HOME | DD
TC-96 — Undertale - Consequences - 1 of 4
#undertale
Published: 2018-03-29 01:43:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 133705; Favourites: 2987; Downloads: 447
Redirect to original
Description
comic dubs!www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfv0lz…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWDJY0…
first page of a mini comic I've been making for a while now, basically it's a big test to try my hand at...
ANGST
basically it's you're never alone but it doesn't go so fluffy, I've never tried a mostly non-fluff thing before after all. This comic takes place during Frisk's last pacifist run right after their genocide run they abandoned
Next:
Related content
Comments: 406
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wouldn't it be weird if this was an alternate world (not universe) like someone playing the game in a different area, and Frisk never did the Genocide run but just has these nightmares, same for Sans
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Hey TC! I'm back at it again! This time I was wondering if it would be ok if I dubbed your consequences comic for my youtube channel! I thank you for the last time you let me dub your stuff but I absolutely love this comic!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did you see SuperShadic's dub on this?
It was pretty cool
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh they dubbed it? I have to go find it XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If shes a gril then i'll put my burgers on her
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Everyone is always like “chara is evil”. Except you are the one that chose to kill, chara was just along for the ride
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Canonly no. It's debated whether or not they kill Sans or Flowey. But both of those deaths could have just as easily been you. Only death Chara does in Genocide is the death of humanity in the destruction of the world, and by then it's argued that Chara is already corrupted past redemption.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
they keep track of your kills and you aren't controlling some of those strikes or walking through Papyrus' puzzles or taking a step closer to Sans, the one in control is doing that: Chara
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't wanna argue dude, but I do wanna say that could also just as easily be Frisk. The LV is affecting Frisk as well, so they could also be the one choosing to walk through the puzzles or inch towards Sans, or strike Asgore and Flowey. But it also could be Chara. There's no debate, however, that one of us is right. We don't know who cause Toby Fox wants us to decide for ourselves rather than telling us. But it could just as easily be Frisk as it is Chara.
Also I'm not sure what you mean by they're keeping track of your kills... unless you mean the stats menu is Chara? .-.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ever time you save, they tell you how many monsters you have left to kill
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh. Well, again, we don't know if that's Chara. It was never confirmed.
Let's drop this though. If you think it's Chara I'm not gonna change your mind, just like how I blame the Player (and a bit on Flowey) and Frisk, and you're not changing my mind on that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
that's actually kinda true cause in the game, we'er frisk. and we're the ones that chooses either to go on a genocide route or pacifist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
WHEN WILL YOU LEARN, THAT YOUR ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Your Frisk should consider themself lucky they only got a Jumpscare .
My Chara gave my Frisk a scar across the face.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
When chara was turning around I imagined the megalo strike back intro and when they jumpscared i imagined a heavy metal cover of the real song
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Really liked how the game made you think of it, like more of a reality split world, but being still a game.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It’s probably very wrong, but I like to see the worst possible side of every character in a story, show, or game.
But, old Paps here is giving me hard time.
I wonder what would it take for him to crack? Pun intended
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hm... the worst side I've seen of Papyrus was him beating PaciFrisk within an HP of their life in his boss battle, with the intention to turn them over to people who he didn't think would let them go. That was kind of a dick move, though it's still a step up from how most of Frisk's opponents treat them.
It's kind of ironic that he's nicer to you when you're a mass murderer than he is when you're on your best behavior, haha. Though it makes sense that he wouldn't want to risk pushing you to violence right after he convinced you to choose peace.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, he had his own ambitions and didn't think much of the situation at the time. I don't think it was a dick move. I mean, he warned us from the very beginning that he would do that, didn't he? But at least he's always able to stop. Toriel can slip up and kill you. And all the others want to kill you. So... I guess he's the nicest one after all?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's true that he warned us from the start, but that doesn't change the fact that he beat a kid within an inch of their life, with the intention to have them permanently imprisoned, for his own personal gain. I mean, if you tell a child you're going to hurt them, and then you hurt them, does the fact that you told them ahead of time make it better?
As for being the nicest one... Papyrus is an interesting mix that way. He's reflexively nice - just look how he defaults to trying to help you, even when that means offering to solve puzzles that he personally set up to stop you. But during the boss fight, he consciously overrides that automatic kindness for the sake of his ambitions.
On the one hand, it's true that he's the only monster you fight who will never kill you no matter what. It's a testament to his care and skill that you can't die at his hands, when even Toriel can kill you by accident.
But on the other hand, out of all the bosses, he had the most selfish reason for attacking you. Toriel wanted to protect you, Undyne and Asgore wanted to free everyone and end monsters' suffering, Muffet wanted to reunite the spider clans, and even self-absorbed Mettaton wanted to prevent a genocide (and to become a star on the surface, but the genocide part is kind of important).
Papyrus, meanwhile, gave no indication during his battle that he had any goal besides joining the Guard and becoming popular. Granted, he knew the king needed a human in order to break the Barrier, but that didn't factor into his battle dialogue at all, so it doesn't seem like he was thinking about that.
Overall, I'd say he is a mostly nice person who made one uncharacteristically mean decision in his desperation to have friends.
That said, there is the possibility that he didn't realize Frisk is a child. After all, he's never seen a human before, and Frisk's sprite is almost the same height as Sans and Alphys, so he could have mistaken them for an adult.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes. I don't think he ever realized that we're that young. Or, even if he did, I think the thought of treating us like one never crossed his mind. And yes, telling us beforehand does make it better. We could have ran. But no, instead, we chose to fight him. It's not fair to blame him for something we've agreed to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We could have ran? Not really. While the protagonist is trying to leave Papyrus' home area - the closest we get to "running" from him - he shows up, initiates battle, and doesn't give the human the option to flee. He'll fight you whether you 'agree' to it or not.
Granted, if we fight him more than once, we do make the choice to return to the area where we know he'll fight us. But for the first battle, he'll ambush and fight you whether you choose it or not, so yes, it is fair to blame him for that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We were warned. We knew it would come eventually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's true, though it doesn't really address anything I said.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It does tho. If we were warned, we knew what we would get, and that once we agreed to fight him, we can't just back up. This is unlike the encounters, which happen at random, ergo, we can flee from them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hm, it seems like you didn't really read my earlier comment in which I explained why the "we were warned" argument doesn't apply here. Let's try that again.
Yes, we were warned that, at some point in time, he would attempt to capture us. But he didn't say when, or what action would trigger the encounter. When he decided to attack us, he just popped up and did it. He didn't say "step forward when you're ready", or give you the option to flee, or anything like that. When you enter his battle area, he shows up, talks, then engages you in battle, and at no point during that process are you given the option to leave or refuse. That being the case, the argument that "you agreed to fight him" doesn't apply here, because you didn't agree to it.
NOTE: the above only applies to the first time you fight him, when he pops up in your path while you're just walking along, minding your own business. In subsequent battles, you know he's going to be there, so in those cases, you're choosing to return to that battle. But the first time you walk into the fog, you don't know he's going to be there, and you don't know that, by entering that area, you'll initiate his battle encounter, so informed consent is not requested or given.
I know I probably sound like I'm dumping on Papyrus here, which certainly isn't my intention. As noted in an earlier comment, he's one of the nicest people out there almost all the time. His boss battle happens to be a moment when he makes an exception to that rule, out of desperation to get friends. I've noticed that some people seem to portray ONLY his nice side, while ignoring or downplaying that darker moment, but when you focus exclusively on one side of a character, you risk flattening a complex personality into a one-dimensional caricature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He stood where the town ended. Obviously, leaving the town would trigger the fight.
Also, as much as you are technically correct, it's a pointless argument. Bashing on Toriel, Sans or Asgore, I would understand that. But Papyrus recognizes no flaws with him. You can't really get a redemption arc with him as you can with the other characters, as he already considers himself to be nearly perfect. It's like saying "this door stubbed my toe!" - it's pointless. I'm not saying Papyrus has a simplistic mind like this, but... he does.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, simply by entering an area where there's a higher chance of being attacked, one is consenting to be attacked? If someone said "I'm going to shoot you", and didn't say when or where, then they shot you while you were going to the grocery store, does that mean you agreed to getting shot simply by walking out into the open? That sounds like the kind of logic a person would use when saying "since she was walking in that part of town at night, she was asking for it", and your dedication to this way of thinking is starting to get a bit disturbing. Are you not aware of how consent works?
Sure, a video game player could guess that leaving an area would trigger an end-of-area encounter, but that's metagame logic, and one couldn't necessarily expect a child within the story (Frisk) to know that, so it doesn't apply in-story. There's also the fact that Papyrus had started acting friendly toward them, and had even offered to help them get past a puzzle, so they might have started to think he'd changed his mind about attacking them. Further evidence against the "walking out of town = informed consent to a battle" theory.
I'm not bashing on Papyrus; just pointing out that he took a negative action, and that he is responsible for that action, no matter how much one tries to shift the blame away from him. If anything, I'm giving him more credit than the people who treat him like an idiot by acting like he's incapable of understanding the consequences of his own actions. But if you aren't willing to hear that Papyrus can held responsible for his own decisions no matter what, then you're right in saying that any further discussion on that topic is pointless. I'm kind of running out of ways to explain this.
As for the concept of a redemption arc... I suppose for Papyrus, a redemption arc might involve him realizing that he made a selfish decision, and recognizing that it had a negative impact on another person. I think, once he realized that, he would enthusiastically throw himself into the task of making up for it.
He is capable of feeling guilty for his actions, as evidenced by his reaction to lying to Undyne about your clothes, and by his feelings of guilt when he thinks he's made you romantically obsessed with him and he can't return those feelings. I don't think he's completely oblivious to the possibility of wrongdoing on his own part. I suspect Papyrus is smarter than a lot of people give him credit for, though how much so is hard to tell.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The monsters know nothing of that, their world works differently. Yes, if you try to flee, you can be sure as hell he will do it. He always waits for you somewhere too, he never goes after you.
And walking out in the open at night? Honestly? Yes. That does raise your chances of getting mugged. Asking for it? I wouldn't say that, but not expecting it is certainly stupid of one.
As for the game, it is nearly self-aware. Fights happen in tightly bound turns, monsters wear names, it's a completely different world. One could assume that the world plays out like a game by walking just through the very first area. And we, Frisk, knew that. Frisk isn't just a child, they represent us. After all, Undertale is a role-playing game.
You don't need to explain this further. There is nothing to explain, Undertale is just a game, with different world mechanics. Applying our own knowledge to it is rather pointless, knowing how often Toby likes to flip everything upside down when it comes to gaming.
And I'm not saying that Papyrus cannot get a redemption arc at all, but due to how he is treated, I don't think he ever will. For that, people must actually care to point it out to him, and no one seems bothered to do that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The question wasn't whether monsters understand the concept of consent; it was whether or not we'd "agreed" to the fight with Papyrus. Totally different topics. And on that subject, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because it seems like our concepts of what constitutes consent are pretty irreconcilable, and I'm kind of tired of discussing it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know these concepts apply in our world. But you simply cannot assume that they also apply in this world too, at least not in the same exact way.
Technically, all monsters that hurt Frisk should have been arrested and the king too for actually killing the children once they get to the surface. I wonder why did everyone seemingly let it pass.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you're going to use a blanket statement of "their world and its rules are different, so your argument is invalid" to counter every piece of logic that contradicts your viewpoint, there's no point in me saying anything more on that subject.
On another subject, I do agree that it's odd that there were no legal or political repercussions for the six murders once monsters reached the surface. My personal headcanon is that Toriel basically told the human authorities, "Monsters killed six humans. Humans slaughtered countless monsters during the war, imprisoned us for millennia, and murdered my son. I understand that Asgore deserves to be punished for his crimes, but this is a delicate stage in the relationship between our species. If the first thing humans do after monsters reach the surface is to imprison our king, I am not sure I will be able to keep the peace between our people and yours. Monsters and humans can be of great benefit to each other, but for that to happen, we need to start with a clean slate, and the crimes we are forgiving are much greater than the ones for which you are forgiving us."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, and their political situation is different too. You have to count in the fact that many of the monsters were raised with the belief that killing humans is the only thing that can and must be done and so they act accordingly. Hence, their morals will undoubtedly be different from ours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>