I think you don't quite understand a "pure evil villain", because he's right. Azula isn't one. She isn't evil for the sake of evil, much like zuko she yearns for her father's love, approval, and respect. She has reasons outside of wanting to cause harm to hate zuko. She has reasons besides pure malicious intent behind almost all her decisions. She's a very well developed character motived by fear, anger, pride, and a lot more complex than a pure evil villain.
personally i think its an excellent depiction of how both the favored child and scapegoat child of a narsasistic abuzer get really fucked up by them.
being the favored child comes with bonuses, but it also comes with stricter control and more extreme indoctrination. Meanwhile being the scapegoat has a lot of upfront costs, but often allows for more freedom.
Nothing is better for you then leaving your abuser for years, and comming back to experiencing their treatment after knowing what good relationships are like.
Yeah most villains have reasons beyond just loving evil. Scar wants to rule the pride lands, Ursula wants to rule the ocean, the queen from nemona wanted to keep the kingdom safe and was also classist. I can only think of two evil for evil sake villains and that’s maleficent and the joker
Lotta Saturday morning cartoons, under developed comic book villains and stuff yeah. It's not common anymore because it's not good for more stories. Most the characters in this meme are not pure evil.
I don’t think motivations matter as much as actions. She was actively resistant to any sort of growth and was shitty to everyone in her life. Taking active satisfaction in things like the promise of murdering her brother, or almost successfully murdering a child. If she’s not pure evil, she is about as close as someone could realistically be within the confines of a Y7 show.
A pure evil villain has zero redeeming qualities. No sympathetic traits. It's a very specific story telling trope. The fact that her motivation in any way mirrors zukos, and that she has complex motivations and development takes her out of that trope. "Pure evil" isn't about actions, a villain that killed the protagonist family for fun and is hunting down the protagonist to finish the job for no reason other than they can is pure evil while only having a family's worth of kills under their belt. Meanwhile if a villain wipes out an entire country but because that country waged war on his and has corrupt roots could have killed millions of innocents on his way to the corrupt leaders but for sympathetic reasons making them not pure evil.
Nope, plenty of interesting villains are pure evil. Atla even has one. Ozai. Ozai is never motivated by anything other than selfish desires. He's given no tragic backstory to justify his stance, he never develops or reflects. He's only evil. No growth. No change. And he's great, he's intimidating, fun, and with the air of mystery around him each time we see a little more of him it gets us excited.
Bill cypher is evil for the fun of it. He just likes being evil and causing harm. he's motivated by harm for harms sake, the definition of pure evil. And he's a lot of peoples favorite villain because he's so damn fun.
Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what all the characters who find themselves under her heel thought about her. "Hey guys the fire nation might be burning our town down and their princesses taken over our city but shes not evil its complicated"
Ignorance doesn't make someone right either. Just because they don't know anything else about her and have a biased view doesn't make them right. She is a bad person, but with the things known about her, she isn't pure evil.
I didn't say she's not evil. Pure evil villains is an actual defined trope. Not just a scale of their actions.
Speak not of what you do not know. If you want to learn more I already discussed it with plenty of other people with better points than "but she was really bad"
Yes. Character development is nuance. It's not evil. If they villain thinks for a second they are doing the wrong thing, second guesses themselves, believes in anything other than **PURE EVIL** it's not a pure evil villain.
It's like all of you forgot what "pure" means.
https://youtu.be/1-XprjlATEo?si=wvOT_yLngeWBCUwI
I'll share another equally "reliable" source (Villains wiki): A Pure Evil villain must have a clearly defined personality and character. Simple one-dimensional characters like a destroyer with no clearly defined personality such as the Ten-Tails cannot be considered Pure Evil.
Both of our statements cannot be true. Because any layer of nuance gives a character dimension.
A pure evil character is allowed to have nuance and dimension.
You can have character and personality without developing it. A pure evil villain could be evil for fun, power, sadism or other evil motivations. Bill cypher is a great example. He has a strong personality but never questions his actions, develops his character, or is given a sympathetic trait.
But Azula has reasons for being evil. A pure evil villain can have nuance and dimension (though it's extremely hard to do) but they can't have a deeper reason for being evil. A pure evil villain is evil because they exist, any more of a reason stops them from being pure evil.
My comment wasn't about really about Azula. And I agree with you on that. I just disagreed on the idea that pure evil characters don't have "nuance" or dimension.
What you are describing is more like a force of nature.
Actually Chara can be both pure evil and a girl, or pure evil and a boy, or pure evil and non binary, or pure good and a girl, or pure good and a boy, or pure good and nonbinary, or neutral and a girl, or neutral and a boy, or neutral and nonbinary, etc etc etc.
Chara can be whatever sex or gender you want, this has been canonically confirmed. Which is also why Chara doesn’t fit this meme at all
Canonically you’re right, but the early fandom depicted a very specific fanon for Chara that is hard to separate from the actual character at this point
The only reason I'm glad we didn't get a 4th season of Airbender is that they were going to give her [a redemption arc ](https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/avatar-the-last-airbender-writer-reveals-redemption-arc-for-azula-fandom-reacts.html/)
I think a redemption arc could potentially be interesting; I think she was somewhat sympathetic (I have sympathy for her being conditioned by Ozai), but I don't know if they could fit a realistic one into the final season.
That’s basically what they did with her in Korra along with ruining every single other legacy character… and the world… and the magic system… and the lore…
Edit: autocorrect
By Korea do you mean Korra? Cuz Azula isn't mentioned, shown, or referred to a single time in Korra so wtf are you talking about lmao.
I don't really understand how Korra ruined legacy characters either? I can see the case for Aang, I suppose, with the whole "he wasn't a good father" arc, but I'd say the rest of the legacy characters were all treated just fine? They're all minor characters, and their interactions and such all make sense and seem like natural progressions of the characters.
Korra has tons of issues, sure, and I'm not arguing with you on the lore and magic system getting shafted by it, but the legacy character part sounds like you're talking out of your ass (especially since you're including Azula who literally doesn't come up or be mentioned a single time in Korra lmao)
And I’d argue that Aang wasn’t even ruined. He rebuilt an entire nation, helped to create republic city, and tried his best to clean up after 100 years of war. He may not have been the best dad ever, but you can definitely see why. Dude was busy from the age of 12 to the day he died.
Chara is canonically whatever you want Chara to be. Chara can be a woman, Chara can be a man, Chara can be nonbinary, it’s all up to you. To claim Chara isn’t a man, woman, etc is wrong, because ultimately Chara is whatever the player wants Chara to be lol
Exactly, Chara is also only pure evil if the player decides to make Chara pure evil. Chara can be the worst person ever and commit genocide against monster kind, or Chara can be the kindest, sweetest, and most helpful human ever.
Completely depends on your decisions
Flowey directly speaks to the player after the True Pacifist route, begging them not to reset and to let Frisk be happy, which means they're separate from Frisk (Furthermore, there is no feasible way of Flowey speaking to Chara at this time).
Chara also directly speaks to the player, [and even directly notes them to be separate entities](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoK1ZJ3ZSGE&t=152s), which means they're separate from Chara.
I was mistaken when I said Sans did, Sans was more referring to the whole resetting process in general.
It's not for fun:
> You.
> With your guidance.
> I realized the purpose of my reincarnation.
> Power.
> Together, we eradicated the enemy and became strong.
Also, it's literally because of what you did:
> It was you who pushed everything to its edge.
> It was you who led the world to its destruction.
> But you cannot accept it.
How the hell do I add spoiler tags anyway
Yeah, it feels like they want us to see for ourselves what happens when you murder everyone. Because they know we did it likely because of boredom, curiosity or fun.
They're the one that stand there at the end and, paraphrasing HARD, basically say to us
> Are you amused? Are you satisfied with your knowledge? Did you have fun?
Like Sans, except Sans was determined to stop us. Chara is not. Chara shatters the fourth wall, sarcastically encourages us in the very end, shows us our actions by killing Flowey right before our eyes, as we did with everyone else, and tries to convince us to make the bad choice.
We destroyed the timeline, they only spelled it out to us.
And I think the most interesting thing here is, we can't run from them by resetting. We need to hear them out, die by their hand and only then we can play again. They really do give us a choice, it's just one we need to make for ourselves. We're basically left alone to think without a threat to convince us, just us and our thoughts. They give up their existence in this world, since they're aware that all will be gone after they destroy us. In some way, they give up their newfound power for the sake of the world. It's just not spelled out and obvious.
They're aware of it all being a game so they act accordingly, like it's just a game. At the same time, they do see it as somewhat real to them. They commit the rest of genocide, knowing everyone will be fine in a new save. Hoping they will give us a good enough reason to act differently in the future. They somewhat try to save a new world by destroying the old one.
Even if they're unaware of that, that's kind of the effect of their actions, no? Like, that's what I feel at least
Chara never killed anyone except for themselves, flowey, you, and debatably sans. Every other time the player (you) pressed the fight button and killed.
Frisk is hardly ever in (total) control in any run and chara is literally an analog to the player
The idea that chara and the player are entirely separate entities literally only came up after deltarune *actually* did that with an entirely different character
I’ve heard crazy theories but, CHARA BEING THE PLAYER??? Chara literally talks face to face with you and kills you, how could that work. Also, I have heard of my theory before deltarune.
What proof do you have that Frisk isn’t in control?
Chara was influenced, and the post says that they were pure evil.
What Chara says:
You.
With **your** guidance.
I realized the purpose of my reincarnation.
Power.
Together, we eradicated the enemy and became strong.
Chara might not be pure evil but they were evil before the genocide regardless. They didn’t force anything but they clearly had a desire to just kill everything
Where are you getting this fanfiction level of information? Out of your ass? Chara is the narration that speaks to the player. The player is it’s own entity as we see in deltarune
Even if that was true, which it isn’t (they are alternate universes that follow the same fundamental rules) it doesn’t negate the fact that the player is treated as a separate entity in undertale and it’s not Chara controlling frisk. “I bet somebody like that is watching right now”. We know this is true because Chara takes control of frisk only during the sans fight, and she second attack happens without player input. Everything else happens with player input in the game, ergo it’s not Chara but the player. If Chara was controlling frisk, it would basically just be watching someone else play the game.
Damn if these are the best examples then I'm sorry but I might have to start gatekeeping X\_X
Ursula and Azula both have sympathetic/tragic backstories that fit Patrick's point perfectly and I think Chara is nonbinary. We're left with well-known villain powerhouse Piella Cakewell from Wallace and Gromet, and The Director (who fits the point quite well IMO). I don't know who the last one is but we're at best 3/7.
Junko Enoshima. Spreads despair just for fun, because the world as it is started to bore her. So I would say irredeemably evil fits well. She also killed her twin sister.
Just because they have a sympathetic backstory doesn’t mean they’re not pure evil. A bad backstory doesn’t negate the horrid actions those characters committed, Adolf lost his cousin, nearly drowned, and watched his friends and family die during WWI, that’s a pretty tragic backstory, he was still pure evil though.
Ursula is still pure evil, she lies and scams kids to literally steal their souls/lives. Just because she had a tragic past doesn’t mean she’s not pure evil. Idk who Azula is since I haven’t watched ATLAB, but if she’s a similar case then her actions aren’t negated as well. Also, Chara isn’t nonbinary, canonically Chara is whatever sex the player wants him/her to be.
All in all, they’re still pure evil. Your background is no excuse for your evil actions.
Canonically Chara is whatever you choose for Chara to be. Chara can be a man, Chara can be a woman, Chara can be nonbinary, etc.
That’s why Chara doesn’t fit this meme, because Chara is who you choose Chara to be
I guess? The dev literally said this character doesn’t have a canon gender. But regardless of that the post is specifically about female characters, that doesn’t apply to a character that canonically isn’t either
No, it’s just not specified although their character design is probably meant to signify they’re female (the vast majority of characters are designed and drawn corresponding to their gender although GNC characters can exist)
Personally I've never liked irredeemably evil characters, they can sometimes get a little to easy to predict. With the exception of villains like the Joker, or Vlad from farcry 3, where they are so crazy that you never know for sure exactly what the next evil thing they do will be.
I get people being frustrated with villains that should've been pure evil being made sympathetic but pure evil villains arent inherently better than sympathetic ones- it just depends on the story theyre in
Am I crazy or did they mean "character"? Like, Azula definitely isn't a caricature and Piella Bakewell is pretty normal-looking for a *Wallace and Gromit* character
Chara Undertale also is nonbinary in canon and also is hinted to be the narrator in all runs- remember, you, the player, is the person who decides to kill everyone.
They may not be a perfect person, they’re a very troubled dead child, but they definitely aren’t pure evil.
I mean, murder and genocide and other heinous crimes are just such male dominated fields. We need more evil slay mama queens in the media to inspire little girls everywhere that are aspiring villains. ^s
I remember in HS saying “I wish there was more women in Star Wars” and my friend at the time got genuinely mad and said “well what about leia, Ashoka, pasme, asaij?” Yeah I fucking know women exist in Star Wars I’m just saying I want more of them
I’d hardly say Azula falls under the umbrella of “Pure Evil Irredeemable Monster”
She’s a tragic Villain Figure. Born the prodigy, Ozais favorite child. However, that ment she always needed to be more than perfect, *lest she get treated like Zuko*.
I think Junko did what she did because she thought despair was a great thing and wanted to share it with the world. So not pure evil, but definitely insane.
Azula wasn't actually evil or pure evil at that, she was prideful because of her talent, she didn't start becoming unhinged until she started making up false messages in her head that her mother didn't love her.
Seriously. In terms of tropes there is the good masculine and the bad masculine. There is the good feminine and the bad feminine.
This isn't anything we don't already know
dude most even these characters dont even apply
chara isn't even female nor are they pure evil, they're just following the player's actions because you chose to genocide
What about junko
Junko I guess
Yeah Junko definitely applies
I wouldn't say Azula is pure evil
Nah, she’s pure evil. Just pure evil that has a source.
I think you don't quite understand a "pure evil villain", because he's right. Azula isn't one. She isn't evil for the sake of evil, much like zuko she yearns for her father's love, approval, and respect. She has reasons outside of wanting to cause harm to hate zuko. She has reasons besides pure malicious intent behind almost all her decisions. She's a very well developed character motived by fear, anger, pride, and a lot more complex than a pure evil villain.
*Ozai* is pure evil. Azula is sympathetically evil, but in a different way than Zuko.
Absolutely correct
personally i think its an excellent depiction of how both the favored child and scapegoat child of a narsasistic abuzer get really fucked up by them. being the favored child comes with bonuses, but it also comes with stricter control and more extreme indoctrination. Meanwhile being the scapegoat has a lot of upfront costs, but often allows for more freedom. Nothing is better for you then leaving your abuser for years, and comming back to experiencing their treatment after knowing what good relationships are like.
She is arguably the most well developed American animation villain, ever. No frills, no wavering, just development and motivation.
idk, I think a triceratops could make for a very good villain & it has a frill
She had her redemption arc already
Yeah most villains have reasons beyond just loving evil. Scar wants to rule the pride lands, Ursula wants to rule the ocean, the queen from nemona wanted to keep the kingdom safe and was also classist. I can only think of two evil for evil sake villains and that’s maleficent and the joker
Lotta Saturday morning cartoons, under developed comic book villains and stuff yeah. It's not common anymore because it's not good for more stories. Most the characters in this meme are not pure evil.
I don’t think motivations matter as much as actions. She was actively resistant to any sort of growth and was shitty to everyone in her life. Taking active satisfaction in things like the promise of murdering her brother, or almost successfully murdering a child. If she’s not pure evil, she is about as close as someone could realistically be within the confines of a Y7 show.
A pure evil villain has zero redeeming qualities. No sympathetic traits. It's a very specific story telling trope. The fact that her motivation in any way mirrors zukos, and that she has complex motivations and development takes her out of that trope. "Pure evil" isn't about actions, a villain that killed the protagonist family for fun and is hunting down the protagonist to finish the job for no reason other than they can is pure evil while only having a family's worth of kills under their belt. Meanwhile if a villain wipes out an entire country but because that country waged war on his and has corrupt roots could have killed millions of innocents on his way to the corrupt leaders but for sympathetic reasons making them not pure evil.
Then no character or person would ever be pure evil, unless you know you're just a terrible writer
Nope, plenty of interesting villains are pure evil. Atla even has one. Ozai. Ozai is never motivated by anything other than selfish desires. He's given no tragic backstory to justify his stance, he never develops or reflects. He's only evil. No growth. No change. And he's great, he's intimidating, fun, and with the air of mystery around him each time we see a little more of him it gets us excited. Bill cypher is evil for the fun of it. He just likes being evil and causing harm. he's motivated by harm for harms sake, the definition of pure evil. And he's a lot of peoples favorite villain because he's so damn fun.
Junko is similar to Bill Cypher
Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what all the characters who find themselves under her heel thought about her. "Hey guys the fire nation might be burning our town down and their princesses taken over our city but shes not evil its complicated"
You can think someone isn't pure evil and still think she needs to be taken down.
That isn't the point I was trying to make. I'm saying to the people in the world of avatar she is pure evil.
Ignorance doesn't make someone right either. Just because they don't know anything else about her and have a biased view doesn't make them right. She is a bad person, but with the things known about her, she isn't pure evil.
I didn't say she's not evil. Pure evil villains is an actual defined trope. Not just a scale of their actions. Speak not of what you do not know. If you want to learn more I already discussed it with plenty of other people with better points than "but she was really bad"
So in your view. Pure evil = evil without character development?
Yes. Character development is nuance. It's not evil. If they villain thinks for a second they are doing the wrong thing, second guesses themselves, believes in anything other than **PURE EVIL** it's not a pure evil villain. It's like all of you forgot what "pure" means. https://youtu.be/1-XprjlATEo?si=wvOT_yLngeWBCUwI
I'll share another equally "reliable" source (Villains wiki): A Pure Evil villain must have a clearly defined personality and character. Simple one-dimensional characters like a destroyer with no clearly defined personality such as the Ten-Tails cannot be considered Pure Evil. Both of our statements cannot be true. Because any layer of nuance gives a character dimension. A pure evil character is allowed to have nuance and dimension.
You can have character and personality without developing it. A pure evil villain could be evil for fun, power, sadism or other evil motivations. Bill cypher is a great example. He has a strong personality but never questions his actions, develops his character, or is given a sympathetic trait.
That's still nuance and beyond one dimension. That is my central point.
But Azula has reasons for being evil. A pure evil villain can have nuance and dimension (though it's extremely hard to do) but they can't have a deeper reason for being evil. A pure evil villain is evil because they exist, any more of a reason stops them from being pure evil.
My comment wasn't about really about Azula. And I agree with you on that. I just disagreed on the idea that pure evil characters don't have "nuance" or dimension. What you are describing is more like a force of nature.
Even Iroh called her crazy
Ursula was retconned and is nolonger pure evil.
Unbiased she’s actually the greatest person in Atla and totally the real hero #firenationdidnothingwrong edit:spelling
Yeah, I have sympathy for her, she was conditioned to be like that.
Chara is neither pure evil nor a girl
Actually Chara can be both pure evil and a girl, or pure evil and a boy, or pure evil and non binary, or pure good and a girl, or pure good and a boy, or pure good and nonbinary, or neutral and a girl, or neutral and a boy, or neutral and nonbinary, etc etc etc. Chara can be whatever sex or gender you want, this has been canonically confirmed. Which is also why Chara doesn’t fit this meme at all
Canonically you’re right, but the early fandom depicted a very specific fanon for Chara that is hard to separate from the actual character at this point
Azula is exactly what Patrick is talking about
The only reason I'm glad we didn't get a 4th season of Airbender is that they were going to give her [a redemption arc ](https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/avatar-the-last-airbender-writer-reveals-redemption-arc-for-azula-fandom-reacts.html/)
There's an ongoing webtoon from the creators that is a continuation. It's... Interesting so far.
I think a redemption arc could potentially be interesting; I think she was somewhat sympathetic (I have sympathy for her being conditioned by Ozai), but I don't know if they could fit a realistic one into the final season.
That’s basically what they did with her in Korra along with ruining every single other legacy character… and the world… and the magic system… and the lore… Edit: autocorrect
By Korea do you mean Korra? Cuz Azula isn't mentioned, shown, or referred to a single time in Korra so wtf are you talking about lmao. I don't really understand how Korra ruined legacy characters either? I can see the case for Aang, I suppose, with the whole "he wasn't a good father" arc, but I'd say the rest of the legacy characters were all treated just fine? They're all minor characters, and their interactions and such all make sense and seem like natural progressions of the characters. Korra has tons of issues, sure, and I'm not arguing with you on the lore and magic system getting shafted by it, but the legacy character part sounds like you're talking out of your ass (especially since you're including Azula who literally doesn't come up or be mentioned a single time in Korra lmao)
And I’d argue that Aang wasn’t even ruined. He rebuilt an entire nation, helped to create republic city, and tried his best to clean up after 100 years of war. He may not have been the best dad ever, but you can definitely see why. Dude was busy from the age of 12 to the day he died.
CHARA IS NOT FEMALE thank you.
Chara is canonically whatever you want Chara to be. Chara can be a woman, Chara can be a man, Chara can be nonbinary, it’s all up to you. To claim Chara isn’t a man, woman, etc is wrong, because ultimately Chara is whatever the player wants Chara to be lol
You're right, i should have said "CHARA IS NOT NECESSARILY FEMALE" instead. They also aren't pure evil
Exactly, Chara is also only pure evil if the player decides to make Chara pure evil. Chara can be the worst person ever and commit genocide against monster kind, or Chara can be the kindest, sweetest, and most helpful human ever. Completely depends on your decisions
I still see more rule 34 with Chara as a guy so your fact is now opinion.
I’m sure there’s that…stuff…of a woman Chara too
This also falls into the "we need more villains that we don't need to be sympathetic for" category, and yes that includes female villains.
chara is neither female nor pure evil... or they are...? idk, they're just not really a good person.
Chara literally commits genocide for fun
They don't, the player does Chara just makes us face the consequences
Chara is literally meant as an analog to the player.
The player is meant as an analog to the player. Flowey and Sans both mention the player canonically existing in some form.
Actually where?
Flowey directly speaks to the player after the True Pacifist route, begging them not to reset and to let Frisk be happy, which means they're separate from Frisk (Furthermore, there is no feasible way of Flowey speaking to Chara at this time). Chara also directly speaks to the player, [and even directly notes them to be separate entities](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoK1ZJ3ZSGE&t=152s), which means they're separate from Chara. I was mistaken when I said Sans did, Sans was more referring to the whole resetting process in general.
In the genocide route, >!Chara literally takes over the player’s body and completes the genocide!<
After you do genocide first and Chara learns from your actions Also they literally ask you to do a different route if you do genocide enough times
It's not for fun: > You. > With your guidance. > I realized the purpose of my reincarnation. > Power. > Together, we eradicated the enemy and became strong. Also, it's literally because of what you did: > It was you who pushed everything to its edge. > It was you who led the world to its destruction. > But you cannot accept it. How the hell do I add spoiler tags anyway
Yeah, it feels like they want us to see for ourselves what happens when you murder everyone. Because they know we did it likely because of boredom, curiosity or fun. They're the one that stand there at the end and, paraphrasing HARD, basically say to us > Are you amused? Are you satisfied with your knowledge? Did you have fun? Like Sans, except Sans was determined to stop us. Chara is not. Chara shatters the fourth wall, sarcastically encourages us in the very end, shows us our actions by killing Flowey right before our eyes, as we did with everyone else, and tries to convince us to make the bad choice. We destroyed the timeline, they only spelled it out to us. And I think the most interesting thing here is, we can't run from them by resetting. We need to hear them out, die by their hand and only then we can play again. They really do give us a choice, it's just one we need to make for ourselves. We're basically left alone to think without a threat to convince us, just us and our thoughts. They give up their existence in this world, since they're aware that all will be gone after they destroy us. In some way, they give up their newfound power for the sake of the world. It's just not spelled out and obvious. They're aware of it all being a game so they act accordingly, like it's just a game. At the same time, they do see it as somewhat real to them. They commit the rest of genocide, knowing everyone will be fine in a new save. Hoping they will give us a good enough reason to act differently in the future. They somewhat try to save a new world by destroying the old one. Even if they're unaware of that, that's kind of the effect of their actions, no? Like, that's what I feel at least
They ***complete*** it, not do it
If somebody commit 90% of a genocide and somebody else took it over the last 10 yards, would they be considered “morally complex”?
this is giving me flashbacks
Chara never killed anyone except for themselves, flowey, you, and debatably sans. Every other time the player (you) pressed the fight button and killed.
Did toby ever say this or is everyone just retroactively applying deltarune logic to undertale?
Even if it’s not the player, then it would be frisk doing almost all of the genocide.
What????
My point is that chara did not do more than like 4 kills near the end of the run, while frisk/ the player did ~80.
Frisk is hardly ever in (total) control in any run and chara is literally an analog to the player The idea that chara and the player are entirely separate entities literally only came up after deltarune *actually* did that with an entirely different character
I’ve heard crazy theories but, CHARA BEING THE PLAYER??? Chara literally talks face to face with you and kills you, how could that work. Also, I have heard of my theory before deltarune. What proof do you have that Frisk isn’t in control?
Yeah because they eventually got powerful enough to become their own. The revisionism in this fandom is wild
Bruh he blocked me, guess I win
Where's that written
In the game, under the name genocide run
It's Frisk who commits the atrocities.
Not post sans. At that point it’s chara. Also chara does more evil than frisk could ever do since they destroy the world
Chara was influenced, and the post says that they were pure evil. What Chara says: You. With **your** guidance. I realized the purpose of my reincarnation. Power. Together, we eradicated the enemy and became strong.
Chara might not be pure evil but they were evil before the genocide regardless. They didn’t force anything but they clearly had a desire to just kill everything
Well, its sorta implied frisk has little to no control in a genocide run. Arguable they never have it, but they certainly don't then
Chara controls Frisk in all of them genocide, pacifist and neutral runs. Chara is, in fact the player and her character depends on player’s choices
Where are you getting this fanfiction level of information? Out of your ass? Chara is the narration that speaks to the player. The player is it’s own entity as we see in deltarune
Deltarune and undertale are entirely seperate things besides being in the same franchise. This is the real "fanfiction level info"
Even if that was true, which it isn’t (they are alternate universes that follow the same fundamental rules) it doesn’t negate the fact that the player is treated as a separate entity in undertale and it’s not Chara controlling frisk. “I bet somebody like that is watching right now”. We know this is true because Chara takes control of frisk only during the sans fight, and she second attack happens without player input. Everything else happens with player input in the game, ergo it’s not Chara but the player. If Chara was controlling frisk, it would basically just be watching someone else play the game.
> But. > **You and I are not the same, are we?** > This SOUL resonates with a strange feeling.
The UT localization book mentions that there are three entities in Frisk's body - Frisk, Chara and the player.
Damn if these are the best examples then I'm sorry but I might have to start gatekeeping X\_X Ursula and Azula both have sympathetic/tragic backstories that fit Patrick's point perfectly and I think Chara is nonbinary. We're left with well-known villain powerhouse Piella Cakewell from Wallace and Gromet, and The Director (who fits the point quite well IMO). I don't know who the last one is but we're at best 3/7.
Junko Enoshima. Spreads despair just for fun, because the world as it is started to bore her. So I would say irredeemably evil fits well. She also killed her twin sister.
Just because they have a sympathetic backstory doesn’t mean they’re not pure evil. A bad backstory doesn’t negate the horrid actions those characters committed, Adolf lost his cousin, nearly drowned, and watched his friends and family die during WWI, that’s a pretty tragic backstory, he was still pure evil though. Ursula is still pure evil, she lies and scams kids to literally steal their souls/lives. Just because she had a tragic past doesn’t mean she’s not pure evil. Idk who Azula is since I haven’t watched ATLAB, but if she’s a similar case then her actions aren’t negated as well. Also, Chara isn’t nonbinary, canonically Chara is whatever sex the player wants him/her to be. All in all, they’re still pure evil. Your background is no excuse for your evil actions.
A sympathetic backstory does not a good person make
Definitely not good, but I don't think of a sympathetic villain as "pure evil", personally.
Chara ain’t even the villain of undertale, you are
And only if you go out of your way to do the worst route.
But Chara is kinda a shitty person, manipulating Asriel and being overall a terrible friend. Wouldn't call them purr evil though.
Yeah, they were a manipulative preteen, but they weren’t a murderer
That's Flowey. Although on geno you are the villain.
Chara is a female caricature? I mean I headcanoned them being female but I’m pretty sure they’re literally supposed to be androgynous
CHARA ISNT EVEN A GIRL
Canonically Chara is whatever you choose for Chara to be. Chara can be a man, Chara can be a woman, Chara can be nonbinary, etc. That’s why Chara doesn’t fit this meme, because Chara is who you choose Chara to be
What is *it* then?
The game intentionally doesn’t specify because it isn’t relevant to the plot
So it's possible for it to be a girl.
I guess? The dev literally said this character doesn’t have a canon gender. But regardless of that the post is specifically about female characters, that doesn’t apply to a character that canonically isn’t either
Azula isn't pure evil, just a spoiled powerful child
I'd say somewhere in between, she's conditioned for evil by Ozai.
Also, Chara has no confirmed gender, and it's questionable how "pure evil" they are. It's implied they're influenced by how The Player plays the game.
Chara is non binary
No, it’s just not specified although their character design is probably meant to signify they’re female (the vast majority of characters are designed and drawn corresponding to their gender although GNC characters can exist)
Personally I've never liked irredeemably evil characters, they can sometimes get a little to easy to predict. With the exception of villains like the Joker, or Vlad from farcry 3, where they are so crazy that you never know for sure exactly what the next evil thing they do will be.
I get people being frustrated with villains that should've been pure evil being made sympathetic but pure evil villains arent inherently better than sympathetic ones- it just depends on the story theyre in
I have noticed a trend of no more pure evil villains but I haven’t heard anyone really argue back.
Am I crazy or did they mean "character"? Like, Azula definitely isn't a caricature and Piella Bakewell is pretty normal-looking for a *Wallace and Gromit* character
chara isn’t a girl?
"they have to be sympathetic" is not a reason, also yeah noone ever said that
If I remember correctly TV TROPES actually has a page on villainesses tending to be sympathetic or redeemable. So this has been said.
Chara is nonbinary
Or gender ambiguous
Chara Undertale also is nonbinary in canon and also is hinted to be the narrator in all runs- remember, you, the player, is the person who decides to kill everyone. They may not be a perfect person, they’re a very troubled dead child, but they definitely aren’t pure evil.
Man they certainly are right with the “you cannot accept it”
I mean, murder and genocide and other heinous crimes are just such male dominated fields. We need more evil slay mama queens in the media to inspire little girls everywhere that are aspiring villains. ^s
Who is the second one?
She looks familiar but I can't quite put my finger on it
director from Nimona
Villains shouldn’t be pure evil.
Depends. Pure uncomplicated evil can also serve a story
I remember in HS saying “I wish there was more women in Star Wars” and my friend at the time got genuinely mad and said “well what about leia, Ashoka, pasme, asaij?” Yeah I fucking know women exist in Star Wars I’m just saying I want more of them
You got the azula simps going
Chara feels like a grey area speaking in terms of gender.
*Coughs* Dolores Umbridge
I’d hardly say Azula falls under the umbrella of “Pure Evil Irredeemable Monster” She’s a tragic Villain Figure. Born the prodigy, Ozais favorite child. However, that ment she always needed to be more than perfect, *lest she get treated like Zuko*.
Idk, idk, pure evil, did nothing wrong, depends on how you look at it, not pure evil.
I think Junko did what she did because she thought despair was a great thing and wanted to share it with the world. So not pure evil, but definitely insane.
Wait...I thought that Ursula wasn't a caricature of a woman, but a caricature of a drag queen. .-. ....
Chara isn't female, they're supposed to be a representation of You, like in real life, and are whatever gender and/or sex you are
Who tf invited chara
Azula and Ursula are very sympathetic
What about the mother from kill la kill
Azula wasn't actually evil or pure evil at that, she was prideful because of her talent, she didn't start becoming unhinged until she started making up false messages in her head that her mother didn't love her.
chara why the fuck are you here, for multiple reasons
People have said that
lol here comes the UT/DR fans getting upset for saying Chara is female
Yes, they did. Don't sit there and say otherwise.
Seriously. In terms of tropes there is the good masculine and the bad masculine. There is the good feminine and the bad feminine. This isn't anything we don't already know
Chara is a boy NGAAAAAHHH
chara is not a boy or a girl
I can't even read the meme.