Even if you consider it a punishment for US for doing the Genocide Route, the monsters were killed for no reason. What punishment punishes the victims harder than the perpetrator?

Also, weren't they helping us kill everyone earlier? And now they condemn us for it.

What a hypocrite, honestly.

If people have decided already something like Chara is infact non-binary and there is no arguing about it (when it can be argued about forever), then it should be whether or not Chara is good, evil, morally grey, etc shouldn't be "up to one's personal interpretation" as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Chara IS either good, evil, morally grey, etc and there should be no arguing about it. You can have your AUs or whatever portraying them different from the OG version of them, but the canon version of them should already be decided in terms of morality by all the fanbase.

We've already had 10 years of arguing about this. "Agreeing to disagree" isn't an option if we're still going to have knee-jerk reactions over other people's readings of Chara's behaviour.

With everything the stream has said the "chara is evil and stuff" interpretation is. Pretty much dead

I'm sure this has been asked before, but does anyone have any favorite evil (or at the very least morally ambiguous) Chara headcanons? I don't mean things like "Chara's favorite food is chocolate" I mean headcanons that go along with them "not being a great person"

Here's one of mine.

The buttercup incident where Asriel said they mistook cups of butter for buttercups?
I don't think that was an accident. Chara is intelligent, like I'm not saying that when they were alive they were some outstanding genius or anything like that, but they strike me as being intelligent enough to know that butter goes into bake goods. I think that Chara had probably read somewhere that buttercups were poisonous, but they weren't sure just HOW poisonous. After all, there's a big difference between "oh this will give you a stomachache" vs "this could kill you"

Soo they used Asgore as a guinea pig of sorts in order to see how poisonous the flowers were before using them in their plan.

"Not you ... but them?"

I find it weird the dialogue when betraying killing her is any different, which is more likely referring to monster kind. Shouldn't she be able to detect the MC's dark not-monster-or-human aura at this point in geno? I feel like how it's stated too it's mentioning a single individual unlike the betrayal kill which mentions no "who."

I mean, it would put into perspective why Toriel calls Chara a distant "someone" in the alarm clock app and had never brought them up to Frisk prior from the sounds of it but she did with her son. Or why she never questions drinks moving around in the alarm clock app. She also mentions "7 is weak. Duty is no reason to harm another" in the 9th anniversary newsletter ...

I mean, it wouldn't really explain why she decided to give Chara a proper burial ... Besides I guess she thinks they still deserve basic respect, no matter how she feels about them. She even thinks Asgore deserves mercy out of principle. Interestingly enough, she gotten miserable enough drunk in the ruins to call out Asriel's name coincidentally but never Chara's name to accidentally summon them back into the Underground. Hmm ...

She may knew Chara's true cruel nature in 201X but she didn't do anything about it. Not without breaking up the family and possibly making Asriel lose his beloved only friend. Which is why she ignored any seriously wrong signs with Frisk like the monster dust on their hands. She may of thought Chara didn't really understand what they did was wrong even if she knew of their cruel behaviour, which stopped her from actually putting her foot down with Chara in 201X and why she had something as childishly innocent as chocolate in her fridge. Even if the narrator distantly says "for some reason" when checking the chocolate in the fridge. Like Chara doesn't really understand the reasoning to why it's even there ...

In their Tarot Card they are displayed with Red eyes, which is especially interesting since it's actually a modification, originally the art was going to have black holes for eyes. Other modifications to the Tarot Card include Frisk's names being replaced with "The Human" & Gaster's card being outright replaced completely. This can suggest Chara having Red Eyes was favorable to Toby in the final release.

Also interesting is what their card represents, XV in the Major Arcana is The Devil.

They suffered trauma, emotionally numbed themselves, and became desensitized to the moral implications of power acquisition. (“If everything gets high enough, you become invincible. Nothing can hurt you anymore. Nothing can hurt anyone anymore.”) They prioritized efficiency over vulnerability, as evidenced by their habit of filling their water glass up to the brim—literally rejecting the philosophical binary of “half-full or half-empty” by embracing pragmatic maximalism. Rather than waiting around in the underground, they decided that action needed to be taken to break the barrier and save monsterkind. So they sacrificed themself to empower Asriel, encouraging him to emotionally distance himself (“Big kids don’t cry”) and kill six humans. Chara’s plan failed because of Asriel’s empathetic naivety.

The pacifist route shows Chara that Asriel was right; empathy is more powerful than strength. The genocide route shows Chara that Asriel was wrong; strength is more powerful than empathy. In that sense, Chara reflects the detached nature of the player, and whether they choose to indulge in the story or the combat system.

This conceptual setup is beautiful when it’s set in the context of the game, but Chara’s complete lack of tangible lore left a narrative black hole that fanon eagerly filled. The concept of Chara has taken a backseat to the character of Chara, which has been intentionally ambiguous from the start. That’s why this whole debate has persisted for a decade.

I just realized that it's really odd Chara has the ability to barracade the player's ability to reset in the void until they give away their soul.

If it has something to do with being LV 20, not only does that imply that LV doesn't numb Chara's feelings otherwise them "reprimanding" the player as some people say in the void wouldn't be possible but it also implies a battle system still exists and therefore the world (and several other worlds full of billions of humans and thousands of monsters in different timelines) was infact violently destroyed by the human.

If it's an natural ability, then that begs the question of why Chara didn't take away the player's ability to save and reload after a true pacifist route if characters like Flowey are suddenly paranoid of the player's intentions for some reason. Or why they didn't take it away during a genocide route to easily stop it if they didn't want the route to happen.

You can probably guess what I think about the subject given my flair.

Chara's name is meant to be hidden for ambiguity like in merch portraying them and trailers, but their name is just straight-up here clearly and publicly for everyone to see. Twice. I wonder if it can be proven if Toby was the one who done the game screenshots too. If people are going to say their name is displayed because "it's the canon name," you're going to have to explain the Taco screenshot I found before.

Save 75% on Undertale on Steam

EDIT: additional important screenshots via the wayback machine -

Open this image in a new tab to see "aaaaaa" more clearly. With the "Taco" screenshot in mind, this may have been the original placeholder name for testing until it was replaced by Taco as the testing was more refined later.
This implies "Chara" isn't a placeholder to begin with if "Taco" is the true placeholder.

I want some data.

If you are both then pick the first option.

Chara neutralists who are neither (eg anti-charadefense who arent quite full offense) pick the 3rd option. (Same goes for the Chara defense people here)

Feel free to also explain why if you are the first one.

There's a DefenseSquad manifesto about Chara, and that led to the question, "Why don't we make our own?"

It's very, very interesting that there isn't an opposing view justifying the idea that "Chara is Evil" like Defense Squad did. Is it because the fandom considers this a crazy thought or a meme opinion? DefenseSquad has always justified its thoughts, so why hasn't Offense done that? Why aren't there a series of theories about Chara being evil, since it's supposedly an ambiguous or morally gray area? Are the fans of "evil Chara" true fans, or are they just spies who come here to see awesome Chara fanart? (It's funny that whenever there's cool fanart, it's about a genocide Chara xd)

So I'm here to ask for arguments for this theory, let's debate and also form a joint opinion for OffenseSquad. I welcome everyone to comment and interact, but I want to warn that we are in a joint cause, so let's be rational. (Yes, folks, texts longer than two lines are allowed.)

The goal is to create a guide to the offensive opinions of Chara fans. (I'll start with the first argument: Gerson said that the war between humans and monsters wasn't an "us versus them" situation, but rather a conflict of interests that broke many bonds of relationship. This makes the idea of ​​​​Chara's plan to be an escapegoat for revenge real, especially since, after discovering that humans weren't so bad after all.)

S: juridestruction, no more deals solunary ver. A: Zenith (both solunary's and original ver.) B: monster in the mirror, neurovaniac C: last breath x no more deals D: no more deals (original version)