One thing I forgot to say near the end. I am not a "lore expert" when it comes to Undertale. If there's anything in this video that is objectively incorrect, please feel free to correct me. Edit: Many commenters have corrected me on Papyrus' bossfight and how you can't die during it. I appreciate it but There's no need to correct me on that anymore 😂😂

9:45 The only error I found in this video so far: Papyrus is the only monster Frisk encounters that can *never* kill them! Papyrus lowers Frisk down to 1 HP, and captures them by putting them in his shed. Papyrus also willingly heals Frisk up, so he does show that he does have a lot of restraint.

don't forget that you are still technically playing neutral in pacifist

I think trying to kill Nabstablook after willingly engaging it is ... questionable. At least on the first turn, I don't see a reason to not try talking to it. Also, something to consider about the self defence thing is that you can attack enemies until they don't want to fight anymore.

in my opinion, Undyne, MTT, Asgore and Flowey can definitvely be justified. Undyne cannot be spared under any circumstance. MTT also doesn't allow you to spare him. Asgore actually begs you to kill him. Flowey. Toriel and Papyrus do not deserve it. Toriel does not pose a *threat*. She is an obstacle, but she doesn't threaten your life on purpose. Papyrus would be justifible... if you could just kill him. Papyrus is so bulky that you *cannot kill him unless you do it after he spares you*. It's hard to call self defense when the other person gives up

13:30 Another error. No matter what's the route, even if you're in genocide, Muffet gets a letter from the spiders in the RUINS saying you never hurt a single spider and then (even if you didn't buy a donut) she spares you, and if you still try giving money, she refuses.

I can't blame Frisk for accidentally killing the first froggit as its a new environment to them and probably reacted out of pure fear not realizing they could spare the froggit. Undyne is completely reasonable to kill/ not give water to, that monster is literally hunting you down and not giving you an option to surrender, Mettaton is throwing their life into mortal danger and makes it clear that they have ill intent towards Frisk, Asgore striaght up doesn't let you spare him, meaning Frisk has no other option than to kill him. Flowey is a no brainer, he's far too dangerous to be left alive and terrorize the underground, yes they're a deeply traumatized child who was unfairly hunted by humans, but he's shown he's indifferent to commit mass murder and extremely dangerous and willing to harm others if given the option

The worst ending you can get is killing everyone except for glad dummy. Everyone everyone loves is dead and glad dummy will eventually become to depression with its coming hatred for the body it fused with.

Random enemies can be justified as self defense(except whimsun). Toriel can be justified as she does ask us to prove us we are strong enough to survive, imply we have to fight her. You can't kill Papyrus before he spares you so Papyrus is unjustified as you have to attack after he surrenders. Undyne, Muffett, Mettaton and Asgore literally want your soul so that's justified. Flowey attempts to kill you immediately. Attempts to kill you over and over again until he's satisfied while taunting you which definitely counts as strange and unusual forms of torture on top of murder. Flowey is 100% justified. Keep in mind this is just my opinion. If you disagree that's okay.

I do think we should factor in the fact Frisk can undo their own death if they fall. So no enemy is a true threat to Frisk (Except Flowey) so kill Flowey if you wish.

This may be a random enemy to bring up, but killing Vulkin seems a bit more morally questionable than other monsters. I'd still say it's justified since your life is still in danger, but it's made clear throughout the fight that Vulkin is not trying to hurt you, they're just stupid. Vulkin thinks their attacks heal you. Killing Vulkin would still fall under self-defence, but it would be a little worse than killing someone like Doggo or Migosp.

frisk in neutral/pacifist: im in danger frisk in genocide: *IM THE DANGER* edit: OMG i have 42 likes

2:48 Sans actually can’t remember. He is just very good at examining body language and he knows of the existence of resets. Though never experiencing one.

I'd argue Greator Dog was justified because he always looked nice and never said they wanted to kill you and just look happy and you need to do normal dog tricks that any other person would know to spare them so Frisk could understand that pretty nicely but yeah other that and the Toriel part great video!

I don't agree with the moster kid part. Undyne is literally moving to you trying to kill you and it's not like that it's your fault that monster kid tripped so Frisk trying to escape would make sense. Basically not risking your own life to safe another one makes sense for me especially because its expected that monster kid gets saved anyway by Undyne.

accidentally killing them is justified if it’s self defense but purposely killing them when you can spare them, is not justified to me

Oh no you can absolutely murder mettaton, robot in body but that is still a monster, since you might not know that’s a ghost in a robot body Alphys made mettaton for… mettaton (the ghost) then using mettaton (the robot) she convinced asgore she could make a robot with a monster soul but really it was a ghost possessing a robot giving it a soul, once a ghost is fused with a body it can be killed like any other monster, we see this with mad dummy in the genocide route as they turn into glad dummy having fused to their body and can now be killed, this also applies to mettaton Morally? Yeah frisk wouldn’t know, mettaton has purposefully hid his life behind him and tried to erase all the evidence of him being a ghost, the most you can find is the key which leads to his old house but even then it’s not clear Frisk killing mettaton would be justified as it would be like breaking a machine that had gone haywire and is now dangerous, you don’t think about it too much cause it’s just a robot, but even in the externally off chance frisk did learn this was a living person that isn’t bound by code and can’t be rebuilt as their soul would break once they die, mettaton still admits that someone has to die, that he would rather kill you thank let all of humanity die, and that he hired people to murder you, at the end of the day that’s just not okay and knowing he isn’t just a robot doesn’t change that

Would be cool to see if this is also true for yellow, especially considering clovers naive but noble intentions making even its geno route sympathetic, even if morally wrong

Actually, something not really covered in the neutral route often (because most people don't know about it) is that, if you go through the neutral route while killing a few monsters, flowey tells you "if you get through the whole underground without killing a SINGLE monster, I WON'T kill the king." But here's the thing. You still don't have to do true pacifist for this. Meaning, if you just spare everyone and befriend nobody, you can get to the end of the game and have Asgore not die!!! Right?? ......right? Wrong. If you do this and attempt to spare Asgore, he will recognize that keeping you trapped in the underground is cruel, and he will KILL HIMSELF so that you can take his soul, and then flowey destroys his soul. It doesn't really matter if you spare or kill him, he was going to die no matter what. He never really wanted to kill you, he just wanted the fight to be over.

I think it depends on how you play the neutral ending- like fighting monsters isn’t wrong, most of them are trying to kill you or doing something that would lead to you dying. I think where it becomes morally wrong to fight on neutral is when an enemy either starts to spare you or tries to run away. Like killing Undyne is justified, but because on neutral you can never kill papyrus before he stops fighting, killing him is wrong

a lot of monsters are trying to kill you all the time so as much as u love all the characters, if you're a random kid in a place full with monsters that say they need your soul then HOW can you not be terrified?

9:39 You can *_not_* die to Papyrus. He truly does nonlethally capture you, just as he claimed, and then put you inside of a jerry-rigged jail inside of his shed. … he made the bars too wide, like he did at the bridge before Sans' sentry point, though.

10:08 last time I checked papyrus cannot actually kill you. He always leaves you at 1 hp and just takes you to his garage to a supposed cell where the bars are too wide and the door is unlocked. Even if you lose to him 2 more times he just lets you go even without beating him.

neutral is what actually would happen realistically

It's straightup impossible to say if the neutral route is morally good or bad, because your actions can range from killing nobody but not hanging out with undyne, to killing literally everybody except one enemy that is required to continue the geno route

Froggit says "Monsters wont want to fight you when their hp is lowered" or something along the lines. Clearly, attacking wgen you can spare the enemy for good is the immoral thing to do

Can’t you just like- run away tho I think assuming a kid will attempt to kill in self defense in the first place is presumptuous, if I’m a kid in this environment my first instinct is to run…

The end RUINs dialogue you got only happens if you trigger a genocide and abort it, iunno, think genocide is pretty non-moral

Great video!

6:15 as a child fleeing will be the first thing on your mind . Frisk special, Band-Aid makes it so they can automatically flee any encounter. In addition, if we’re just going by Frisk perspective punching the dummy makes Frisk feel bad regardless of anything you said no matter what you said frisk would see it morally objective to hurt inanimate objects, and let alone monsters. So any argument you make about frisk feeling is immediately negated

2:47 the characters KNOW there are resets but dont remember exactly what you did, flowey is most likely just numb from how many resets he did. Counting sans would include mettaton, toriel, temmie, asgore, actually just everyone. (Also there IS a flee option to run from enemies)

Correct answer is that it depends on who you aren’t a pacifist with. Killing some one like undyne, mettaton, or the core enemies is 100% justified self defense

What I've always wondered: If your SOUL shatters into pieces when you die, how are those who are trying to kill you for your SOUL going about taking it when they kill you? Do they just... sweep up the pieces and deliver them to Asgore?

As someone who loves Undertale. I LOVE this idea. and honestly, I think it would be really cool to do this topic but to encompass all of the different routes of Neutral. And don't worry, while there are 80+ variations of these endings. there's like 10 Actual endings of Neutral. Undyne, Family, Alphys, Papyrus, Metaton, Exiled Queen, Dog, and No King. There are variations in these, but overall they stay relatively similar in how the Underground is ran when the Human leaves. And in case you're wondering, the ending you talked about here, was the Papyrus ending :) but overall, loved the video and the topic! and I do have one point against yours with the first froggit you encountered. While yes, it does "jump" you, it can be seen as an over reaction to dusting it (don't want to go against TOS) when all it did was appear. and since in the previous room it was reinforced that "you don't want to hurt people" with the dummy, I can see this being one where you would try to talk first and toriel comes in to stop the encounter

Something to note about Papyrus, he only knocks you out if you actually die to him. He even leaves water for you in case. while it might not be known on a first playthrough of a game (especially if you dont die to him) Papyrus never has the intent to kill, he doesnt even bring you to Undyne. He of course willingly spares you (in genocide and pacifist) so its always wrong to kill him

I don’t think it’s morally wrong to kill Papyrus. Especially if, say, you end the fight with like 3HP. Imagine if some guy kept talking about capturing you, brought you close to death, and now you’re morally expected to spare him because “He’s worn out”. That’s ridiculous. We also know Papyrus is stubborn and resilient. There’s nothing stopping him from getting rest and continuing to hunt us down “for the Royal Guard” except for our preconceived notions as a gamer of knowing that the boss fight is the probably the final time we’ll have an altercation with him. (And yes, Papyrus will never kill the human, but they don’t know that) And then you are in no way morally obligated to help Monster Kid. Undyne is literally right there and to help them is to move extremely close to her. You’re essentially jumping in front of a bullet (or spear) to save someone you met just two minutes ago and, again, Undyne is right there. She’s just as able to save Monster Kid as you are. I still liked the video, despite these disagreements because props to you for posting an Undertale video where you say there’s nothing wrong with killing Toriel.

Frisk is a child. I don’t see how they know how to spare some monsters that are trying to to kill them

I think that killing Papyrus was unjustified since no matter how many times you get hit PAPYRUS WON'T KILL YOU, he brings you down to 1 HP and then "captures" you so he can finally live out his lifelong dream.

LMAO at "Elvis Presley Dude"!

I did a run and when I beat asgore I spared him and he told me to kill him anyway beacuse he said “I’m sorry but we just can’t have a happy ending, take my soul and leave this place.” And when flowey takes the souls he just says “let’s get this over with” and puts me in the end credits without fighting omega flowey

So glad there's someone bringing nuance to the discussion of Undertale's morality, it's been absent for far too long, and clearly by Toby Fox's own intent. You actually changed my mind about Toriel, and it caused me to see something I didn't see before: Toriel doesn't ever kill you, and not only doesn't seem disappointed if you kill her, but actively wants you to "fight or run away". I think that, with her endless years weighing down on her, she's attempting assisted suicide. The situation with Undyne may seem cut and dried, but it's a bit more interesting than that. It's clear she has a large amount of popularity, and that what she says may be taken as infallible. We can also assume that she's said similar things to other monsters. Obviously what she said is blatantly false, but that sure isn't obvious to the other monsters, and if she goes to fight Frisk and doesn't come back, the monsters will be grounded in their narrow-mindedness and false viewpoint tenfold. I'd argue this isn't just politically good, but that you're morally obligated to dispel deceit where possible. I actually think you're morally obligated to strike Asgore down. He's murdered 6 children, and as such deserves the death penalty. No amount of repentance can justify those actions. You might say it isn't Frisk's place to execute justice, and in an ideal world that'd be true. But who's gonna hold him accountable? The underground is largely anti-human to begin with, and all of them love Asgore. This is the only chance for him to get what's come to him.

We be learning kantian ethics with this one 🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥

1:09 As someone who dosen‘t have a guinea pig. I see this as an absolute win. (I subbed tho)

I got undertale a couple days ago and I’m doing geno route am I evil for liking to kill the monsters?

I feel like it isn’t that unjustified to leave monster kid. Undyne is faster than us, an adult and is the same distance from monster kid than us. Up until this point, she’s only been trying to kill Frisk. If there was a killer who’s been chasing you down now at the other end of a bridge, I don’t think it’s too wrong to run away even if someone else is in trouble

I'm going to give my own thoughts. This is going to be a long comment. I'm not entirely sure about Toriel since she does, in fact, start the battle, but she also avoids killing you. You can die to her, but it's rather difficult, especially if you aren't actively trying to do it. However, since we're assuming it's Frisk's first playthrough and how often first-time players don't understand how to spare her, I'd say it's justified. Papyrus is completely unjustified. But I really like how the game handles him in terms of judging you because the judge, Sans, obviously doesn't like it when you kill his brother, so he'd judge you more harshly. But the game justifies this harsher judgment by making it literally impossible to kill him by accident, therefore removing any possible justification for killing him. By the way, in the game, Napstablook and Mad Dummy are both shown to use they/them and not he/him. It's very easy to make this mistake, but I still want to let people know if they get it wrong. Mad Dummy also later switches to using she/her in certain versions of the game (specifically Switch and Xbox, but yes, this is still canon). Also, Mettaton is even more confusing because, although the only way to learn this is by getting into a secret area in Waterfall, he is a ghost, not a robot. That's why you gain EXP from killing him. Also, he doesn't want to kill humans; he wants to entertain them. To do that, he'd need to absorb your soul and go to the surface. I'd still say it's justified, though, because he is rather clear about his intentions to kill you and take your soul. Finally, Asgore. He literally asks you to unalive him. If you don't, Flowey will. If you stop Flowey from removing him, he will commit self-die. In a neutral route, there is no way to spare him.

Trying to kill Nabstiblook is not justifyed, because Frisk was the agressor in that situation. I would also say it's probly best to spare Whimson, and others that you can spare on the first turn.

One thing that I should point out is that you can abort the Genocide Run to become a Neutral Run at any point in the game. However, I would think these routes are still morally wrong to a degree, especially if you abort the Route in Hotland. There's a unique ending for it, but one thing I should point out is that Frisk still has an urge to kill the monsters during the New Home segment as a smile appears above the encounters. I just thought it was a bit interesting.

I just have a few points of info to give and some questions !! Napstablook is actually a they, Mad Dummy is a they/it BUT because she does transition into Mew Mew, all three work imo Would it he justifiable to kill Temmie? While knowing all about her and how she functions - and that she has an unavoidable attack. Temmie knows you can come back after death (speaking as the collective temmie) so is dying to her really bad when she is aware? Is it justifiable to "kill" Mew Mew? We're the one's who cause her new binding and self sense but she does challenge us again - and will kill us with no remourse in battle, we make or break her body, and iirc we are told this too, so would preventing her permanent body connection be evil?

Papyrus is not justified he spares and does not kill you he stops at 1 hp and if you lose to often he offers you to walk past him

3:23 Welp, RIP Flowey later on.

I’d argue that anyone who says “Killing one of the normal enemies is wrong” is objectively incorrect. It’s a clear and cut case of self defense. When attacking you, the typical enemy is out for blood and has no issue killing a child, why should you not have the right to stick up for yourself? As for “Frisk initiating the battle or not”, morally I don’t think it matters. Even if you are the one to walk into the battle, most monsters will still continue to attack you even if you are just sitting there eating, pressing the spare button when their name isn’t yellow, or continuing to compliment/joke with them. You can simply be having a good time with them and they will continue to try and murder you. (Except in the genocide route. Frisk isn’t accidentally walking into the home of monsters, they are straight up farming them like crops)

Yeah, all agreeable. Some extra bits: If Frisk gets to the part where Toriel actively avoids damaging them... Then it becomes more vague, still justified, however, but a more mercy route should be chosen, I feel like. People already pointed this out ten billion times, so sorry, Frisk was never in danger with Papyrus. Etc wtc... Totally unjustified to kill him. The only real danger is that he captures them long enough for Undyne to come, but even then, I feel like Papyrus would intervene and help Frisk fight Undyne. He's too nice of a guy to watch her murder Frisk. I'd say Asgore is more lenient on not killing him. However, it is important still either way. But yeah, pretty much agree. Maybe Greater and Lesser dogs are a little less, so since Frisk could just throw their stick and get it over with, but even then. I do think that when the chance arrises to run or spare, Frisk should take it. Regardless still justified to kill. Also, I haven't seen anyone point this out with R1 and R2. I can't remember but they say "CAPTURE" you. Not kill you. Then again, they might change after you kill their boss. Just adds vague and ambiguity to it. Nothing else. Still, an either way, thing...

In my opnion neutral is is ok, It's self defense for monsters like Undyne and muffet, and while small monsters don't deserve dying (most don't even realise you're a human), a small child could accidentaly kill them in self defence. - Better than the people who say GENO is justificable, even with Papyrus, Maddy and Mk sparing you, you chasing monsters for hours, not letting them go while yhey ead for mercy and you always attacking on the first turn, meaning you are always the one to start fighting

what i feel about papyrus: If he spares you and you feel as if he cannot be trusted (IF you have not been captured yet), its i guess ok to kill him..? I mean idrk. If you fake out papyrus, that's morally wrong, obvi. If you get captured once or twice and then he tries to spare you when the battle is almost over, i feel like it would not be moral to kill him, after all, he does heal you and doesn't kill you. And also the fact that he seems genuine. If you get captured three times and then papyrus spares you, i feel as if a random man came up to me and started attacking me and then putting me in a shed with the intention of trapping me, 3 TIMES. (Even if you are being healed i dont feel as if it justifies the whole thing) i would NOT trust him, like what if he just captures us again. Ik sans tells u hes harmless, but also again, hes a total stranger, both of them Also papyrus is willing to harm u in the multicolor puzzle due to him allowing you to be endangered by all of these things: electrocution, piranha attacks and fighting monsters without consent.

My Dad would LOVE THE GENOCIDE RUN. he loves hard games :D

I think that, in a neutral run, you are not only justifyed in killing Flowey, but morally obligated to.

Be honest if you were frisk realistically, would you ACTUALLY spare flowey after the omega flowey fight?

I think that killing toriel isn't that bad because if you try to talk to her the first few times she doesn't answer so you could think that this is the only option. On the other side you can clearly see that she tries not to hit you when you're low and you really need to try to die to her so i don't know. And since when can you die to Papyrus?

I feel like something important to consider here is that most non-boss monsters become sparable if their HP is low enough. I personally feel that going out of your way to kill them when you have the option to stop fighting isn't a very morally just action. Sure they were trying to kill you, but at that point in the battle they are willing to end the fight with both lives in tact.

I love this! Killing asgore reminds me of a trolley problem. Would you sacrifice yourself to save thousands of innocents from imprisonment Would you be interested in making a video for undertale yellow about which kill is justifiable?

One thing that nobody said is the ability to reset that makes justifying some kills a bit harder. On your first play trough killing in self defense is 100% justified and the same can be said if you don’t know how to spare an enemy(for example, if you don’t know that you can flee during the undyne fight or that MTT stops fighting if your reach 10000 spectators) but if you replay the game and know how to end a fight without nobody dying you can’t kill for self defense, because you choose to fight instead of sparing. This thing is addressed at least twice in the game, one of you choose the talk option with toriel after killing her one (is there a way to give mercy without fighting or fleeing?), and the other with sans’ judgement if you kill papyrus (do you think that if you have some special power you should always try to do the right thing?). Still, frisk is a child and trying to spare the enemy could mean dying and suffering more times, so it doesn’t oblige you to be a pacifist, but it still makes justifying some kills a bit harder

My answer to whether you’re good or bad on neutral Yesn’t

To be honest, I think the only reason I spared Flowey after his Omega fight (when I had Undertale at least...) was because when you think about it, it would just make him suffer more. Think about it. In the genocide run, he mentions to you (Frisk, not the reader) that he did _everything_ he could think of doing to every monster in the underground. Killing them, getting answers out of them, likely verbally abusing them as well... (among other things I don't really want to get into), he eventually got bored with it all. On top of that, he basically gets the last laugh when you kill him, since he says he knew you had it in yourself to be apart of his mentality of "kill or be killed." Am I really gonna let someone get satisfaction from that after trying to kill me? No. ...then again, I doubt Frisk would think about that when dealing with Flowey on their first run.

Tbh, i dont think killing tori is justified for a few reasons 1: she actively *avoids* killing frisk when they're fighting. Although she can accidentally kill Frisk, she doesn't straight up attempt to. Plus simply challenging someone in a fight doesn't justify killing. 2: tori actually has a good reason for keeping frisk at the ruins, as according to her most of the other monsters would kill frisk, which actually is true. So it becomes less like tori holding frisk against her will. And more like tori trying to prevent frisk from getting yourself murdered. Kinda like a mother trying to stop a child from running into a busy high-way. Which kinda makes killing tori, the furthest from justified. Also tori litterally saves frisk from death so yeah.. its straight up impossible for frisk to justify killing toriel. Unless She considers a child killing a mother for trying to stop said child from doing something dangerous justified.

One of my leadt favorite things about undertale is theres not enough hateable characters wich means the game rarely trys to push you to kill in any way ut doesnt challenge your resolve. And the one super hateable character (Alphys) isnt killable

It’s so funny that he says that killing is justified so casually 😂

You forgot about the Shyren encounter, since her encounter states that "Shyren was hiding in the corner of the room, but somehow encounters you anyway" along with the fact that she doesn't face you for this fight (unless you cheer her up) and her attacks are just her singing which at first she doesn't even attempt to sing properly at you anyway (unless you cheer her up) only throwing out a single note during her turns (unless you cheer her up) that misses the attack box most of the time anyway (again unless you cheer her up) I think an argument could be made that she has no intention of fighting you and this harming her might not be considered self defence (unless you cheer her up and she starts singing at you probably, but the dialogue for that bit seems to imply she thinks you two are just having fun and putting on a concert and doesn't seem to know her singing can hurt you).

7:43 yeah but I challenge you not try to kill. If you are low healt her attacks miss on purpose

I'd like to say there *are* some monsters which I consider it's morally wrong to kill, like whimsum and vulkin. It's clear that whimsum encounters you by accideny and does NOT want to kill you, but only to defened herself and keep you away cuz she's scared. Her attacks don't even aim at you so the only way you can die is by intentionally getting hit, best thing to do here would be run or spare her. And with vulkin, she just wants a hug, but ends up unintentionally hurting you in the proccess, like a playful dog being too brute with a child. As before, the solution is sparing or flee same goes for temmie btw

Would the player be justified in killing vulkin seeing as how it is just trying to help you.

cant you spare enemies when their health gets low enough. sure sometimes they might overshoot and acidentally kill them, byt some deaths can be avoided

If it was me a child who fell underground when I was little, I'll probably just don't let Toriel leave me in the first place, but if she does, I'll run away from froggits and just stay with Toriel forever

Now do one for Undertale Yellow

12:13 Unlike Papyrus, Undyne wants your blood.

I Think that killing muffet is a tilt on the bad side because unlike most monsters muffet only hurts you if she thinks your a bad person she doesn’t go around just killing people also you can be on the genocide route but spare muffet because she only hurts people that hurt her spiders.

I'd say that while Frisk would attack if they see it as self-defense, they're just a kid. I doubt they would want to kill anyone assuming they have no reason to. This logic leads me to believe that Papyrus is spared by Frisk, as he specifically states he's sparing you, and at that point Frisk no longer has a good reason to kill Papyrus at all.

Just reminding you that Mettaton is not a robot and is a ghost 🤓 sorry I had to do it …

That’s the thing, you literally CAN’T die to Papyrus, any time he gets you down to 1 HP he just captures you, and if you do that 3 times, you don’t even have to fight him

For me I consider killing the random encounters justifiably as you're a small child & these monsters are all trying to kill you. It's when you start going out of your way to murder monsters and do a genocide run that's when I'd consider it evil

All I have learned from this video is a JUSTIFIABLE natural run looks VERY SIMILAR to a genocide run. The only real difference between the two is you are not TRYING to hunt down monsters.

Papyrus can't actually kill you, he only captures and even that isn't serious, he just takes you to his house and makes no effort to keep you there. Killing Papyrus is NOT justified under any circumstance

Trim my guinea pigs toenails? Saves me a trip to the vet to get em trimmed 👍

It’s justified if you work from the perspective of Frisk being a kid who fell into the Underground. When you account for the fact that Frisk genuinely can’t die and can reload and retry things as many times as they need to or desire, leaving the Underground in the state it’s in post-neutral is rather morally iffy

Not saving monster kid could also be seen as good knowing how much monster kid loves undyne letting them have the chance of bring saved by their hero could also be seen as good

9:40 No. You physically cannot die to Papyrus, no matter what.

In my opinion we don’t know what Frisk is thinking about monsters in general. We can all think rationally but they can’t and won’t.

>Napstablook: You have to force him out of the way. This means attacking in this encounter is not justified self-defense. >Toriel: After trying to spare her multiple times, she will explicitly tell you to either fight or run away. You have her expressed permission to kill her. >Papyrus: Falls into a weird grey area. On the one hand, he's trying to capture you so your soul ripped away from you. However, he doesn't know this and is only doing this to impress Undyne. But since he will spare you at the end of the fight, killing him would be a war crime (I think.) >Canine Unit: Justified self defense. >Mad Dummy: Justified self defense. >Undyne: ditto >Royal Guards: ditto >Mettaton EX: Threatened to kill you on live TV. Justified self defense. >Asgore: Literally cannot live in any ending. Also declared all humans should die if they fall into the Underground. >Flowey: "It's KILL or BE KILLED."

Fair point and all but, didnt toriel insist on not killing.... I get it that frisk is just a child but Toriel has mentioned that violence isnt the right thing 2 times.

9:42 papyrus will not kill so i think you can mercy him

I disagree with a major trend in this video, and that's ignoring running away. Almost every fight in this game can be run from, which should be the first action one should take in any fight. The choice to beat something to death should only be accepted if running has failed or is impossible. If you can run but choose to kill, then you choose to kill. Note: The bandage has a secret stat that allows Frisk to Run 100% of the time. So in my opinion, any fight that they can run, they should run. If you equip anything else, then you can make the claim that any fight that they fail to run from is fair to fight. I disagree with Toriel being a moral kill, as she can't kill you at any point. At some point, the fight is Frisk beating up a woman who won't fight back and that is immoral no matter how you look at it.

2:50 Technically Asgore knows about Resets too so you're wrong.

Since in the genocide run we're told we are a monster and not a human, and throughout most of the game we're reffered to as a human or the human, I think we could assume that we just look like a small child, but are actually the age of an adult. This is supported by the fact that like half the underground tries to date us, and they're all adults, and I refuse to aknowledge the possibility that adult monsters tried dating a human child because that basically makes half of the main characters irredemable.

considering you can literally flee from almost all fights, i think it wouldnt be morally correct to kill most of them. Self defense is way less broader and lenient than the common sense (in the sociological definition) makes people think. If there's a option where no one dies, it isn't morally correct to use the option that someone does.

I would like to see your view on the aborted genocide routes. Do you think even the worse people can change?

Imma be real, i think sparing flowey hurts him more, at least for the length of how long it takes for his change of heart

Me: I don't have a guinea pig Therefore I shall not subscribe Note: I still subscribed, my normal pig got anxious

sans does not remember the resets, he and most important npc's have a deja vu feeling with frisk, only frisk and Flowey remembers after a resets, and frisk remembering is debatable. also expecting reason from a fandom is like asking a blind person to read a text or a deaf person to listen to you

Papyrus actually doesn’t kill you. He just lets you fight him again because you can easily escape from the KG put you in so I think it’s kind to him and I know Sans agrees

My thoughts on this video: Frisk kind of has to know what saving and loading is because they use it at the start of the ruins. And most of the monsters in this game take like 1 or 2 acts to spare. Even if Frisk dies trying to save a monster they can just load their save and they're completely fine. My point is that there is no lasting consequences for Frisk trying to spare every monster they meet. The only monsters I can justify Frisk killing is Toriel and Undyne because it's really difficult to figure out how to spare them and in Undyne's case she is being pretty terrible towards Frisk.