Discussion YMMV / Undertale

Yeagh im with you on this especially sense after the muder of 6 children whom she grew attatched to she treats asogre with mere annoywance says quiet alot especially sense asgore HIMSELF says that his actions were horrible but only did them to help his people

I think the main emphasis was that it's an indie game with things about it that you wouldn't expect to make it so popular. Not sure if that has its own trope or not, but Cult Classic it isn't.

It's hugely successful for an indie game. If you ask somebody that is not a gamer that frequents indie games about Undertale they are unlikely to know what it is

... that's just incorrect. It's hugely successful for a game. Period.

This is speaking as someone who has never touched the game. I'm not blind.

You don't have to be "out of touch" not to recognize an older meme reference, and it seems like a little of a leap to assume a South Park reference was deliberately included (insofar as having been on the brain) in an all-ages game that mostly pulls references from other games. It's a possibility, but I say leave it where it is unless there's something out there to support it.

Ok, I understand.

It is about the amount of screentime, not about popularity.

Broken Aesop isn't even a YMMV item, if that little thought is being put into it...

It's worth mentioning there is one time in the game where the use of deadly force is depicted as being heroic, and that's Sans, which is only at the end of the No Mercy route where it is both warranted and the only way to stop it.

Still, the point remains, a lot of monsters are accidentally violent or heavily conflicted about attacking you, the game makes that clear at several points (Especially the library book talking about how monster souls are love, compassion, and mercy, it's physically and spiritually against their nature to hate without justification).

We may have to put a hidden warning at the top of the page near the Genocide/No Mercy thing about not adding Broken Aesop and to see here why it's not applicable, since it keeps happening

I have to agree with Nara Numas. There are actually two moments in the game that depicts the use of deadly force as heroic, both Undyne and Sans in the No Mercy route. In that case, I would consider the aesop broken in that regard.

Also despite the game forcing you to use violence against Asgore and Omega Flowey, it doesn't have you killing them by the end, only leaving them no longer a threat that you can still spare. There should be a distinction between general violence and killing. Also there was no guarantee that Asriel's sacrifice averted another war or anything of the sort. In actuality, it caused Asgore to declare war on humanity once they're able to get enough Souls to break the barrier, and even though he calmed down since then, he still felt that he had to live up to his promises to keep hope alive in the monsters, so whether he liked it or not, he would've still started a war if it wasn't for you stopping him..

And of one more note, at the end of the Pacifist route, Asriel does say you can't solve or fix every problem by being nice, which would suggest the necessity of violence in certain situations, but on the other hand, that one part he says wouldn't hold up since getting that ending required you to solve every problem by being nice.

I don't think either of those two uses of violence break the aesop: after all, by the time you get to either, you've already basically defied the aesop and declared yourself unwilling to learn it. It would fall into the initial point of the monsters themselves having to learn the aesop, just as much as you - except now that you are forcing violence at them, nobody is ever going to get that chance. By that point the whole aesop has basically become moot, and no one's any better off for it, not even you.

Likewise, Asgore declaring war on humanity was never portrayed to be a good thing in any way, and Asriel reminding that not all problems can be solved by being nice does not mean you shouldn't always strive for it.

Sorry, but I think that's irrelevant. The point is that lethal violence is still being used and depicted as heroic, which goes against the game's aesop that violence is wrong regardless of context or situations. If forcing violence onto them would make them justified and in the right to use violence in return on you, then how is that any different from them doing the same to you? Because of the fact that with you, you have options to avoid fighting? Well, that should be extended to the monsters as well, regardless of the context in the No Mercy route.

The point isn't about whether Asgore declaring war was portrayed as right or wrong. The point is that "good" actions don't necessarily lead to "good" consequences or results like this game thinks they do, and can actually lead to worse problems. Asriel's sacrifice didn't prevent another war from happening; it actually led to his father declaring war. This is something the game doesn't even acknowledge, instead presenting that everything will be alright if you just be nice to everyone. And with Asriel's reminder, there's a difference between striving to being nice and holding it to an absolute. The former would be knowing the importance of being nice, but also realizing and accepting that there will be moments where being nice won't work nor fix a problem and you have to adapt and use a different method, that doing the "right" thing is not necessarily the same as doing the "nice" thing nor would it always lead to positive outcomes, that sometimes doing the "not nice" thing would be the better option. What this game does is that it holds it to an absolute, which in the real world wouldn't always work and could actually be disastrous to oneself and to others. That's one of the reasons why some people like myself don't like nor agree with Undertale's aesop.

It's not irrelevant, and the monsters using violence against you only show off as heroic in context: because their foe is infinitely worse than them. It's hard not to be heroic when you face off against such a monster as a genocidal god. And Papyrus already showed what the alternative would have been, what happens when you try to use mercy in that regard - yet even in death, he was depicted as quite possibly the single most heroic of the lot. Even in death, he never gave up on you. Outside context, yes, violence in this case could be portrayed as slightly heroic, but far too little to break the aesop.

Had Asriel not sacrificed himself, the war would have been far worse than six lost humans getting killed: it would have ended in a genocide. The tradeoff, just because it wasn't an entirely pure one (like above), was well worth it: perhaps doing the "nice" thing didn't lead to the best possible outcome, but doing the "not nice" thing would have been infinitely worse. And while, as Asriel reminds, there are times when you need more than being nice to solve a problem, it doesn't mean that's not the most optimal solution. It never presents that everything is all right just by being nice to everyone - just that it's basically the best starting point possible. And even then, even in Asriel's reminder, the game never advocates violence as a solution even once.

Basically, what you're advocating is either an absolute white and white, a sugary-sweet lovey-dovey where everyone's nice to everyone from the start, where violence is never brought up at all, and where the No Mercy route is just the character walking over everyone as they try to mercy him - or you're saying "Violence is bad" is an entirely impossible aesop to have, because it doesn't always work out perfectly in real life. I'm not sure which but I think it's wrong either way.

Except again, that goes against the game's aesop, which is "Violence is bad, regardless of the context or situation." because again, it portrays the monsters heroically when using violence against you in the No Mercy route. It never extends that same courtesy to you, even in the Neutral route, because if the player was ever in a situation where they ended up killing an enemy or boss because they couldn't find out the way to stop the battle without killing them, or if you didn't befriend all of the major characters, the game still tells you at least once(twice if you killed someone) that you should've done better. To me, that is a shitty attitude; try saying that to someone in real life who had to go through a similar traumatic event and you would be labeled as a douchebag. Even if the player character is a genocidal bastard in that route, by the game's own aesop, the monsters broke it because the game portrayed them using violence heroically instead of searching for another way to stop you without having to use violence on you. That's why the aesop is broken, the game pushes such a moral standard to you regardless of the situation, but it doesn't do the same thing to its own nonplayer characters.

It was going to end in genocide regardless. If you hadn't stopped Asgore and the monsters got a seventh soul, whether it be from someone else or from you if you didn't had the power to Save and Load, then Asgore would've still carried out a war against the humans that would end in genocide, and again it wouldn't have come to that if Asriel didn't sacrifice himself. Plus, that still doesn't make the killing of six innocent lives any better, since they were still innocent. At least in the No Mercy route you can argue that the player character is guilty that warranted the use of lethal violence, but that would still go against the game's aesop of violence being bad and wrong regardless. As for Asriel's reminder, it still is rendered null and void since the game's solutions to getting that are still boiled down to being nice to everyone.

I'm not advocating an absolute white and white, sugary-sweet lovey dovey where everyone's nice to everyone: the game is, as shown with the Pacifist route. And I never said "violence is bad" is an entirely impossible aesop to have. That is your assumption, and I don't appreciate you strawmanning me like that. I think pacifism has it's place, but because it's not always applicable in real life, there are valid reasons to not agree with it, and I don't think it's morally better or superior, and in worse cases it can be foolish and selfish in regards to other important matters. But just because I don't like or agree with a pacifist moral doesn't mean I think it's impossible to do one in a story, but it needs to be done with a lot of thought and effort put into it. A lot of pacifist stories that I've read can't do such an aesop right, and I find Undertale's take on it to be just as poorly executed.

But again, that's all brought up in the opening post: you're not the only one that has to learn that violence is wrong. Why should the game hold its own NP Cs to any higher standard than the player character, from the beginning? Why should it automatically have everyone but the player already having learned the lesson? That's just completely stupid, and it would reduce the entire thing into an anvilicious soapbox, more about "teaching" than about playing.

No, you're teaching them just as much as they're teaching you - and at the end of the pacifist route, everyone's learned that lesson. And the game is so much better for it.

Mainly because victims of aggression are not obligated to put up with the aggressor's behavior, and are not obligated to be their friends or show them the "right" way, which the game says that you have to put up with them in order to get the True Ending. Believe it or not, real life pacifism doesn't require you to become friends with your enemies. I'm sure that some schools of thought on would advocate that, but generally making friends with your enemy isn't something that is advocated in all pacifism in general.

Also, only Toriel and some monsters in the ruins were teaching you about non-violence. Sans only made suggestions of you being nice to Papyrus, and even then I say that he underestimated how much his brother was willing to go to become famous since you still fight Papyrus in a boss battle anyway. Other than that, I don't think anyone else in the game after the ruins section were teaching you anything about the lesson.

Real life pacifism doesn't require you to become friends with your enemies, but I'd argue that it would be better to try and do so, to understand them and see what's driving them into violence. You're not obligated to put up with their bullshit, certainly, but it would probably help if you were. In any case, bringing in all the many brands of pacifism, and claiming the aesop is broken because of some very specific flavor that doesn't require you to befriend everyone, is kind of missing the point in my mind.

Also, how could those other monsters teach you about it when they, again, are themselves struggling to learn the stuff?

I think that would be rather unhealthy for the victims to do that, since it would lead to a lot of bad stuff much like victims in abusive relationships. I'd argue that it would be better to have society's professionals, whether it's rehab, therapy, and etc. handle it instead, because unlike victims, it's their job and they have the knowledge and training to deal with that stuff.

I would say it would be very easy for them to learn it themselves since as someone pointed out, they have positive emotions as an important part of their souls, they welcomed a human before with opened arms despite the war that happened in the backstory, and considering how these are some of the most easily persuadable enemies I've ever seen in a game, with it coming from someone whose suppose to be their enemy, their leaders would have easily been able to teach them(though that leads to why I have a problem with Asgore). And Toriel had no problem teaching the ones in the ruins as well in one of the varied Neutral Endings, since you can talk to some of them, with one even asking you to show monsters mercy if you fight them with minimal damage to where they decide to surrender.

They might have learned it themselves, if it weren't for two things: Asgore having declared the war, and none of the other souls having implied not to be exactly peaceful.

I would say Asgore could've easily called off the war and proposed another idea to still keep hope in the monsters, since again, if they're very easily able to be persuaded by their enemy, then their leader would easily do that with no problem(on top of Toriel being able to do just that in one of the varied Neutral Endings).Also, the other souls were in situations where they were trying to survive and protect themselves, because given how Toriel explained how she's seen it happen again and again, it's very well likely that the souls were still innocent people thrown into a dangerous situation and the monsters were being the aggressors.

And that's exactly what happened to the player as well. Even you can do the exact same thing, just protect yourself and kill in self-defense, and apart from a very occasional monster (such as Papyrus) or if you're going on a No Mercy route, no one will be particularly judging. The difference is, you can break the cycle by being a pacifist about it, get the monsters out of being aggressive, befriend everyone, and get a happy ending.

Hence the aesop.

Except the game still judges you even if you do just protect yourself and kill in self-defense, telling you that you should've done better, and my stance is No to that. And like I said, you're not obligated to make your aggressors not aggressive anymore when that falls on them, not on you, and I don't think that there should be a moral where you have to be obligated to put up with the bullshit of those who want to harm you. I still find the game's aesop poorly executed for the reasons that I've explained and again going back to it depicting the monsters using violence on you in the No Mercy route is depicted as heroic even though, again, the aesop is "violence is wrong, regardless of context and situations." Hence, it's still broken.

Now I feel like this is going nowhere, since we are only just talking past each other now and it's making this whole topic chain drag out far too long than it should. I guess at this point, I shouldn't care if Broken Aesop is set up on the page or not.

Yeah, I basically still disagree with you, and by the looks of things you'd need to write a whole essay on the trope page about why you think the aesop is broken. Probably not worth it.

And anyway, that's the thing about being a hero: you're not obligated to do any of that, you're not obligated to turn the other cheek, but you do it anyway. They're wrong for coming at you violently, but answering to it with your own violence, justified or not, will just hurt everybody even more. And I feel that the whole judgement thing (which I had to think a little to even remember) is kind of justified as well because your character can do something no one in real life can: you can load the game and try again. So unlike anyone else, you really can do better. Which kind of falls more to Fantastic Aesop rather than a broken one, but there you go.

In any case, I agree this whole discussion has kind of started to grow old and smell.

If you really want to, you can go through the entire game killing everyone who tries to kill you and sparing everyone who doesn't. Doing so will get you a decent, if not perfect, ending, and the only people who will judge you for it are the monsters.

And if you didn't care about them enough to *not* kill them, why should you care enough about them to care what they think of you?

Now, doing so will also generally mean you don't get to experience the fun of navigating the dialogue puzzles under the act function and are instead left with the comparatively-flat experience of using the attack command and the action bar, but that falls under complaining that the game didn't make violence as fun and engaging as non-violence, which is kind of a feat in and of itself.

I think the aesop is broken because I find Rahkshi's argument more compelling. At the very least Unintentionally Unsympathetic should merit being on the page again because it does apply to players who don't like the characters.

I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to remove examples for that reason. Taking off some of the tags so that at least part of the example is visible is recommended, though not mandatory.

I bet you're a lot smarter than me in that regard. I can say that I've had no experience in having my edits outright rejected, and it would be a shame for everybody if my efforts would be wasted.

Keep in mind that audience opinions on their own are not spoilers ever. Only the underlying information about why they occur can be.