Lord Laharl's Vassal

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
drundertalescum

Fanon Asgore misconceptions (because I’m tired of them and I want to talk about it in-depth)

kingfiuffybunz

1. Asgore willingly killed the six children because he wanted to.

This is blatantly OOC and completely ignores the canon story of Asgore and his motivations. Asgore himself states he doesn’t want to hurt anyone - and that he only declared war and kept going because it gave his subjects hope.

image
image
image
image

We can see just how true this is, as with the monsters throughout New Home tell you how much Asgore gives them hope. Asgore, as a king, feels duty-bound and trapped in his responsibilities, and is a survivor of a war that almost wiped out his entire kingdom before being sent underneath the underground to die. These are the actions of a traumatized individual who was backed into a corner, not a malicious person.

2. Asgore stalks his wife and is unable to let go of her.

While Asgore certainly exhibits a lot of social awkwardness, this is no indication of “creepy stalker” behavior. He states he just wants to see his wife, not that he wants to get back with her and wants to make her get back with him. He even only asks her if they could be friends again - and while upset at her rejection, he doesn’t protest about it.

image
image

It’s completely normal to miss people you no longer have in your life, and social awkwardness absolutely isn’t malice.

image
image

As for Deltarune Asgore - it’s unclear whether or not he is actually stalking her, other than sending her flowers that she doesn’t want and throws away. We don’t know if he means anything malicious by this other than it just being a gesture to show he cares- because he sends just about every other character flowers as well, and even sends Rudy huge bouquets of red roses.

image

3. Asgore groomed Undyne into the royal guard.

I don’t even think I have to go over just how stupid this one is lmao.

Undyne willingly calls Asgore her friend, even after befriending Frisk, and is devastated by his death, even vowing to kill them should certain conditions be set. If Asgore had truly groomed her - she would have realised this long ago, as Undyne has her own damn agency.

It is extremely insensitive and harmful to casually use this language as it hurts real, living survivors of grooming and waters the word down completely -  when there are far more prominent examples of characters who exhibit this behavior, rather than harmfully labelling a character you dislike, just to make them look bad in the fandom.

It is completely okay to dislike a character. But do not throw language like this around just because you hate the character. “Groomer” and “Predator” are not just some negative connotations for you to use.

4. Asgore is a coward.

Asgore has a lot of reasons as to why he chooses to do certain things. It is highly implied he knows about how human souls work as well as determination. We can confirm this with how he nods when he’s told he has killed you before.

Whether he knows this because of Dr. Gaster, Dr. Alphys or of the war with humans in his past, we don’t know.

However, it’s clear he does not want to underestimate humanity whatsoever, which is why he came up with his plan the way he did, and how he successfully was able to stall using the human souls for so long.

image

With Omega Flowey, you defeat him by aiding the six houls to revolt against him. The human souls clearly have minds of their own, and are later said to have disappeared after you receive a call with Sans.

image
image
image
image
image

While it’s said that human souls persist longer than boss monster souls, we don’t know for how long. Whether it was a plot hole or intentional - clearly human souls have more to them than meets the eye.

We have to remember that humanity almost wiped out his entire race single-handedly, and that it could “hardly be called a war”.

Asgore knows about humans more than he lets on … because he’s dealt with them personally on the surface when his people were literally slaughtered like nothing.

kingfiuffybunz

Some more misconceptions that I forgot to list:


5. Asgore was a bad father to Chara.

While Asgore’s feelings about Chara are made vague in the game, we can see glimpses that he really did care for them. The most clear example that he did care for them was his speech, before he commits suicide:

image
image
image

This is by far perhaps the most strongest evidence that Chara clearly wasn’t an evil incarnate child. If Chara truly was an evil child - then it makes no sense for Frisk, an evidently kind-hearted child, to be compared to them here.

As for their cremation, this is not a clear example of his lack of care for them. There are various methods of ceremonies with dead bodies in funerals, and it varies from person to person.

6. Asgore was a bad father/husband in general.

Sure, Asgore definitely isn’t perfect. But what happened to him - up until he declared war - was not his fault. It was a horrific tragedy that was out of both their hands, and one that was orchestrated behind their backs. Asriel was essentially assisting Chara in their own suicide - they planned this together, and Chara, while not inherently evil or a malicious child at all - clearly planned ahead and put pressure on Asriel to go through with the plan.

As for Asgore pressuring Chara himself - this was not intentional by any means, and it was his way of wanting to share his hope with them. He does the same thing with Frisk, when they are facing off Flowey. Monsters’ hope is an important aspect of their wellbeing.

riftclaw
allegedgreywarden

I see a lot of writing advice, particularly about giving characters flaws. The main advice is “everyone has flaws! make sure to give your character flaws or else it’s not realistic!” And after thinking about it… I would like to challenge this.

It essentially posits a view of human nature that there are good and bad traits, and that these traits can be neatly diagrammed into separate columns, one set of which can and should be eliminated. It tends to go along with a view that posits character development should be about scrubbing away of “flawed” traits until the character achieves more a higher level of goodness, or else the character doesn’t and falls into tragedy. This is not untrue, necessarily. There are definitely some “flaws” that are 100% bad and sometimes a good arc is about slowly losing them. However, I could call this advice incomplete.

Consider thinking about it this way. Characters have traits and often whether or not that trait is a flaw is purely circumstantial.

For instance, fairy tales I read as a child. In some, when an old beggar asked for money on the road, it was a secret test of character. The prince who gave the old man money or food would be rewarded. But in other folktales I read, the old beggar would be malevolent, and any prince who stooped to help him would be beaten, punished for letting his guard down. Now, in a story as well as in real life, either of these scenarios can occur–a stranger who asks for help can be benevolent or malevolent. So which is the flaw? Is it a “flaw” to be compassionate? or is it a “flaw” to be guarded? 

Trick question–it’s purely conditional. Both traits are simultaneously a strength and a weakness. Either has an advantage, but either comes with a price as well. And whether the price is greater than the advantage depends on circumstance. The same can be said for most character traits, in fact!

An agreeable character who gets along with everyone will be pressured into agreeing with something atrocious because it’s a commonly held viewpoint. A character who’s principled and holds firm even under great pressure will take much, much longer to change their mind when they are actually in the wrong. A character who loves animals and loves to shower them with affection will get bitten if they try the same on every animal. As the circumstances change, flaws become strengths, and strengths become weaknesses. And even a trait that’s wholly virtuous, such as compassion, comes with a price and can be turned for the worst.

You don’t have to think about inserting flaws into your character. Your character, even the most perfect “Mary Sue,” is already flawed the moment you give her any traits at all. The problem with Mary Sue isn’t a lack of flaws, it’s a lack of circumstances to challenge her properly, to show her paying the natural price. Your job as an author is to create circumstances in the narrative that 1) justify why these traits exist in your character 2) show what your character gains from these traits and then 3) change the circumstances to challenge her. 

Make your character pay the price for their traits, for their choices. And then, when challenged, you can make a hell of a story by showing us how they adapt, or why they stick to their guns anyway.

uselessundertalefacts

Papyrus is most likely a young adult and this is supported by evidence in the game itself

undertalegay

Because I’m still stewing over people claiming that Papyrus is canonically 14 years old I’m putting together a list of things that imply Papyrus has to be AT LEAST 18, if not older.

  • He does not wear a striped shirt like kids do in Undertale
  • He’s literally driving a car at the end of the True Pacifist route
  • The Royal Guard would have to be seriously fucked up to even consider allowing a young teenager into its ranks
  • Going along with the last one, if Papyrus were only 14, why would Undyne beat around the bush pretending that cooking is training when she could just tell him he’s too young for the guard right now?
  • Papyrus’s UnderNet username is “CoolSkeleton95.” Numbers in usernames usually refer to birth years a good chunk of the time. If we assume that the main story of Undertale takes place in 2115, Papyrus would have been born in 2095, which makes him AT LEAST 20 years old.
  • Correct me if I’m wrong about this, but I believe it’s implied or stated that Papyrus keeps house? If he IS only 14, I’d have to seriously side-eye Sans for making his kid brother do all the housework.

If there’s anything else I’ve missed feel free to add it on.

I’m just tired of neurotypicals insisting that autistic adults are Actually in fact children. It’s not new, it’s infantilizing, and it’s ableist. Enough already.

uselessundertalefacts

I just want to add to this: if your response to posts like this is “but none of this is hard proof that Papyrus is an adult and people can headcanon whatever they want”, maybe consider taking a step back and thinking about why so many people think Papyrus is a kid.  People don’t think Undyne or Alphys or Sans are kids, so why is Papyrus different?

The fact is that most of the things about Papyrus that are seen as “childish” are traits that a lot of neurodivergent adults have.  Plenty of adults have action figures, and dress in weird outfits, and have trouble picking up on social cues, and that doesn’t make us children.  So it’s frustrating when people see a character like that and assume that he must be much younger than his more typical peers.