WARNING: THIS ESSAY CONTAINS BOTH UNDERTALE SPOILERS AND STUFF THAT MAY ANGER THE FANDOM; PARTICULARLY FANS OF GENOCIDE CHARA. Do not read unless you A. Have already played Undertale, and B. Can tolerate the contents of this post.



The Many Faces of Chara



A Comparison of Undertale Theories



Added a hierarchy of fan theory evidence.

Added the origins, major influences, and major arguments of each theory.

Renamed Reincarnation Theory to Passive Frisk Theory, added new variations on the theory.

Renamed Control Theory to Third Entity Theory, added new information.



Added a list of common Chara depictions by fans, plus links to examples.

Expanded on the rise and current fall of Genocide Chara Theory, as well as the rise of Narrator/Passive Chara Theory.

Added a section on what will happen if Toby Fox confirms one of the theories.



I. Introduction

lying

Where this essay came from.

The goal of this essay is to compare theories, not be a theory.

this is not a theory essay, but a comparison of theories.

because there isn't one.

II. The Variables



The hierarchy of fan theory validity.

I. IntroductionA. Where this essay came from.B. The goal of this essay is totheories, nota theory.II. The factors.A. The Hierarchy of fan theory validity.B. All we know about Chara.C. The Main Variables1. Are the player and Chara (or player and Frisk) separate entities?2. Does Frisk have control over themselves at all times?3. Was Chara always with Frisk?4. Is Chara evil by default, or do they become that way?5. If Chara is evil, do they have a shot at redemption?D. The Chara Theory QuestionnaireIII. The TheoriesA. Player Chara TheoryB. Passive Frisk Theories1. Theory A: Frisk is dead.2. Theory B: Frisk is blind.3. Theory C: Frisk doesn't care.4. Theory D: Frisk is Chara.C. Genocide Chara Theories1. Theory A: Chara is wearing out Frisk.2. Theory B: The Player is fighting Chara for control over Frisk.3. Theory C: Frisk is wrestling control from Chara.D. Narrator Chara Theory1. Theory A: They are Frisk's Active Guide2. Theory B: They are Frisk's Passive Guide3. Theory C: They are your narrator only.E. Summons Theories1. Theory A: Frisk Summons Chara2. Theory B: Player Summons CharaF. Third Entity Theories1. Theory A: The Player and Chara vs. Frisk2. Theory B: The Player vs. Chara vs. FriskG. Redemption Theories1. Theory A: Frisk saves Chara2. Theory B: The Player saves Chara.F. The Sliding Scale of Chara Portrayals1. Always Chaotic Evil Chara2. Redeemable Villain Chara3. Tragic Chara4. Anti-Hero Chara5. Heroic CharaIV. Chara's Final Speech, Annotated and Filtered Through Each TheoryA. On Undertale's Flimsy Fourth WallB. First Genocide RunC. Restarting the GameD. Second Genocide RunV. Where did Genocide Chara come from?A. Popular Opinion: Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's true.1. How an idea spreads.2. Comparing delivery methods of the various theories.B. Dodging Responsibility: Chara as a scapegoat for gaming violence.C. The Gimmick: Thevillain of Undertale, and it's not Chara, but something all humans have...VI. Future DirectionsA. The Downfall of Genocide Chara Theory1. Militant fans that give the theory a bad name.2. Lack of solid evidence compared to other theories.3. Mobilization of the Undertale Community.B. The dawn of the new Charas1. Passive Chara fits the tale of Undertale2. Passive Chara has more character depth than Genocide Chara3. Passive Chara can be used in many more ways than Genocide CharaC. In the event Toby Fox announces the truth...D. EpilogueWhen I first played Undertale in the Spring of 2016 (live on a stream, and a blind run, while we're at it), I was told midway through that Frisk, the character you control, and Chara, the character you name, are two separate characters, long before I ever got to the True Lab. I made a little stream card using an Undertale pack for create.swf, a vector sprite program commonly used by Touhou Project fans, and I had no idea there was a difference between Frisk and Chara, and when I made a stream intermission card of me dressed as Chara , somebody pointed this spoilery fact out. On a subsequent stream, I made a new card of me in Frisk's outfit , but little did I know of the journey I was about to embark regarding the nature of these characters.As I played, I pieced together as much as I could, eventually reaching the idea that maybe Chara was to Frisk where Asriel was to Flowey. When I reached the VHS tapes in the True Lab, I thought my ideas were confirmed. Looking at the tapes and compared to the legend the monsters told in New Home, it turned out Chara was the one behind bringing Asriel up to the surface, trying to harvest six human souls to unseal the barrier and likely go to war with humanity, and that they've turned over a new leaf by helping Frisk escape the underground. The final battle was an intense spectacle as I and Frisk battled Asriel together, and where the epilogue and finale were a great statement on video game endings:, the player, don't get the happy ending, but rathergets the happy ending. Not long later, I decided I'd make a thumbnail image for the final battle , using myself as Chara and Frisk as themselves. I thought it was a beautiful ending to a beautiful game...Then I went online and saw the Undertale fandom, and they had a different story.different story.In Undertale fandom at the time, it was generally accepted as fact that Chara is, by default, evil. It was accepted Chara has glowing red eyes and wanted nothing more than to destroy everything. There was a growing minority out there of those calling themselves the Chara Defense Squad, arguing that Chara was either the narrator or, as I thought, the player. Doing a search for Chara on DeviantArt would yield mostly red-eyed evil Charas holding knives or manipulating Frisk. On TVTropes, evil Chara was considered canon, and any notion of a good Chara was a "fan theory," despite the fact there was not enough information supporting a goodevil Chara, meaning even evil Chara was just a fan theory (and if you want to see badly people reacted to this, look at the replies to anyone who said this, saying, "Evil Chara isn't a fan theory! I read the Wikia and TVTropes pages, and Chara breaks the fourth wall to talk to the player! Therefore, it's a FACT!"). Even thedepictions of Chara show them with red eyes, even to this day. I felt like the only one who has ever uploaded anything regarding Player Chara.And I wondered,Of course, by May 20th, when I made the second edition of this guide, things changed: in the month-and-a-half since I first started writing this, I noticed an exponential growth in Narrator Chara theory and comics based on this idea. The Chara Defense Squad has grown from only a handful of artist on Tumblr to thousands. A poll on Reddit revealed that from 900+ people, Narrator Chara Theory has become the dominant theory. Just recently, TVTropes has opened the floodgates to allow Narrator Chara-related edits.As of June of 2016, there's now a fandom-wide debate regarding what can be separated as the Genocide Chara Theories (Chara is 100% evil) and the Passive Chara Theories (Chara is neutral and changes depending on how you influencing them). Fans are at eachother's throats regarding which theory is "right," with the Genocide Chara fans saying, "We were here first, so we must be right!," and the Passive Chara fans saying, "But we have more evidence!" Then the Genocide Chara fans screamed back, "But we have more evidence!" And the debate hasn't stopped.I originally wrote this essay to ask,Are these portrayalsfounded on any solid evidence like the fans claim? And if not, what makes Genocide Chara more appealing than Player Chara or Narrator Chara? And are there other theories in between all of these? In my search for answers, I found that there's actually a wide variety of possibilities.It turns out I wasn't alone: in the time I wrote this essay, a revolution was brewing across social media and gaming sites sharing these same views. Genocide Chara is slowly being overtaken by Narrator Chara, but why?With it, we can analyze what makes each theory strong or weak, and predict which one is more "accurate" than the others. For the truly curious, I have linked each theory to the major essays explaining each one, assuming there are any to begin with, as well as the works that were crafted from each theory.However, before we go any further, I must nail home a point that I already mentioned in the disclaimer:If you want my personal views of Chara, you've come to the wrong place: although I'll give a few ideas here and there, this essay isn't about "my" theories, and anyone who claims this essay is about "my" theory or theories is either a liar, an idiot, or both.I'm not here to say who's right or wrong: the most I can say is that some of the theories don't hold up as well as the others, but I'm not here to judge.Of course, this won't stop me from saying one theory is weaker than the other, otherwise there'd be no point in comparing the theories. However, please remember that just because I say one theory is weaker than the other doesn't mean I'm saying it's "wrong."as any Undertale fan can attest, a weak character in an RPG can still win a battle against a stronger opponent. So, no matter how many times I say, "Theory X is weaker than Theory Y," I will never,say Theory X is "wrong."Rather ironically,Remember(to which I will immediately tell fans of both series to lay off eachother: I'm only using them as an example of how communities scramble to figure out theories, only to have the rug pulled out from under them at the last second) and how everyone was trying to find out the identity of the child murderer and the purpose of the Purple Man? Was he a killer? Was he the one that made the robots go crazy? Was the Phone Guy behind it all? Was the Purple Man the Phone Guy? The problem withtheories was that they were all based on speculation and no in-game evidence. And, just because you see them in-game doesn't count as "in-game" evidence, i.e. seeing the person on-screen and going, "OH MY GOD, IT'S THEM! THAT MUST MEAN SOMETHING!" So when the third and fourth games came out, everyone's theories went up in a puff of smoke (or rather, a puff of the creator explaining things in a way that contradicted everyone's theories).Meanwhile, what's going on in Undertale fandom? I know at least two people who haveme simply because I hold an opposing Chara view, not to mention have had several friendships threatened simply because I hold an opposing view. I don't knock them for holding their views, but they accuse me of militantly defending my viewpoint and put words in my mouth of me accusing Chara of "doing nothing wrong" (which you'll find isn't true once you read this essay), only to go on to militantly defend their own viewpoint as "the right one."It may seem contradictory to some that I like both evilgood Chara, but to me, there's no point in defending either:Use this guide to understand the other theories, not hate others for them.If somebody wants to argue, have a civil debate and never hate the other person for holding an opposing view. I don't want this fandom tearing itself apart over something so trivial. At the end of the day, this is a game, and we're just fans of that game. Unfortunately, some fans are so downright militant that they'll do whatever it takes to threaten others over a fictional character, to which I sayEven if Toby Fox eventually releases the truth, fans will still have their headcanons.Now, let us end this singular view of Chara and move onto the next...Before we actually look at the theories themselves, we must look at whatthe theories. As I said before (and will keep reminding your throughout this essay),If we want a comprehensive, detailed look at these theories, we need to see what they're made out of before we can really say which one holds up better than the others.Sometimes the creator of a work wasn’t clear about something, sometimes they want the audience to fill in the gaps, and sometimes they just don’t care. When this happens, fans try to piece together theories explaining why things are the way they are, why certain characters have which motivations, why and how different things happened that otherwise went unexplained.

Obviously, it has to do with the quantity and quality of the evidence. The quantity part is easy: you just organize the evidence in a way that creates a compelling argument, and the more you have in the right groupings, the stronger the argument. However, which evidence you use will greatly determine whether the argument will be considered genius, the ramblings of a paranoid nutbag, the verbal diarrhea of an idiot, or a flaming bag of dog crap from a troll.

Below is my personal hierarchy of evidence. Naturally, not everyone will agree which piece of evidence fits where, and not every fan theory is made up of a single type of evidence, but you can bet each one will likely fall under one of nine types:

In-Story Content: It actually freakin’ happened in the story! This is something you can screencap, quote, or otherwise show off with no explanation. I believe the best influence requires the least amount of explaining, where the evidence does 90% or more of the talking. For example, you believe Papyrus helped influence Sans to become a sentry. The good news is that if you constantly insult Papyrus, Sans will eventually tell you that Papyrus was the one who encouraged him to join. You can screenshot this and quote this, but this also doesn't stop you from saying, "Well, Sans was only using that as an excuse." It will, however, make it much harder to defend. Another person noted that Napstablook, like Frisk and Chara, has an ambiguous gender, and compiled a series of screenshots showing how everyone called Napstablook "they." Most fans go with the idea that Napstablook is male, even though there are screenshots to say we don't know otherwise. The same applies to Mettaton: despite the fact that everyone refers to him as male (something you can screencap and quote) and a very manly-sounding "Oooh Yeees," before his boss fight, some fans consider Mettaton nonbinary, which is extremely difficult to defend thanks to screencaps. But does this stop some fans from arguing Mettaton might by nonbinary or even female? Of course not!

Honest Word Of God Statement: The creator is honest and sets the record straight. Oh Word Of God Statements, how I love thee. I love it when creators actually offer explanations for their own work. However, these are much harder to come by for many reasons. First of all, why explain something when speculation fuels community discussion? Second, not every creator has the time and/or desire to interact with fans. Third, some don’t even bother, knowing that some critics believe in the idea of “Death of the Author,” where they believe their opinion can supercede the creator’s intent. The most famous example is Robert Frost’s poem Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening. Robert Frost was out shopping, saw a beautiful snowfall, and wrote a poem about it because he thought it looked pretty. However, this didn’t stop an art critic from spending his entire life trying to “prove” it was about somebody contemplating suicide. Frost relented for years, until finally giving up and saying, “You know what? Fine. It’s about suicide. Now will you shut up?!” In Undertale, fans were constantly wondering whether you could do anything with Sans' machine. Although Toby did not reveal its purpose, he eventually said the machine could not be fixed. Of course, this won't stop fans from figuring out what the machine was in the first place or why it even broke to begin with.

Concrete In-Story Evidence: Compiling a series of arguments from concrete in-story evidence or supplementary materials. This is where you piece together a plot hole from various hints and ideas dropped throughout the story. The maxim here is, “If it didn’t happen, we can’t use it. Everything to patch up this hole must come from the story itself: NO OUTSIDE ARGUMENTS.” Here, if you’re using a Wiki full of actual source materials (Touhou Wiki comes to mind, with full translations of its game universe guides), you can compile your arguments using that. Otherwise, beware (I’ll discuss this more below under #8). One of the strongest things the Narrator Chara theories have is that the theorists behind them find a consistent tone in the narration between the Pacifist and Genocide Routes, playfully (or creepily) interacting with the player on multiple occasions. Unfortunately, this is also where people can begin to say, "You're looking too deeply into this," or, "You're over-complicating things." (Then again, as you'll notice in the comments below, people said my analysis of the different theories is "looking too deeply into this" and such. Maybe they're just looking too deeply into this essay, or maybe they just skimmed it and thought it was like the examples in #4, despite my constant insistence that this isn't "my" "theory," but a comparison of other people's theories...)

Vague In-Story Evidence: Compiling a series of arguments from vague in-story references or supplementary materials. Unlike 3, this is where you piece together minor things in a story to build up a bigger picture of what’s going on. This is one of the biggest complaints the Passive Chara fans have against the Evil Chara fans: that the evil Chara fans use the "poisoning Asgore with buttercups" incident (and related incidents) as proof that Chara was "always" evil, even though the game never says one way or another (fun fact: as a kid, I too thought buttercups and butter were related, and this scared the hell out of me when I played Undertale). The only scenes in which Chara is actually present, they scold the player directly, and yet this is considered proof that Chara, Frisk, and the player are all separate entities and that Chara was "always" evil. (Now again, I must remind you all that this essay is about comparing the theories, and I'm not here to say what's "right," because each theory has holes in it. All I'm saying is that this is a weakness in the Evil Chara theories. So, don't shoot the messenger: just because I report it doesn't mean I'm the one who came up with it. You don't blame news reporters for the disasters they cover, do you? If not, then don't blame me for covering what other people think.)

Trolling/Vague Word Of God Statement: The creator gives an answer, but they’re a troll or the statement is vague. When the creator has a tendency to screw with the fanbase, think twice, because any theory can go out the window in a heartbeat. Of course, there are moments they can be honest, but in this case, you’re best gathering solid in-story evidence or waiting for an honest and concrete reply. Toby Fox himself did a Narrator Chara gag post in response to someone asking what would happen if Chara encountered Mettaton MEOW, while Temmie, co-creator of many of the characters, hinted at Player Chara in another series of posts. These are the creators, but these are also gag posts, so how seriously you should take them is rather vague.

Manipulation: Using rhetoric, charisma, or influence alone to push your argument. If you’ve read my Advice-A-Day series when I was doing that, you know how much I hate when people try to influence people with no solid grounding or evidence, using manipulation alone as their sole tactic. It’s basically lying: it’s dirty, low-down, and worst of all, it works on the simple-minded. Luckily, the above items on this hierarchy can shoot down a charismatic charlatan theory any day because solid grounding and ethical influence is the best influence. Again, this is where the Evil Chara theories are weak (and again, don't shoot the messenger): most theories that delve into the idea that Chara are evil mostly cite psychological theories about completionist gaming, complacency, the Milgram Experiment, and all sorts of psychological stuff without actually noting anything from the game itself. Of course, there are plenty of Passive Chara theory posts that do the same, but since the idea of a Passive Chara is relatively new, we don't see as much of it: especially since most Passive Chara theories rely entirely on what happens in-game with very little outside information. Blaming the most mysterious character in the story. This is nearly the bottom of the barrel, and what most people tend to do with fan theories. Here, rather than formulate an argument, rather than even make any attempt to try to influence other people, you merely say, “The person we know least about is responsible!” Naturally, this is where Dr. W.D. Gaster gets brought in: the fan community logic appears to be, "If something doesn't make sense, blame Gaster." There are a number of theories to which I have utterly ignored that start with, "Chara is good/evil/whatever because Gaster-" STOP. Unlike Chara, Gaster does not appear in-game, Gaster does not affect how you play or experience the game, Gaster is merely a really neat Easter egg and speculation fuel. Unlike Gaster, Chara appears in-game, there's plenty of lore surrounding them, and how you view Chara definitely affects how you experience the game. We'll dive more in-depth into this in a moment, but for now, know this: Gaster is an incredibly flimsy excuse for any theory. In fact, I'll even go as far as to say studying Gaster is a total waste of time: nobody can pinpoint a solid grounding for Gaster, and Gaster's story can change at any time, so only study Gaster at your own risk. Using a fan wiki, mainly composed of more fan theories. In school, most teachers have banned Wikipedia. Why? Because Wikipedia is freely editable, and not everyone who edits Wikipedia is qualified. Luckily nowadays, most people who edit Wikipedia are enthusiasts who always cite their sources. With fan materials, not so much: places like fan wikis, Wikia, and even TVTropes are freely editable by everyone, but from what I’ve seen from the various fandoms, the first theory that ends up on TVTropes often sticks on TVTropes. Hell, I remember when the page for my own Diamond In The Rough was full of outdated scenes and ideas for months after it got finished, despite how many people edited/added new tropes around the outdated scenes and ideas. When I talk to Undertale fans, their general response regarding various fan theories is, “Well, I heard it on TVTropes, so it must be true,” even though TVTropes themselves have just allowed an expanded view of Chara for future edits. Now, I’m not knocking TVTropes by any stretch: I freaking LOVE TVTropes. They’re an inspiration to writers and a great archive of every storytelling conventional imaginable. However, even TVTropes is aware of “Edit Wars” where users battle to edit articles with their own opinion on what’s “right.” My point is that if you’re going to use a fan wiki, remember that you’re basically getting articles written by more fans. Luckily, the appeal of a wiki is the community can collectively edit it and refine the article to become better and better, but you’re better off just formulating your own argument: you know, just like the fan wiki writers do! The same applies to this essay: don't change your view of Chara simply because I say which theory has more or better evidence, because I'm just another fan. The whole point here is to think more critically about how you view each theory, and if your critical thinking leads you to a viewpoint that's the total opposite of mine, good! At least you're thinking for yourself instead of letting somebody tell you how to think!

ARGUMENT BY ASSERTION: Believing you are right because you are right. Welcome to the bottom of the barrel. Here, the argument is simply, “It’s true because I believe it. If you don’t believe the truth, i.e. my opinion, you’re bullying me and an enemy of the fan community.” At this point, anyone who believes in this is beyond help, stewing about in their own anger and frustration with whatever community they’re plaguing at the moment. You can quickly spot these folks out of a crowd because they’re quickly banned from most fan forums or exiled from most groups on community websites. That, only they're simply the jerk nobody wants to be around for their 24-7 fuming temper. Nobody wants to talk to them because they’re nigh impossible to reason with for their loose grasp on reality, and their self-serving memory ensures anyone who disagrees with them is always the “bad guy.” In this case, let’s say somebody believes that Asgore was always evil: that it was his intention since day one to slaughter humanity, using Chara as a scapegoat by guilt-tripping them into doing what they did, and even by the end of the game, he's still trying to poison Frisk. It's generally accepted among everyone that Asgore is, as everyone says, a big fluffy pushover, and in his boss fight, he really doesn't want to fight you. I'm sure if asked, Toby Fox would think anyone who thought Asgore was evil was truly crazy. Everything above #9 contradicts this theory: there are tons of in-game screenshots, tons of concrete hints, tons of vague hints, it's all over the wikis, there's very little this terrible theory can work with. But do you think any of this will stop this person from still believing Asgore was always evil? HELL NO! Why let a little thing like reality get in the way of a perfectly good theory? While most fans will simply give up and say, "I guess it was a dumb theory," this moron will argue to the ends of the Earth that Asgore had it out for humanity ever since Asgore "started the war against humanity" and that, "it only got worse after they were sealed underground, but that was likely part of Asgore's plans to rally the monsters against the humans." Any attempt to disagree will arouse infinite anger from them and they will hunt you down to the ends of the Earth to somehow get you back and prove you wrong. Needless to say, these people give fans a bad name, and they’re generally hated by their peers.

In-story content: As I'll get to "All We Know About Chara," there is quite a large amount of tangible stuff regarding Chara we can work with. This content is the only thing we should be able to make our theories out of: the more meta the theories get, and the more the theories rely on manipulative rhetoric and less on actual in-game content, the less reliable it is. Ideally, a good theory will rely entirely on what happens in-game only with no additional commentary. Honest Creator Statement: As of writing, Toby Fox has not given an official word on Chara. When that day comes, however, this essay will serve as a reminder of and warning about fan theories and how seriously some people take them. Once again, I must remind you all I'm not here to "defend" any particular view as much as explain them, look at their strengths and weaknesses, and compare them. I won't be heartbroken if my personal view is wrong, but I guarantee you a lot of people are going to denounce Undertale once each of these theories but one crumble under the weight of Toby Fox's words. The only thing that can save these theories is if Toby Fox says, "Chara was meant to be open to interpretation." In that case, use this guide to sort which one you most agree with. (I will cover what will happen if Toby Fox announces the truth in-depth at the end in VI. Future Directions.) Argument from concrete in-story evidence: This is where you use in-game content and lore to piece together a larger picture. Remember: evidence is not "proof". Proof for Narrator Chara Theory (which we'll explore when we get to the questionnaire) would be if the game suddenly stopped and Chara reminded Frisk they were the narrator. Instead, evidence suggests something might by true by connecting the dots. Most famously, thefloweryfanclub's/Determinators' A CHARActer Analysis takes a comprehensive look at the game's narration and argues that there is a consistent tone on both the Pacifist and Genocide routes. There's no "proof," but the dots thefloweryfanclub/Determinators connects are extremely compelling: even those who are diehard Genocide Chara fans say, "Well, nothing can sway my opinion that Chara is 100% evil, but when you look at it that way, I can see how you can believe that."

Argument from vague in-story evidence: This is where most of the interpretation about Chara's past comes in: was Chara always evil, did they become evil, or were they just misguided? Was Asriel telling the whole truth about Chara? When Chara laughed off poisoning Asgore, was it a nervous laugh or an evil laugh?

Trolling or Vague Creator Statement: Again, refer to the Tweets Toby and Temmie had in regards to Chara.

Manipulation alone: This, unfortunately, is the biggest weak point of most Evil Chara theories. I'll get more into videos like these when we study the theories in-depth, but for now, watch this video by The Imaginary Axis titled "Chara's True Form Revealed (The REAL Villain of Undertale)." Notice the difference between his argument and A CHARActer Analysis. Notice how much in-game evidence and screenshots he uses in proportion to psychological concepts and fancy words. You may think, "Well, other Genocide Chara Theory videos must use actual in-game evidence. You must be spinning it because you have a bias to the other theories!" Again, don't shoot the messenger. Look up the rest of the videos and you know I'm not lying. (I've linked several more under the in-depth theory analyses. We'll return to them later, plus several more essays.)

Blaming the mysterious: Naturally, you'll run into folks who believe Chara and Gaster are linked. DON'T BOTHER. (Protip: If the words "W.D. Gaster" appear in any Undertale fan theory, especially to explain something that's not related to Gaster, stay away from it!)

Using a fan wiki or sources: Chances are, you only believe what you believe because you heard it on TVTropes, the Undertale Wikia, or from your fellow Undertale fans on Reddit, Tumblr, or wherever you frequent. Don't be a sheep: figure out your own theory, even if it doesn't fit in this essay, even if it goes against what I or anyone else believes.

Argument by Assertion: As I said earlier, some fans will defend their view of Chara no matter what. They will end relationships, block people, argue to the ends of the Earth that they are "right," even though nobody has a definite answer, and that Toby Fox can rip away anyone's theory the moment he says so. Again, there is no right Chara theory (yet, anyway, if ever). Defending your theory is a sure-fire way to ruin your relationships and end up disappointed.



All we know about Chara.

Toby Fox officially said it's best you name Chara after yourself for the best experience.

When they were alive, they brought great joy to the Underground.

According to Asgore, they had a look of hope in their eyes.



According to Asriel, they came to Mt. Ebott because they were unhappy and hated humanity.

They have a wide smile and rosy cheeks. They also wear a similar striped sweater to Frisk's.



Asriel believed Chara wasn't the best person, and the tapes back up they were domineering at times.

They were involved in an incident where they cooked a pie for Asgore, but accidentally used buttercups instead of cups of butter. They laughed the situation off.



They wanted to pass through the barrier so badly that they gave their life for it, poisoning themselves with buttercups.



They were the one who planned to use Asriel to go to the surface and collect six human souls, but at the last second, Asriel bailed out, took control from Chara, and died to stop Chara.

Adding to the above, when Chara is connected with someone else's soul, they don't have perfect control: the two must share a body and have equal control.



Chara was buried right where the player starts. In the Pacifist Epilogue, Asriel returns to this spot.



Chara is responsible for Asriel being turned into a flower and their parents separating.

When Frisk kills something, Chara gets the EXP and LV.



When Frisk equips anything, Chara grows stronger. However, Chara's stats protect Frisk.

Chara's name appears on the Save file, not Frisk's.



In the Genocide route, Chara believes their own purpose for being revived is power, and decides to destroy everything.

In the Genocide route, Chara has bleeding eyes and blood flowing out of their mouth should the player refuse to erase the world.

In the Tainted Pacifist "I Choose to Stay" end, Chara has red eyes for only one scene .

. In the Tainted Pacifist "I Have Places To Go" end, Chara crosses out everyone in the final group photo.



In the Pacifist Route, Asriel thinks Frisk is Chara until Frisk spells it out for him.

In the Genocide Route, Flowey/Asriel addresses you as Chara, claims you have stolen Frisk's soul, and still thinks Chara's plan is to unseal the barrier, mainly to reek havoc on humanity.



When you restart the game after the Pacifist Run, Flowey addresses you as Chara. He also reveals that Chara is the one in charge of resetting the timeline.

In the Pacifist Epilogue, dropping Chara's Heart Locket on Chara's grave will cause Frisk to lightly set it down and pat it, as opposed to violently throw it away like everywhere else. Normally, the message is randomized, but every player I've encountered has gotten the same message on every playthrough in that same spot. Either that's insane luck, or there's a trigger there for that to happen.



In the Genocide Route, the Worn Dagger is renamed Real Knife and the Heart Locket is renamed The Locket, both with Chara's narration describing the items. The Worn Dagger is used for cutting plants and actually serves a purpose to aid Frisk in their battle against Asgore, but in the Genocide Route, the knife is useless other than to show Chara's complete overtaking of Frisk.

After completing the Genocide Route, Chara blames you (either as Frisk or yourself) for destroying the world, and only grants you a second chance if you sell your soul to them.



When playing Genocide twice, Chara refers to themselves as a demon, and says your soul (Frisk's or the player's) carries a perverse sentimentality for wanting to rebuild and destroy the world over and over again.

Chara apparently likes chocolate: Toriel keeps a bar in her fridge, but when Chara looks in Asgore's empty fridge in the Genocide Run, they say, "No chocolate..."

Just like how Asriel and Asgore both say, "Howdy," Toriel and Chara both say, "Greetings."



Chara can knit, and made a "Mr. Dad Guy" sweater for Asgore.

Chara's alternative narration becomes more dominant in the Genocide route, which becomes increasingly pessimistic and stilted. Otherwise, the narration sounds increasingly heartwarming and sympathetic towards Frisk, even calling Frisk by their name when they look in the mirror.

Nearing the end of the Genocide Route, Flowey says Chara is just like him, who replayed the game over and over again just to see how the characters would react each time, before deciding to embark upon a Genocide Route himself.



Sans appears to know about Chara. In one of the main menu screens for the Pacifist Route, after befriending Undyne, Sans stands atop Chara's name and winks at the screen. In the Judgement Hall, Sans seems to know exactly how much LV and EXP Chara has, as Frisk does not appear to have these stats. During the Genocide Run, he reveals he knows about an "anomaly" messing with the timeline, and he did his best to find a way to appease it with jokes, food, and friends before realizing it won't work, and that it's all going to end with the timeline being destroyed merely out of curiosity.



Those are the types, butOkay. We've talked enough about theories about theories. Let's actually get into the study of Chara.As I said before, in-game evidence trumps all, and the more concrete the evidence, the easier you can see the road ahead.When I first played Undertale, I started with a wide range of possibilities and, using in-game evidence only, I began narrowing down the possible endings. By the time I got to Asgore, I had only three conclusions as to how the final battle would play out, and one of those was, "We're probably going to fight Asgore, Flowey is going to interrupt, and he'll be the final boss fight." Then I saw the soul containers and thought, "Flowey's going to show up either in the middle or at the end of the boss fight, and the final boss will be over the souls." Needless to say, that's exactly what happened: not quite in the way it happened with super-powered Flowey taking control of the souls, but that's what happened. The same could be said for the Pacifist Route ending: I knew either Asriel was Flowey and Chara was likely connected to Frisk, or vice versa. With what I learned in-game, that's also what happened.Conversely, compare the theories about W.D. Gaster. All we know about him is that he was the former royal scientist, he fell into the core, his body shattered across time and space, and he has followers who tell of his story. Unlike what we know about Chara, which I'll get to shortly, there are far too many possibilities to draw from this. Plus, Gaster's existence does not affect the game one way or another, so looking him up is mainly done out of curiosity. Yet, people write ungodly amounts of fake biographies, backstories, faux boss battles, and fanfics about Gaster, hoping to one day "crack the code." Chara affects the game, how you play the game, and how you experience the game.And the beautiful thing about Chara?First, let's explore

Other than that, very little is known. Still, this is quite a lot of information to work with, and certainly more than W.D. Gaster.



However, the way fans portray Chara is wildly erratic. Here are the most common ways fans portray Chara:



Chara always has red eyes, even when portrayed as good.



has red eyes, even when portrayed as good. Whenever Frisk moves or does anything on their own in a cutscene, it's really Chara doing it. (Though, there are exceptions, as I'll note later: apparently, it's only when Frisk does something bad is it ever Chara, but if Frisk does something good, that's Frisk and/or the player.)



is it ever Chara, but if Frisk does something good, that's Frisk and/or the player.) Chara only appears in the Genocide route. They had no hand in the Pacifist route.

Chara's goal from Day One was simply to destroy everything.

Chara may or may not actually be human, despite once having a human soul.

Chara is seen as different from the player. Either the player is playing as Frisk, or that Frisk, Chara, and the Player are three separate entities. Even TVTropes separates Chara and the Player, going by an interpretation of the "anomaly" Sans refers to in the Genocide final boss fight. (I will have more to say on this when I get to the factors about what keeps perpetuating Genocide Chara.)



Chara is only a negative influence on Frisk: they will do everything they can to ensure Frisk does the wrong thing. Yet, somehow, they blame Frisk/the player for causing the Genocide Route.



Chara deliberately poisoned Asgore, and they manipulated Asriel into going to the surface; not because they wanted to unseal the barrier with six more human souls, but to kill everyone. Nothing can redeem Chara: once evil, always evil. (Even though Alphys was once a liar, but fans say, "Oh, she's gotten better," or how Asgore once ordered every human child to be executed, but fans have said, "Oh, he's learned his lesson." Even Asriel, who actually wanted control of the timeline just to reset everything over and over again, is widely beloved by fans, with several fanfic writers trying to give him a happy ending. Chara appears to be the only character exempt from redemption.)

control of the timeline just to reset everything over and over again, is widely beloved by fans, with several fanfic writers trying to give him a happy ending. Chara appears to be the only character exempt from redemption.) The Worn Dagger and Heart Locker apparently belong to Asriel while the Real Knife and The Locket belong to Chara, despite appearing in the exact same location in the exact same boxes.



For better or for worse, the current status of Chara is completely open to interpretation. As of summer of 2016, half of Undertale fans tend to go with the idea that Chara is the only irredeemable evil in the otherwise heartwarming and idealistic RPG, while the other half see Chara as the game's humble and sarcastic Narrator. Even fan fiction that tries to portray Chara in a positive light starts out with Chara as an evil omnicidal maniac.



Compare this to Frisk. What we know about Frisk from in-game stuff only...



They have a blank expression on their face.

They wear a similar striped sweater to Chara's.

Despite their stoic look, they are regularly given the option to flirt with nearly everything, along with other ridiculous actions. They also have the choice to kill everyone, as well.



everyone, as well. Although we never hear them talk, they can talk to other characters.



Other than that, it's a mystery.



Now, here's how the fans portray Frisk...



Frisk is upbeat, playful, and goofy.

Frisk flirts with everyone and everything.

Frisk is often portrayed as a girl. Though, androgynous Frisks do exist, as do boy Frisks, but girl Frisk appears to be the most popular. (Of course, there are some fans who are downright livid about assigning any gender to Frisk, but that's an essay for another time. For the curious, here's my short answer: Frisk is whoever you want them to be, so it doesn't matter! )

) Frisk is the sole hero of Undertale.

Frisk is the embodiment of mercy. Any wrongdoing they do is all Chara's fault.



Do you notice something between Frisk and Chara? We know infinitely more about Chara than Frisk, yet Frisk has been treated among fans as an incorruptibly good person, while Chara is the evil force Frisk must be saved from by the player. It's only been recently have the fans begun showing Chara in a good light, as well as grow the idea of Genocide Frisk, saying it's Frisk who starts the Genocide Route. In-game, Frisk is simply some kid with closed eyes who walks place-to-place, encountering monsters, solving puzzles, and doing whatever you tell them to do, while Chara is shrouded in legend until you kill literally everything and has to spell out that whenever you kill something, you increase Chara's stats, not yours. Even then, Chara chews you out for pushing everything to the edge and destroying everything. It is very unlikely Toby Fox will get an official word on the nature of Chara, so fans have developed a series of theories regarding them.



In order to sort out these theories, I have determined five common variables among each theory:



Are the player and Chara (or player and Frisk) separate entities? Are you, the Player, playing as Chara, Frisk, or yourself? In the final Genocide boss fight against Sans, Sans refers to you as an "anomaly," capable of starting new timelines, which has led a debate as to who Sans is talking to: the Player, Frisk, or Chara. Sure, the dialogue breaks the fourth wall in its commentary on gamers and completionist gaming, but the same can be said of Flowey's "this is just a game" dialogue from the end of the Pacifist Route. The debate here is in how literal Sans' words are taken and to whom these words are directed.



Are you, the Player, playing as Chara, Frisk, or yourself? In the final Genocide boss fight against Sans, Sans refers to you as an "anomaly," capable of starting new timelines, which has led a debate as to who Sans is talking to: the Player, Frisk, or Chara. Sure, the dialogue breaks the fourth wall in its commentary on gamers and completionist gaming, but the same can be said of Flowey's "this is just a game" dialogue from the end of the Pacifist Route. The debate here is in how literal Sans' words are taken and to whom these words are directed. Does Frisk have control over themselves at all times? During cutscenes, Frisk will move on their own. Is this Frisk acting on their own accord, or is it Chara controlling them? And if Chara is controlling Frisk, is Frisk aware of this? In the epilogue to the Pacifist Run, Asriel comments how he and Chara shared a body, and it was his idea to stop Chara from using their full power to kill the human villagers. With Frisk, the debate here is whether Frisk is taking control away from us, the player and/or Chara, or if the cutscenes are Chara taking control away from the player/Frisk.



During cutscenes, Frisk will move on their own. Is this Frisk acting on their own accord, or is it Chara controlling them? And if Chara is controlling Frisk, is Frisk aware of this? In the epilogue to the Pacifist Run, Asriel comments how he and Chara shared a body, and it was his idea to stop Chara from using their full power to kill the human villagers. With Frisk, the debate here is whether Frisk is taking control away from us, the player and/or Chara, or if the cutscenes are Chara taking control away from the player/Frisk. Was Chara always with Frisk? Did Chara possess Frisk when they fell down into the Ruins? Or do they slowly awaken as Frisk gained EXP and LV? In the final Genocide cutscene, Chara says Frisk's/the player's determination awakened them, but were they awakened at the start of the game, or after the Genocide route only?



Did Chara possess Frisk when they fell down into the Ruins? Or do they slowly awaken as Frisk gained EXP and LV? In the final Genocide cutscene, Chara says Frisk's/the player's determination awakened them, but were they awakened at the start of the game, or after the Genocide route only? Is Chara evil by default, or do they become that way? Was Chara evil since the day they came into the Ruins? Or does the Player's and/or Frisk's steer them that way in the Genocide route? Asriel has a negative view of Chara at the end of the Pacifist Route, and the VHS tapes hint that Chara was domineering over him and had a sadistic side. However, given the game's theme on mercy, the tragedy of hating things we do not understand, and friendship, it could also mean that Chara turns a new leaf in the Pacifist route. There's also the fact that after destroying everything, Chara's not quite pleased you want to bring everything back and blames you for everything. Are the projecting their own hatred onto you, or was your destruction of the Underground not part of their plan?



Was Chara evil since the day they came into the Ruins? Or does the Player's and/or Frisk's steer them that way in the Genocide route? Asriel has a negative view of Chara at the end of the Pacifist Route, and the VHS tapes hint that Chara was domineering over him and had a sadistic side. However, given the game's theme on mercy, the tragedy of hating things we do not understand, and friendship, it could also mean that Chara turns a new leaf in the Pacifist route. There's also the fact that after destroying everything, Chara's not quite pleased you want to bring everything back and blames you for everything. Are the projecting their own hatred onto you, or was your destruction of the Underground not part of their plan? If Chara is evil by default, can they be saved? If Chara is evil, can Chara learn to be good like the rest of the Undertale cast? Or are they simply too evil to learn or care? This is where things get a little more meta, as this isn't necessarily grounded much in-game, but people like this idea that an evil Chara can be saved because it fits in with the tone of the game.





The Chara Theory Questionnaire

To see which theory you follow, I have developed a flowchart/questionnaire that leads to each fan theory. Once the questionnaire is over, I'll go over each theory in more detail.



A few ground rules before we begin:



Before answering each question, ask yourself, "Do I really believe this, or do I believe this because somebody else told me it first?" Did you learn this from playing the game yourself, or from a fan wiki or your community? Preferably, you want to stick to your first impression.

Did you learn this from playing the game yourself, or from a fan wiki or your community? Preferably, you want to stick to your first impression. If you're scared of what the community will think of your theory, ask yourself, "What would I believe if I knew I wouldn't be judged for it?" That will usually provide the honest answer.



That will usually provide the honest answer. After comparing the theories, go back and do the questionnaire again. Do you still stick with your theory? Or were your eyes opened up to new possibilities?





Question 1: Who do you play as in Undertale?

A. I play as Chara. Go to 2a.

B. I play as Frisk. Go to 2b.

C. I play as Myself, the Anomaly. Go to 2c.



Question 2a: You are Chara, so you're always with Frisk and whether you do good or evil is up to you. Is Frisk controlling themselves during cutscenes?

A. Yes. You believe in PLAYER CHARA THEORY.

B. No. You believe in PASSIVE FRISK THEORY.



Question 2b: You are Frisk. Who moves you during cutscenes?

A. I move myself. Go to 3a.

B. I lose control and something else begins moving me. Go to 3b.

C. I move myself most of the time, but I lose control when I start doing bad things. Go to 3b. (I have more to say on this later...)



Question 2c: You are the Player. Who moves Frisk during the cutscenes?

A. Frisk. Go to 3c.

B. Chara. Go to 3d.

C. Well, it's Frisk in the Neutral/Pacifist route, but it's Chara in the Genocide route! Go to 3d. (I have more to say on this later...)



Question 3a: So if you move by yourself, is Chara there?

A. Yes. Go to 4a.

B. No. Who's Chara? You believe in SUMMON THEORY A.



Question 3b: Do you think that force moving you is good or evil?

A. Evil! They want me to do bad things! Go to 5a.

B. Good! The two of us work together! You believe in NARRATOR CHARA THEORY A.

C. I'm... um... not sure... Well, you still believe in NARRATOR CHARA THEORY A. (I'll explain more on the theory page.)



Question 3c: If Frisk moves by themselves, is Chara there?

A. Yes. Chara is with Frisk. Go to 4b.

B. No. Chara is not with them. You believe in SUMMON THEORY THEORY B.



Question 3d: If Chara has partial control over Frisk, are they good or evil?

A. They're evil and I must take control back! Go to 5b.

B. No. We both share control over Frisk, and we can make Frisk do good, but something tells me they might overpower me if we make Frisk do evil... You believe in THIRD ENTITY THEORY A.



Question 4a: If Chara is with you, are they good or evil?

A. Yes, but I never give in, no matter how much they keep telling me to explore or how I'll eventually get bored and want to kill everything. Go to 5c.

B. No. They just describe whatever I look at. They know a lot about the Underground. You believe in NARRATOR CHARA THEORY B.



Question 4b: If Chara is with Frisk, are they good or Evil?

A. They're evil, and I have to protect Frisk from them! Go to 5d.

B. They're not evil. They just describe what's going on. You believe in NARRATOR CHARA THEORY C.



Question 5a: Do you think you can turn them good?

A. No! I must stop them! You believe in GENOCIDE CHARA THEORY A.

B. Of course! It worked with everyone else! You believe in REDEMPTION CHARA THEORY A.



Question 5b: Do you think you can turn Chara good?

A. No. They're rotten to the core! You believe in GENOCIDE CHARA THEORY B.

B. Of course. Everyone else got their redemption, so can Chara! You believe in REDEMPTION CHARA THEORY B.



Question 5c: Do you think they'll eventually give up?

A. Nope! You believe in GENOCIDE CHARA THEORY C.

B. Yes. Sooner or later, they'll learn good can triumph! You believe in REDEMPTION CHARA THEORY A.



Question 5d: Do you think Chara can be turned good?

A. No. You believe in THIRD ENTITY THEORY B.

B. Yes. You believe in REDEMPTION CHARA THEORY B.





With these factors, we have a total of 14 competing theories:



Player Chara Theory: The player is Chara, Frisk moves themselves during cutscenes. Passive Frisk Theory: The player is Chara, Frisk is nothing more than a puppet.

Genocide Chara Theory A: The player is Frisk, trying to wrestle control from Chara in order to do the right thing. Genocide Chara Theory B: The player is themselves, wrestling for control of Frisk from Chara in order to do the right thing. Currently tied for being the most popular theory with Narrator Chara Theory A, but steadily on the decline.

Genocide Chara Theory C: The player is Frisk, Chara is evil and trying to wear down Frisk until they can gain power. Narrator Chara Theory A: The player is Frisk, Chara is an active guide and mentor towards Frisk, and they only turn evil when Frisk turns evil. Currently tied for being the most popular theory against Genocide Chara Theory B.

Narrator Chara Theory B: The player is Frisk, Chara is only the narrator, and they only turn evil and take control when Frisk turns evil. Narrator Chara Theory C: The player is themselves, Chara is only the narrator, and they only turn evil when Frisk turns evil. Summon Theory A: The player is Frisk, and Chara is dormant until Frisk kills enough people. Summon Theory B: The player is themselves, and Chara is dormant until the player makes Frisk kill enough people. Third Entity Theory A: The player is themselves, and they and Chara share control over Frisk. Chara only starts taking control as Frisk begins doing more evil. Third Entity Theory B: The player is themselves, and both the player, Chara, and Frisk are wrestling for control over Frisk.

Redemption Chara Theory A: The player is Frisk, Chara is evil, but Frisk can convince Chara to do the right thing. Redemption Chara Theory B: The player is themselves, Chara is evil, and the Player can teach Chara to do the right thing.



A little more complex than what originally lets on, huh? The most popular theories are Genocide Chara Theory B (once the single-most popular theory and what many considered the "official" "canon" version of the story on the Undertale Wikia and TVTropes) and Narrator Chara Theory A (according to a poll of about 900+ people on the Undertale subreddit , this ranked as the most popular theory there), but let's not forget the variations of each theory, plus all of the other ones.Let's explore these theories one by one, shall we?