I just read this sunday’s main newspaper article (the German Welt am Sonntag, and the article was written by Céline Lauer, by the way) about theories on quantum mechanics, especially the many-worlds interpretation and oh, boy. OH, BOY.
The article mentioned four different kinds of parallel universes, as characterized by the Swedish physicist and cosmologist Max Tegmark, the first one being those worlds that are yet out of reach, in the corners of our universe that light has not yet traveled from far enough to reach our sensors, the sceond kind are the parallel universes that were created in the big bang event, but have different physical rules than ours, the third kind are those created by the possible positions of particles, and the fourth are those universes that belong to every single mathematical formula, respectively.
Now the second and third kind are those where it gets interesting.
Let’s start with the third kind, because it was the article’s main focus: again, for every possible postion of a particle, there is a respective universe. Translating that into mundane-usage-language, it means: everytime we make a decision, a universe is created for every possible outcome. Every small detail that changes during that process results in a whole new world with ever-so-slightly different properties.
Sound familiar? Yup, that is exactly how Undertale works. For every time we spare an enemy or solve a puzzle in a certain way, there is a version of the game/universe, in which that enemy gets killed or the puzzle gets solved differently. For every genocide run, there is a pacifist one (and probably many neutral ones, I guess).
Most, if not all of you, probably knew that already. But the article goes on. What if people are aware of the different universes created this way? What if they knew that there is a world in which they made a good decision, when they made a bad one in this world? What if, for example, they killed someone in this world, but there is also a universe in which they are still alive? (this next part is not from the article, but my own thought on the matter) What if they had access to/ could live in all of these universes? What if they could undo everything they did?(/end own thought)Wouldn’t they just use this as an excuse for their actions, seeing that there is always a version of the universe in which they killed nobody, where they can’t be made responsible, because they are not responsible, for anything in that matter, and thus they are above consequences? (at this point I had chills running down my spine, by the way)
Now in the article, the author Juli Zeh (who has written an interesting sounding book on that matter, heh, matter), was stated to have said that she didn’t think that would be the case, because every human is born with a sense of moral, that would “force us to exist as a moral being in this world, in which we currently exist and which we can experience” (I like to call it the “here and now”).
But what if we remove this sense of moral, this sense of being here and now, for example, what if this world was expicitly stated to be not ours, but just a game?
That is where Undertale comes into play (heh, play). Its brilliance stems from its awareness of everything stated before.
It knows. It knows when you killed Toriel and went back to your last SAVE point to fix it. It knows if you RESET in a pacifist run, only to hear Sans’ speech again (and get the key to his room, which is exactly why you get it in the first place). It knows, whether you stay a pacifist, or go out of your way to do the kill-all route needlessly, just out of curiosity or simply because you can.
It will call you out for it.
It will judge you accordingly.
And it will present you with consequences where you would not expect them in another game.
(note: OH. BOY. This is getting long. And I’m not done yet.)
But all this is only possible because Undertale, as a whole, could be classified as a Level Two parallel universe in relation to our own, metaphorically speaking. As a reminder, those are universes that were created at the same time as ours, only with different physical rules and properties, their existence based on extremely certain specifics, so that, if certain changes are made, they can cease to exist, there one second, gone another, like a soap bubble, similar to how, if you mess with the files to much, the game can’t function anymore.
These kinds of universes are very popular in philosophy and religion, specifically in a dual system, for example Plato’sTheory of Ideas or the image of an Intermediate State.
Or, maybe, the Underground and the Surface.
Speaking of religion: all these theories and thoughts never answered one question. They adressed the what and how, but never the why.
Why would there be so many universes with so specific properties?
Why were they created?
“Because God did more than he needed to.” Says Johann Hafner, theologian. (note: link to German Wikipedia, because not available in English)
(Note: I don’t want to offend anyone’s religious orientation, I’m using this quote in the context of this analysis only to get a certain point across, which is not of religious nature per se. I myself am agnostic, by the way.)
Why was Undertale created as the game it is now?
How did it all start?
Someone had an idea and was filled with the joy of creation.
Now if you take the dual system and apply it to the game and reality (the world of perception and the world of ideas/ this world and the world beyond)…
Where do ideas come from?
Who lives in the world beyond?
Toby Fox, you sly god dog. (I really wonder if he read that article beforehand, nah, kidding)
Also, that makes the player, us, angels, doesn’t it?
Like, the angel of the prophecy of the Delta Rune? (The design changed by the way, from the intro, where the upside down triangle (or is it a heart?) is still on the same level as the others, to the actual game, where it’s below them.)
The article concluded with a thought about determination (of the world, but also willpower), and that every human decides on his own in which world they live.
Very, very interesting stuff, I tell you that much. Also, what a coincidence (or was it???).
Anyways, I’m done. That’s all I have. Thanks and Good Night!
*falls on bed exhausted*
(submitted by anonymous)
Woah, this was a good read and puts the meta lore into perspective.
I’ve seen a lot of hate going around regarding the situation these two are in. Sometimes, in defense of one goat someone viciously bashes the other. It doesn’t have to be like that, though.
TORIEL
It seems like a lot of people are condemning her dislike of Asgore in their defense of him. But…I think we should try to understand her point of view too.
Why is she so mad at Asgore?
It is heavily implied the children he killed were her children, in the same way Frisk is. Maybe for years.
It’s safe to say Toriel didn’t just nab these kids’ shoes and send
them on their way. Some or most of them stayed long enough to need to
new shoes and grow out of their old ones (or they’d still be wearing them when they left the Ruins) – a process that takes months or years depending on their age. Their old ones were put in the bin. They left, and died in their new
ones. Rinse and repeat.
Added to this is the photo frame in the children’s room. This frame is empty; if it were meant for her old family in New Home, it would still have them in it or not be there at all. It’s empty because the children, the humans who occupied the room before, in the picture died.
They were not just children that were murdered; they were her children. The same way Frisk is.
This isn’t just two exes disagreeing over policy; from her point of
view, he killed six of her children (only one way into the underground,
and that’s the hole in the ruins; Chara fell there too) and was starting
on a seventh. It’s understandable that she can’t forgive him.
It
seems the other childrens’ items were lost along the way, and scattered
over decades, not markers of the childrens’ graves; it’s mentioned that
the “faded ribbon” was dropped down a hole. The other items likely met a
similar fate; however, all the humans made it Asgore at the end. They
did not make it past him.
Why did she take Chara when she left?
She didn’t do it out of spite, but believed that they deserved a proper burial.
Why didn’t she leave the barrier, and kill six people herself?
Toriel never wanted that plan to go through.
Toriel never wanted humans to be killed to break the barrier, even to free her kingdom. She would never have killed anyone to make it happen.
She didn’t call him out because she thought he should have left the barrier to kill more humans, she called him out because he gave everyone false hope and killed people; if four humans died and no others arrived then monsters would still be trapped forever, but the humans would still be dead.
Even when she’s facing down someone who killed her children, she cannot allow someone to take his life. She didn’t just come here to save Frisk; she came to save Asgore. No lives could be taken to exit the barrier. The value of life was absolute.
ASGORE
…and I think we should try to understand Asgore’s plight as well.
He declared war in a moment of devastation.
When Asgore declared war on humanity, he had just lost two children. He watched his son die from the wounds the humans inflicted on him, when he didn’t raise a finger to harm them. Humans who locked them in a hole to rot for thousands of years.
…and then couldn’t take it back.
The kingdom was in despair too; they had lost their prince, they lost their hope for reconciliation with the humans with Chara. He promised his entire kingdom he’d take the humans’ souls and free them.
He saved his kingdom from despair, and by the time his own grief had settled it was too late to take his promise back. He couldn’t take away their hopes and dreams.
He had a duty far beyond six souls of the humans – who doomed them to their situation and murdered his own son after he cared for one of their children – to the thousands of people in his own kingdom. It would have been justified for him to leave the barrier and kill six more humans after he got the first soul, right?
Even after everything the humans did, he still valued their lives.
This is why he didn’t leave the barrier after getting the first soul.
He couldn’t state outright that he didn’t want to kill them to the kingdom, and plunge them back into the horror of being trapped in the dark forever. But he still hoped to never kill another one, even after they kept coming. Even after the sixth. If he could avoid killing even one, he would. To this end, he even instructed his scientists to find any other way to
break the barrier, without a single other person having to die.
For the record, here’s how he looks at Frisk when he sees the very last soul he needs to free his people from millennia of imprisonment that they never deserved:
He takes two steps back and stares at Frisk in utter horror. There’s a long silence. He actually panicked when he saw Frisk.
And how many times does he try to to spare your life?
Translation: Please don’t come into the next room.
“If not, I understand. I am not ready either.”
Translation: Please turn back.
There’s still time.
And when he finally does fight you…
He holds himself way, way back. He has the ability to one-shot you. He has the potential to not get a scratch on him from Frisk’s tiny LV 1 self. What’s going on here?
Because they are made of magic, monsters’ bodies are attuned to their SOUL.
If a monster doesn’t want to fight, its defenses will weaken.
And the crueler the intentions of our enemies, the more their attacks will hurt us.
This is how much he doesn’t want to fight you. Along with holding back his last attack, so you can only ever die if you’re already at 1 HP.
So why’d he destroy the mercy button?
He doesn’t really want to win either. And in the event he loses, he doesn’t want mercy. If Flowey doesn’t show up…
He dismisses his idea of living with Frisk peacefully as a fantasy, says Frisk and his other human child “have the same look of hope in your eyes”, thinks Frisk could be the Angel of the delta rune prophecy, and believes they can free everyone from outside the barrier. He then takes his own life.
He was not wrong to want to spare the humans.
Despite their souls being necessary to free everyone, It’s important to understand the stakes here. With each successive soul, he is not just looking down at the possibility of taking another child’s life when they show up. If he gets 7, he will no longer have an excuse to stay below ground. He will have to break it. He will then have to destroy the lives of billions to let his people on the surface.
but if one shows up….
If a human shows up in his castle, it is because they want to leave. The confrontation is then inevitable, because they have to take his soul to do that. He never hunts them down. But if it comes to fight, he has a duty to fight and try to take their soul, for the entire kingdom. Their hopes are riding on him. So he killed them.
…and the barrier really couldn’t have been be broken without 6 of them, and the souls of every monster underground except Napstablook.
I think it’s possible to appreciate the agonizing position Asgore was put in, as a person so gentle he couldn’t even painlessly take the lives of humans, who killed his son and trapped them underground, with the hopes of the entire kingdom, and the destruction of an entire species, resting on his shoulders to do it.
I think it’s also possible to appreciate the position of Toriel, who has lost several of her children to his hands, and can’t forget it or forgive it, but still believes he deserves mercy.
It’s no competition. Please love both of the goat parents. Neither are bad people and they’ve been through too much.
4 Reasons why you probably shouldn’t see Chara or Frisk as Player
inserts.
I’m seeing it be debated, and I have toyed with the
idea myself, that Frisk, Chara, or even both are representations of “the Player”
either as “self-insertions” or as embodiments of two different mindsets of RPG
gamers: The “explorer” type and the “min-maxer” or “level grinder.”
But is it really fair for these characters story-arcs, to
have them boiled down to being allegories of common gaming tropes?
After all, we don’t normally accredit other fictional characters
achievements as our own. We did not save the world from and alien force, or
stop a falling meteor from bringing ruin to the land. Playing videogames, particularly
RPGs, allow us an experience where we can explore and interact with the
fictional world a game presents in ways that are unique to itself and its
genre. Yet, while we may name a character after ourselves we do not expect the character
to assume the role of us but rather us assuming the role of the character. (Hence,
the role playing aspect of a “role-playing-game.”)
Therefore here is a list of reasons why Chara and Frisk are not
“Player Inserts”
1. Any name you give the fallen human that is not Chara is
the incorrect name. Despite given the freedom to name the fallen human whatever
we want the game will always ask:
The game questions you about the name you just put in, not
many games do that. And while even Toby Fox says that the name you should use
is your own, there is only one name that the game will recognize as “True”
There is no “is this correct?” to make you second guess. For
there to be a true name all other names must be “false” or at the very least “borrowed”
ones.
Why would Toby Fox tell us to give the fallen human a name
that is not truly theirs? Well, why did Toby Fox hide Frisk’s name until the
very end, making us think that they were the fallen human we named from the beginning?
Perhaps it’s to add another layer of separation between us and the characters
we “play as” and assume we know all about.
2. Naming the fallen human after us does not turn them into
us. They have their own specific backstory that we can not “customize.” Just as
every other person who has your name in real life is not an extension of yourself;
the fallen human does not become a doppelganger of the player. ((Or an
alternate universe version of yourself)) Just as naming a character in a
videogame, even blank slate characters in RPGs, does not make them “us”. We
just make the game more convenient for us to get into the character’s shoes when
we name them after ourselves.
((Chara has a borderline Shakespearian tragedy as a backstory that we have no direct part in.))
3. Frisk’s obscure backstory does not make it open for self
insertion. Just like how their name was known only to them and not to us, their
history is something only they know.
((I know I certainly don’t))
4. What we consider “a game” that we play to us, is the
world to them.
The narration is done for Frisk’s sake not our own. If save
files exist for the character’s own benefit in universe is it really such a
stretch that the other “RPG mechanics” are also a part of its nature? Barring
the “Chara as the narrator theory” at the very least Sans speech about LOVE and
Chara’s speech at the end of the Bad route breaks down things we players know
as STATS to have in world significance.
Should we really impose our “gamer logic” on a game that is actively
using that logic against us?
In the end what claim do we really have on these mysterious fictional kids outside of getting Frisk from point A to point B? Not much, but that’s what a role playing game is: a journey we walk in another’s shoes, not our own. Games give us the power to determine the outcome of their tale, be it good or bad.
honestly just really like undertale 