined to believe based on the insufficient explanation regarding their connection. Toby also could've been his typical hack self and didn't flesh out important details in his game. Whichever works best for you.

When will people accept that Flowey is just Swamp Thing. A plant that has the memories and emotions of a man (goat) but isn't actually him.

When will people accept that Flowey is a living fucktoy that is practically begging for someone to shove their dick inside of?

That's shotagote.

Although, I do wonder about a few things that are somewhat morbid.
Such as the coffin line bring "It's as comfortable as it looks" and the narrator going serious or quiet whenever approaching something that's related to the goats. Also the fact that Frisk is roused up by flashbacks of Chara's life when they tries to sleep, or when they die.
Moreover, that one particular memory they had of Asriel introducing himself to Chara after they fall from that bridge during their escape from Undyne.
Finally, in the Genocide route, upon checking the Hotland gay guards, the narrator's perspective is inconsistent. Going from "You see two lovers standing over the edge of hell" to "I see two lovers standing over the blah blah blah."

Mind you, I'm not saying that it's impossible for all these to simply be obscure references, but they don't seem at all like meta jokes, and they are also quite consistent.

I would like an opinion that deepens my doubts about this theory. Not simply telling me it's wrong, because I say so, or because Toby doesn't say so. Toby Fox has demonstrated to be intentionally vague and lazy, so word of God for this and many other less popular hypotheses seems highly unlikely, as no one will push far or hard enough.

Frisk is a cute boy! Chara is a cute girl!

I don't generally mind the theory, but I don't believe in it myself. I haven't really thought about why, it just doesn't feel like you can fit all the narrative text to any one person.

By the way, does the theory explain why Chara would continue with the regular Charrator behavior after you've done a genocide run? By that point they're supposed to be a soulless murder demon, right? In that context, puns and gags would no longer make sense for their character.

1. I agree. It's just a theory and doesn't warrant to be pushed as fact. I just like it.

2. Genocide is Genocide, though it indicates that Chara can narrate, so it's something that can be used to support it.

3. Many theories run on assumptions, but there are adequate and inadequate assumptions. Some of the lines are not funny enough to be jokes and too specific to be simple coincidences.

4. Same as above.

A simple and very easy explanation to the question of who Chara is narrating to, is that there needs to be immersion. It's a RPG. If they narrate, then they narrate to Frisk, and we can read it too, because we're the Player.

I don't feel like it should be taken as absolute gospel. I just feel that it is dismissed too easily, more out of bias, than it is from evidence against it.

That would still mean the Asriel in game isn't actually him, no? Just a plant creature disguised as a dead kid.

>The way the community, and possibly Toby too, tends to separate Flowey and Asriel makes me think they were originally two unrelated characters.
I think you're working backwards from the way fans interpret things and how we view certain concepts with a lot of hindsight, and then try to retroactively apply them to try and guess Toby's motives, which veers very close to just full-on running Death of the Author and calling it a day.

Flowey identifies Chara right at the end of the Ruins and immediately behaves with expected familiarity.
>I speculate he was tying some loose ends, and giving Flowey a quick origin story related to the goat kid was a convenient way to do just that.
Considering how early we meet Flowey and his prevalence in the Ruins, I really doubt he's just a loose end Toby remembered at the last minute.

>What isn't clear is if the Asriel we meet in game is some kind of clone, or the genuine Asriel himself. It's also not clear what this dust essence really is and how it impacts Flowey.
The easiest answer would simply be that he's Asriel and goes through numerous transformations along the story. Essence, hwo it works etc are missing, but all additional explanations are us coloring it with our personal interpretations on how soul, essence, body, mind and all those are related. Now granted, any one of us could be right, but one way or another the game doesn't ever definitely state which is the case.

>By the way, does the theory explain why Chara would continue with the regular Charrator behavior after you've done a genocide run?

My headcanon was that by the end of genocide, that Chara had more or less "ascended" to a higher existence outside of the confines of most characters, like Asriel in Hyperdeath form. So whenever you reset the universe with that Chara, that Chara stays behind and you get sent back to the start of Undertale with a new Chara.

You have it the wrong way. Frisk is the cute girl with many monster girlfriends and Chara is the boy who wants many monster boyfriends but cannot get them as he is a ghost.

Regardless of any theory, the Asriel at the end of the game is just Flowey taking goat form. Rather that should be counted as the actual Asriel who died so long ago or just Flowey taking on the form from his memories is up to you.

I have never done Genocide run myself, but it is my understanding that they stop their neutral/pacifist narrative completely, and everything they say from then on becomes dead serious, like something someone would think out loud upon inspecting something.

Stop this. Flower/Asriel is not for lewd.

Shotagotebro does not beg. Shotagotebro takes whatever meets his domgaze.

Oh. I misunderstood. I assume Chara goes back to their usual narrative for the sake of mechanics, more than anything. The soulless ending is intended to be a surprise for players who've done Genocide, so giving as little as hints as possible that something's different is something that an author would do in order to really provide a good scare at the end.
That said, that's just my interpretation on this one. If you don't accept it, I will concede it as a point against the narrator theory.

I haven't played genocide, and I don't plan to because I'm a pussy that doesn't want to have a bad time. Is there somewhere I can read the "Charrator" theory? I don't quite get it. I know that Chara takes control of Frisk a few times in genocide, but where does the "narration" happen?

It's more likely Flowey is a sentient plant with a stolen identity rather than a resurrected Asriel. I'm fine with that. At least until Toby explains what exactly this essence is.

Charrator theory = every bit of narration and flavor text is Chara speaking.

So Swamp Thing

I recommend reading it btw, great comic series.

There is a few, but this is usually the bedrock of the theory. Also where I first saw it.

nochocolate.tumblr.com/post/134759853195/the-narrachara-theory-proof

Is Sans Cuphead

There are hints, such as the narrator knowing things Frisk wouldn't know. Such as when you inspect the bed or the coffin. The fact that you have flashbacks from Chara's life when you sleep on their bed, when you die and when you fall from the bridge.
The narrator also becomes serious or quiet whenever you approach the goats. An example being the save points no longer having any flavor text as you approach Asgore.

1. Which is fine, I don't dislike it either, I just don't like people getting browbeaten when they don't.

2,3 and 4. Assuming that some examples mean all of them is an incredibly slippery slope and could be used to justify anything. We see that Frisk can reset, does that mean every single human can? Undyne can reform into Undying, does that mean every monster could? Sans has a glowing eye when he uses his power, does that mean everyone could have a glowing eye? Sure, I'm exaggerating, but you can see my issue here.

Yes, but you do realize this is basically the get out of jail free card for the theory, right? 'It's an RPG, I ain't gotta explain shit' and we're done, Chara's the narrator and it make sense, because it just makes sense. All it requires is to just not question any of it.

>more out of bias, than it is from evidence against it.
Okay, the rest I'll give to you because they're all fair observations, but with all due respect this is creationist logic. Of course I can't disprove whatever evidence you bring up, because I'm not the person who made the game. I can't have objective evidence against a subjective interpretation, because I'm not the one who devised the framework to begin with. You bring your case, which is fair, but cannot be proven. However, you require people to disprove the theory you can't definitely prove in the first place, and it all just turns into everyone blowing hot air.

No he's a bonehead

Wouldn't that mean that the entire end portion of the game basically pointless?

Who is shotagotebro?

No, Flowey as an individual is still suffering and regardless of rather or not he's the actual Asriel he's still dealing with the trauma of what happened to the real goat.

...

Don't forget that this also means the Chara in the game isn't Chara from the backstory.

So I should have been putting my own name this whole time?

Yes and Chara at the end of Genocide is also you. You steal your own soul.

Is Chara a clone then?

I accept

I agree with some of your reasoning, but regarding the target of the narrative. I'd like to say one more thing. in some occasions, the narrator appears to be wrong, before being corrected. An example I can think of are the candy. They're described as not tasting like licorice, and upon consuming them, they're now described as tasting like licorice.

I think it the theory could very well be a thing, if handled carefully. When it comes to matters, such as videogames, I prefer to let go a little from my natural skepticism, and accept things a little more easily, which is why I feel inclined to believe the theory. I am aware that it makes me prone to bias, but just as my acceptance of it might be heavily based on my own bias, I believe your arguments against it might be too based on stiff skepticism. I hope that was well-phrased and doesn't come off as hostile to you.

Either both Chara and Asriel are completely different, or they are both who they claim they are.

Flowey follows Chara's will
He is Chara's reincarnation

Also consider the fact that in regards to Genocide, you kill the thing that told you to do it in the first place. There was this one video that said that Chara isn't really the villian, but instead is Determination. An overuse of determination can cause harm to both monster and human alike. I guess, what Toby is saying, is that because you, the player have determination, you will kill everyone you love in that game, because you are determined to complete it, and you will never be free of the consequences no matter. Would be a really big mind fuck if Toby came out with another game, where the monsters are on the surface, and you have to fight the embodiment of determination, thereby saving Chara, Asriel, and essentially ending a threat to monster and human kind.

>not reincharanation
One job, user. One job.

Flowey follows Chara's will because he seeks their approval, in an attempt to feel (positive) emotion again and be loved.

My opinion towards it has indeed been marred by people treating it as canon and then building upon this headcanon to continue making more, without acknowledging that it's a house built on sand.

Once more, I like the theory. I like the idea of it, I've seen good ways of executing it. So long as it's not treated as infallible canon, I'm cool with it. If I came off as hostile, I apologize, but I'm sure you realize it's a bit insulting when things are just brushed aside by saying the other party's biased.

At least wear protection

Therefore
He is Chara

This is more or less how I wish all discussions went. I understand that people sometimes can't see the eye to eye, but it bothers me when either side starts getting hostile. And trying to win an argument, instead of trying to persuade the person they're discussing it with.

It is when people close themselves off completely that I know that something won't go anywhere.

...

But he can't, because he is essentially an amalgamate created by Alphys when she put determination into the flower. Why couldn't they extract other essences, like kindness or perserverence? What if they gave kindness to flowey? He lacks empathy and kindness.

It's cool, man. After two years most of us have our hardwired headcanons and it's sometimes hard to reconsider them.

So I just watched the cutscene, at the end of Genocide, is Chara talking to Frisk, or me?

He's talking to me

I still hold that Swamp Thing is Alec Holland, regardless of what Swamp Thing and Alec Holland's ghost think about it

>tfw the thought of Chara taking over my body scares the shit out of me
>tfw almost any scene with Chara making direct interaction with the player scares the shit out of me
>tfw it's 7am and I haven't slept yet because I'm too scared to go to sleep
>inb4 it's just a video game

Just think user, when they take over, you'll never be alone again! Best friends forever!

It is, but sometimes it feels like it's malicious attempts against it, rather than mere stubbornness. Like they're almost desperately trying to grab your attention and have you cuss at them out of anger of something, all for the sake of making someone mad. It's so petty and they probably think they're being clever by preying on the poor fools who will fall for their ploy.

...

That's actually one of the reasons I don't like charrator.

I want this in my life.

In the DC universe souls are the end all be all of a persons being so it's not actually up for debate.

From a phuilsopical point of view I can see wha you mean. Also it's a lot less clear because we don't actually know how much of a monster is their soul and regardless Flowey does contain parts of the original Asriel and picks up right where Asriel ended.

So when Chara says "that's a wonderful idea", was killing flowey always a part of Chara's endgame?

I think it actually weakens a lot of the lines, particularly those related to Frisk's thoughts and feelings, as well as the narrative as a whole.

I'm also unconvinced by the evidence. I think I can counter nearly every point of it.

>In the DC universe souls are the end all be all of a persons being so it's not actually up for debate.
I used to agree, but not any more. The reason I see a mind clone in a completely materialistic universe as the same person doesn't actually stop being valid if immortal souls exist. It might be sensible in some contexts to define identity based on souls, but that's just a semantic difference.

Flowey said that, not Chara.

And of course it was part of Charas end game.

shes a bitch