It's personally important to remember that Sans himself doesn't really care if you kill people (that much) so long as you spare Papyrus. Aside from the fact that Papyrus is Sans' brother, he's notably also the only enemy in the game that actively spares the player and turns his own name yellow. To a completely new player this is often their first experience, along with the battle effectively ending and the music stopping, having the ability to ACTUALLY spare an enemy. He is an interesting litmus test for a gamer's ability to pay attention to what the game is trying to say. Killing Papyrus, in neutral or in genocide, is the closest thing the game comes to telling you outright that you have made an objectively evil decision. Even if Papyrus never holds it against you, Sans sure will, and so will Undyne. But once again; the other enemies in the game seem more or less fair game. At least from the perspective of Sans.
I wouldn't say that killing Papyrus is an objectively evil decision. He, like all of the monsters, is trying to attack a human child who has already been discriminated against for the sin of being born human, invoking sins of the ancestor. I don't believe that it's wrong to fight back in self-defense, even if the Undertale fandom loves to insist otherwise. Papyrus doesn't fight to kill, but he does fight to injure and I'm not going to say that the human child in that situation does not have the right to stand up for themselves in the face of cruel, callous, visibly racist behavior. People need to learn to be better than this.
@@Mark-fc7tu The main issue is that Papyrus is just really naive and doesn't understand the damage his actions can cause, and not only is he naive- he's harmless, even if he does not mean to be. Like a child trying to stab an adult with a plastic fork. Unlike Undyne, for instance, he was never a serious threat.
@@Fenrick So, you're saying that being naive is an acceptable excuse for acting in such a manner? Why? If Papyrus's actions can cause damage, then why do you say that he's harmless? I wouldn't say that attacking a small human child with magical bone attacks counts as harmless behavior. Can you please explain why you see it that way? Either way, his intent to harm isn't admirable and it's something that should be honestly addressed. Given the ambiguity of how Papyrus views the world, he either understands or does not understand the damage of his actions, and either case presents a pressing problem. If he does not understand that it is not funny or admirable to attempt to harm a human child, then there should be no problem with pulling him (or someone like him) aside and directly telling them to knock it off and act like a decent person... but a lot of people get surprisingly angry and hostile whenever somebody dares to point out that Papyrus is not acting in a very funny or admirable way, he is doing a terrible thing and his naivety isn't a very good excuse to not address the situation in an honest and sincere manner. If a child tries to stab an adult with a plastic fork, you don't brush it off as an ironic punchline, you gently pull them aside and help clarify the fact that it is not an acceptable way to behave. Otherwise, you have no right to complain when these naive children grow up to be a huge pain in the rear end, one that can be avoid if you take the time to address these things properly the first time around. That's why it's not hard to see that there are a lot of fully grown, adult irony-lovers who have nothing but praise for Papyrus and Undyne, and they and will genuinely condemn and harass and bully honest folk just for asking honest questions about monster morality, and that's a very sucky situation to be in, for any reason. Undyne is a separate issue, as she is a vocal, violent, anti-human bigot who actively wants Asgore to absorb the human souls and commit genocide on humanity, and it's difficult to be excited or impressed with irony lovers who insist on putting this behavior on a pedestal when it's not earned or needed.
if this was irl, out of the bosses, the ones I say you could kill are - toriel (the game literally gives the killing blow 3x damage, so you can't spare her by damaging) - Undyne (for obvious reasons) - Mettaton (if the person doesn't realize he will stop fighting with ratings) - Asgore (he literally asks you) Muffet would be a "maybe" if the person did/nt buy spider goods in the ruins
@@icelingbolt He threatens you also you never kill him /// try to kill him till he gets in your way plus killing him in genocide is not necessary and you cant actually kill him so again if it were to kill then yes its justified.Also just because he is a kid doesn't imply that he is innocent one , the youngest serial killer in the history is 7-8 years old so ... And about sparing you do know that you cant trust monsters? There is Sans he also spares you so what if you did the same the consequences say otherwise:)
Muffet is an asshole she has a Geno exclusive dialog where she admits not caring about anyone, having intentions of killing Alphys, and letting you pass because she didnt want to loose costumers so no.... yeah fuck her IMO
I still think you are justified in killing some monsters. “Frisk” will feel pain still from these encounters, since Toriel notes physical injuries based on HP in the ruins. I do not think you have any obligation to take on pain to spare the life of someone trying to murder you, even if said person is merely misguided and can be swayed. That said, all the enemies who are actually not trying to kill you (or gelp others kill you), or give up fighting (like Vulkin, Froggit, Moldsmal, Whimsun etc) get a pass. They shouldn’t be killed. Same goes for Toriel who will refuse to actually kill the player. Papyrus is murky, I could honestly go either way. Others, like Undyne, are justifiably killed despite the god powers because they have a real intent to kill and harm, and will not give up even in the face of death. Even if they are redeemable, they make it as hard as possible to spare them (and in the case of Undyne, you CAN’T actually spare them, she has to basically be forced into it).
Papyrus is definitely justified as he was trying to capture you to have undyne come get you(which would be a capital punishment for frisk and then another war would break out) ignorance is not something that upholds in court anywhere, so Papyrus can't say he didn't know
That's a very rare way to look it. Valid and also rare, because of all the irony lovers who hate violent video game cliches and choose to shame people for not being as disillusioned with video games as they are.
You mentioned that determination gives them more of an obligation to not killing but you gotta rember dying hurts flowey mentions that it will make frisk suffer from dying
for the argument of self defense, while you can't make a physcial or lost of life agrument you can make one for mental health. and since a person is really their concousness, mental health would be covered under all forms of self defense. As you can replace the body if you have the abilty/tech to do so but you can't replace your conciousness. So defending your self from pain and the trauma of dying is vaild.
I have always felt it's technically justified. But I do think that the best ending requires you to be this holy messenger of peace is absolutely justified as well. The happiest ending only being obtainable after you made everyone happy, that only makes sense. Sure we could argue that because you respawn means you should have an obligation to be more peaceful, but I do argue as well, why should someone be forced to endure the pain involved in dying so many times? So yeah, I would say killing is still justified. But I don't think Genocide runs are justified because that implies you are actively picking the fights and are actively choosing to murder everything. You really are a monster in this case. In LEGAL terms. No actually. If your opponent can be fled from, you're legally obligated to try running first. Self defense only applies if you cannot run away and it's your last resort. Only exception is a home invasion, but you must either give a verbal warning or a warning shot, and you CANNOT shoot them in the back or when unaware of you. (I fucking hate that too, as your begging to be shot or attacked by a robber if you do that. Shouldn't have to threaten your own life to deal with a home invasion, or just let them ransack it either. Because if they don't get caught, your house is now considered an easy target to them and their associates and you may be targeted again if you still have nice things. Further endangering you.)
I dunno how to feel about people who don't think twice about using Undertale as an excuse to lecture people about any sort of morality, in fiction or reality. Because you can't actually justify the preaching and lecturing without outing yourself as a really big asshole, and that's why irony lovers get so angry and upset whenever somebody honestly dares to point out that it's not funny and admirable to shame people over violent video games, for any reason. And often, these people can't seem to justify their own logic whenever an honest person asks them to honesty explain why they think it is funny and admirable to shame people over video games and violence and morality, plus the toxic pacifism guilt tripping bs.
@@Mark-fc7tu I was just saying how I felt on the matter. You can absolutely feel differently. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You gain nothing from rejecting other people's beliefs completely, with only a small few racist, pedo, sexist, or generally hateful ideas that actively hurt people being the exception. So I generally like discussing with people the ideas of moral situations, you may find yourself agreeing with something new and growing from it or maybe rethinking, understanding other ideas better, or adjusting something you previously thought correct into something you feel better about. I absolutely disagree with the idea you should be forced into peace at all times, and can understand why you're put off by it. It's your life and your pain you gotta endure. Respond to it however you feel is best, it's all you really can do in that situation. If I were stuck in Undertale, I am not very expressive, meaning I probably wouldn't have the opportunity to spare many people I couldn't do verbally, with warnings, or bribes. Meaning only some bosses I felt very positive about like Torial or Papyrus would (probably) get spared, Spamton I definitely wouldn't understand how to spare, and Undyne it just depends whether I felt like running every time she suplexes a boulder. Muffet would probably die too if I lacked the item to prove I was pro-spider. The only idea you'd really have a hard sell me on is the justification of a genocide run, as I accepted I am a monster every time I do one as I am actively opting to kill. I have no justifications for the excess and malice behind it... But I really did want to do the Sans fight again, so I do it anyways because it is one of the coolest bosses in all the video games.
Minor correction, same areas have stand your ground laws that enable you to fight back first instead of running away. Although this has a good chance of not applying as we don't know what region undertale is set in.
Thanks, I do appreciate that. Surprisingly enough I do have a new video I'm working on that should be done in the next day or two, on a different indie game tho.
Killing Papyrus is also justifiable because he uses Piranha puzzle electric maze and sorts he ALMOST kills you remember that , I recommend to use irl laws, Frisk's prespective and how YOU react if something like that happened
The main point of the video is that normal laws wouldn't, or rather, *shouldn't* really apply towards an immortal being, as the only reason they would have to not be a good person is laziness. If Undertale were, say, a rougelite, then I would say that should justify killing for self defense, at least from the narrator's perspective, since that would be a simulation of dying for good. However, if you're an unkillable god, then I wouldn't say that it would be reasonable to be offended by people expecting more of you. Would you act like a normal person if you were immortal? The reason the narrator expects more out of the player is because it gives them so much to work with compared to reality. This is shown through multiple endings, thus the game compensating for different players through the different neutral routes, and the narrator expecting the player to hold themselves to a higher standard with all the power that they have. This results in feeling how *you* feel, a person who has an unfair amount of expectations from their point of view, and that, from everyone elses point of view, has an unfair amount of power for those expectations not to be met. In other words, Toby fox has put us in the shoes of Elon Musk, whom I believe is a human... Off topic but still an interesting topic nonetheless, LV makes it so that the more the player kills, the less they "need" to do so in the future, but it also distances the player from the monsters in such a way that the genocide route is able to occur.
@@zixvirzjghamn737 Also why would the laws not apply? Its completely idiotic, we need laws to stop criminals or solve social problems. It doesn't matter if monsters existed in our world or not. Also the human is not really immortal, they can only revive themselves, and the only way they know it by dying once. They still can feel pain and DIE . Imagine you possessed the same powers, will them self terminate yourself by getting killed ? Let those terrorist like monster who want to destroy your kind? Also why would you reason with them at all? They are the one to harm you, initial of battle was not chosen by you but them.
I do agree the game does a good job at deconstructing the moral quandary of a protagonist of an RPG and the attitude towards wonton violence, it kind of lampshades the other half of that coin. While Flowey Takes a hermetic position as eternal repentance for his actions the same as not done for Asgore. While all the details aren’t known he is responsible for the deaths of At least six people who are more than likely children yet he just opens the flower shop with the only recompense on his part being slightly sad during the neutral endings. In the same way Undine Never walks back racism instead making frisk an exception to their viewpoint rather than changing it at all not to mention any of the other royal guards or even Gerson Who is Hocking the possessions of a dead person. Having the unspoken tragedy of other lost humans just brushed aside feels antithetical to the greater message the game was trying to send which I feel is a bit of a black stain on its reputation that no one really talks about.
@Emeraldpichu i think asgore can be pardoned due to the fact how its implied those killings happened he gave them many chances he gave them to turn back , also add to the fact that its completely impossible to break the barrier with the power of 7 human souls, meaning the only solution he had is to kill them. the only other option is to kill a human underground absorb their soul ,and travel the surface to look for 6 human souls even then that plan is doomed to how the absorbed soul can resist. and given how humans reacted to monster's possibly having a slim chance of absorbing a human soul , humans would not be apathetic.
@@chongwillson972 I don’t agree with this perspective because you have to make a lot of assumptions of how those humans behaved and only one of them was confirmed to actually be aggressive based on the state of their possessions and even then that’s still excluding the fact that the monsters that were in the second humans time were much more aggressive because they had less souls and were closer to the tragedy that started the violence in the first place. On other hand, we have all of Asgore’s choices laid bare, and it’s clear he was just murdering apathetically, which isn’t really something you can justify. Just like you can’t justify killing someone because their ancestor may have been a murder. It’s the same thing here you can’t just paint an entire species with the crimes of individuals or even a specific nation. Things are never framed in the perspective of him fighting in self-defense. I guess the humans trying to take his life to escape something that could’ve at least been considered justifiable. This also has to take into account Toriel since been used to escape too but there’s not a single sign a human have a raise a hand against her and the door being closed to old home it’s not only a recent development but one that I could hardly stop a determined individual not to mention the monsters freely moving from old home to Snowdin at implies multiple entrances. From how the history books and Alphys states information about the barrier the necessity for a human to have the power of a monster to cross. The barrier is closely kept information, they would not have had any motivation for blindly murdering the monsters and there’s no mention of monsters dying beyond those who perished in the line of service to the crown. As it stands, there is overwhelming evidence, that the humans, or at least mostly passive until the royal guards and Asgore would get involved and they were at least mostly slaughtered given the circumstances. This slaughter wasn’t about looking for solutions. It was about spinning the wheels long as possible. The problem here being of course, if he was ever actually trying to escape, it would’ve just lead to a new slaughter of his people, because even empowered by seven souls, it wouldn’t have been enough for him to win in the long run but he’s the one who set that potential death sentence so he can’t exactly get out of taking culpability for that
My first play though of Undertale is still my favorite play though. All I killed was Toriel and never looked back. I tried to peace her out, but she would not let me. She wanted to die instead of letting me leave. It was her choice and I respected that.
I didn't even know I would get a different out come if I had reloaded. I went in the game blind and just assumed I missed a trigger or something that would let me spare her. And I accepted that.
Never had much of a 'first playthrough,' mostly because the irony-obsessed brats wouldn't shut up about the judgement hall, sans and the bad time memes. It's difficult to be impressed with an irony-driven creator who creates a narrative that encourages half of his audience to guilt-trip the other half just for liking video games... and that's just nonsense. You don't have to be super smart to understand that something is nonsense, and irony lovers have no right to get mad and spit vile at people just for honestly saying it out loud.
Here is my personal take. If you don't attack first or try to run and fail and then the monster tries to attack you, you are justified in fighting. If the monster's name turns yellow after reaching low hp then the best move would be to spare but considering they will still attack, it is justified either way. If the monster's name doesn't turn yellow then it is a case of tough luck for them. The only exception to attacking yellow names would be Papyrus or monster kid or mettaton NEO or glad dummy as they either don't attack or can't be killed before offering mercy and then not attacking.
@Fenrick Chief if im being honest I donk like this argument, it sounds like an excuse more than "artistic choice" to me sounds like Toby couldnt negate the argument of "self defence" so he moved the goal post to the player existing. (something I will be calling from now on "Fortho wallo jutsu") This not only acomplishes to make the player "feel cheated" but it takes away agency from the plot/Characters/setting, wich makes it feel more artificial..... Consecuently the player feel less guilt for doing a geno run becuase if the setting doesnt care about itself then why should I? Toby himself admits Undertale is not perfect "i cant read his mind" but I do think some of the points he corrected in deltarune was self defence, I get you the following examples: a) Giving: king, Jevil, Spamton and LITERALLY the queen some hands by choosing violence wont affect your TRUE PACIFIST ending from any chapter b)Even tho Susie acted violently agains everyone before she joined us, the Darkners still join us if we put on the effort Also Pacifism in this Game feel more like martythom rather than pacifism, and just because it costs "US" the player nothing by dying that doesnt mean it cost "the protagonist that lives the events of the plot" something. We dont know Frisk´s opinion on the player contrling them... But imagine the existencial horror of being controlled by a person that puts you thrugth harms way and even death out of a selfish sentiment of feeling better with ourselves, that be horrifing I think i speak for everyone when i say no1 would like that
That's understandable. My feelings were a bit more mixed than I let on, but I wanted to stick to the thesis. I agree that Deltarune was a definite improvement in the presentation of the fight/spare idea, especially with Susie giving her own justification for it (even if it feels like Toby Fox wants you to think she's wrong, she doesn't come off as poorly as the way you are for a genocide run) There is a slight difference in the ending of Chapter 1 if you go full pacifist, but it's not really clear if that affects anything bigger than a short scene. (The darkners will rush to defend you from the king, they don't appear if you defeated any enemies by fighting) I'll give you credit for thinking of the metacommentary angle on a level beyond what I had, though. The bit about risking the life of someone who has our say for our own sense of moral goodness is indeed a very good point. They seem to be going towards exploring the story on that level with how Kris seems to resist the player, so hopefully Deltarune will stand up to that kind of scrutiny... if we ever see another chapter, anyway.
@@Fenrick Agree we´ll just see, I hope he doesnt desapoint, but anyways i dont think he wants us to think susie is WRONG. If you read this: play chapeter one with the following ideas in mind: 1)Ralsei is an "anti-flowey", he quotes flowey word by word but end up in the oposite side of his ideology (Ergo he represents Undertale´s ideology of "peace"). 2)Ralsei by being pedantic about ACT and SPARE does nothing but pushing Susie to the Dark "Fuck Squad" and is seemingly in the "rigth" for the rest of the chapter. 3)Most importantly, after Ralsei tries to impose his ideology (by not letting us choose how to handle the king one we defeated him) we all get backstabed, and even if you defeated him peacefully, it doesnt matter, Susie in the end was rigth, Ralsei even aknowlleges this in the conversation they have after being saved from the king by everyone. I think Toby saw the undertale fandom became almost like a religion and didnt like that. So he kinda "Deconstruted" his previous game in the first chapeter to let us know, this wont be the same game agian (or at least i hope so) I like this game better for this, i like creator who can bite the bullet on them being wrong about something because Undertale´s idea of pacifism is not great, even the game knows this, even the game knows that you wont be able to archive said "peace" if you are not a Time traveling GOD, and that ran shallow for me. So what, you are telling me theres a "correct" way to play god? what does that say..... I may be the firs person you meet that has the true pacifist as his least favorite ending in the game Papyrus was rigth, IT IS THE WORST ENDING ngl. I like the neutral ones better, because they feel more honest, and they dont relly on denying their setting of any agency Au contraire.... they give all the control back to the setting, wich make the characters better, wich is a shame because you have to make them suffer for that to be the case.
This is a bit unrelated to the video as a whole but ur the best channel I could think of to deposit my thoughts into so... What if the world of undertale is actually entirely a dark world, with the barrier being some sort of grand dark fountain? Here me out here... In the end credits for Undertale, 0 magic is used (to my knowledge), whereas the world of the underground is flooded with magic. Furthermore, it is stated that seven human magicians created the barrier that sealed monsters away, and it is possible that, because of this, it would take power/determination equivalent to seven humans to seal this particular fountain. Fountains made by, say, the Knight or Kris would be easier to seal since they were made by only one person each. This doesn't mean that dt/ut are in the same world, or that even monsters and humans function the same in these worlds. These are distinctly individual timelines, albeit with similar characters. There are also small issues with this theory, like how all the characters in undertale have black/white text sprites, however this detail is so minor that it is possible that the idea of colored boxes for darkners was made after the original ut and its talk sprites were made. The theory is bit silly but idk it felt neat to me.
Good take. I have no idea if there would be a connection between the barrier and the fountain, but they might well serve a similar thematic purpose at least. The sprite colors are one of those things it's hard to tell. On the one hand it does seem like a minor detail, on the other hand it seems like exactly the sort of thing that would have significance in a series like this. Time will tell I suppose
Hm, interesting Video, you make some fair and valid points and opinions, i wonder what else you will talk about in the future. Also, I couldn’t read what was at the end, because the recommendations were in the way.
Would seem like Napstablook (although you can['t kill him either way) as well as froggits, moldsmal, and a few others would also qualify. I like to count the enemies where you won't get hit if you don't even move.
@@Fenrick I always thought some of those like froggit jump at you or block your way and actually use attacks, but I guess we never actually see their motives/intentions to know if they’re trying to cause harm
@@OwOh_nOwO Yeah. It's pretty vague when it comes to random encounters and open to interpretation. I haven't played in a while but I think there are "enemies" who heal you as well? Maybe that was deltarune.
@@Fenrick oh yeah interpretation plays a huge role in this question, and the only enemies I remember healing you would be Woshua and Vegetoid in undertale
So you're saying that the player is solely responsible for everything that happens in the game, and that the monsters bear no responsibility for dubious beliefs and actions such as wanting to murder human children and steal their souls so they can commit genocide on humanity for the sins of ancient humans?
@@Mark-fc7tu ok let me explain If we look into frisk/human's prespective killing monsters in the underground is totally justified by the following reasons 1) So our starting point "Ruins" features monsters like whishmum ribbit etc all of them "expect" Toriel try to kill us at any point, again looking into Frisk's prespective it is natural for a human child to attack in self defense.Not to mention the human faced a soul less creature before who tried to kill them. 2)The first boss:- Ok Toriel protects you from that flower but... again in the story she wants you to stay with her forever its more like "kidnapping" according to human laws (sure you would held back at first but eventually something off will get you) Hence killing Toriel is also justified. 3)Alr so I just realised while writing this that all the normal monsters in the underground try to kill you not to mention they are the one to actually trigger the battle system. 4) Trust issues and Papyrus:- Papyrus surely is nice and all but he also does the same thing as Toriel , he uses Piranha traps, electric puzzle,saws etc to hurt and *fails* he also tries to capture or "kidnap" you so well.. 5)Undyne is ovis 🤡 6) Monster kid never attacks you but threatens and you never try to kill him till he gets in your way (the youngest killer in the history is 7 or 8 yo ig) 8) Logical things people need to know:- Gerson, evacuated monsters,burger pants yoi CANT kill them bec they never try to fight you noticed Gerson says you cant fight him bec he DOESN'T want to.. proves why the Monsters are the one trying to attack first trigger the battle system. 8)Mettaton is also ovs 🤡 (Even tho he changes) 9)Sans tries to stop you,Asgore changes his mind and maybe tried to play dirty and flowey is ovs 🤡 I know we are on the same page but I do think this reply will help other players :)
