User:TheHumanAmbassador/NarraChara Proof

It seems that the Narrator theory STILL hasn't become unanimous. There's still debate on whether or not Chara is the narrator. Even after over four years.

Perhaps it's because neither side actually presented a conclusive, proof. Yes, evidence was presented to support the Charrator theory, but it was never quite proven. So of course it'd gain skeptics who decide to disbelieve it.

It's good to be skeptical of things that aren't proven. So the problem isn't that there are those people who can't accept the truth, it's that there are people who never discovered it. So I'm not going to fault you for not believing in it-There is no popular, conclusive proof of the Narrator theory.

But when it's been over four years, it's quite strange that the final proof has simply never caught on. The discussion is still going on. Four years later.

So, I'd like to change that. Hopefully before Discussions ruins all hope for meaningful theorization threads on this wiki.

If you're not new to my threads, you might notice that I've proven the narrator theory previously. After replies to it died out, I thought that meant the discussion was over.

But it turns out that it's not over.

So, it's time for Round 2.

---

Part 0-Laying Foundations

Now, before we begin, I'd like to lay down a few principles. If you disagree with them, then discuss them on their own terms. If you think these principles are invalid, go with that rather than just saying "This is not a proof!" Actually attack the principles themselves.

The first is that, whatever the truth may be, cannot have any contradictions.

So we also cannot, for example, claim that the six humans were previous incarnations of Undyne, Papyrus, Sans, Alphys, and Toriel, all distinct humans that lived at the same time. Because that is five monsters. It's simulataneously claiming that there were five, and that there are six.

And it also cannot contradict evidence within the actual game. That's the second principle. So if a hypothesis, say, declares that killing monsters is in fact impossible, we can rule it out, since we literally see monsters dying within the game.

That's really all we need. So if we're all in agreement, then let us proceed!

--

Part 1-The Presence of Chara

Let's start with a less extraordinary thing to prove first:The fact that Chara Dreemurr is with us during the events of the game. This will at least make the idea that Chara is the narrator a possibility. (Don't worry, I will actually prove that Chara is the narrator in this post, but we have to start small.)

So why don't we get ourselves refreshed on who Chara actually is?

Chara is the first fallen human. When they fell, Asriel heard them, and took them home. According to the monsters in New Home, they became like siblings. (We don't know if they're right yet-That can be saved for another discussion. All we need to know is that this is what it appeared to be.) They came up with a plan to cross the barrier, kill six humans, and use that to free the monsters. What comes after in the plan is unknown. (At least for right now.) We do, however, know how things actually went through:When Asriel absorbed Chara's SOUL, the two shared control. Chara carried their own body to the golden flowers (this likely being the real meaning behind their wish), and were later spotted by humans, who thought Asriel killed Chara. Asriel refused to fight, and instead took blow after blow, as he returned to the castle, where he turned to dust. Chara and Asriel both died here.

So, we already know a few things. Chara knows Asriel, the player names Chara.. There's also a vital difference between Frisk and Chara:Chara's shirt has one stripe, while Frisk's has two. And Frisk doesn't meet Asriel (other than as Flowey) until the end of the True Pacifist Route.

So Frisk and Chara are definitely different people.

But that doesn't mean there's no connection between them.

When Frisk goes to sleep in the Ruins, they have a dream.. One of Asgore telling them to stay determined. That they're the future of humans and monsters.. To wake up. This can't be the narrator speaking to us, as the player, separate from Frisk, because, well.. We, the player, are awake. Chara's name is also used, so it's not Frisk. Since it can't be Frisk, or the player, this is almost certainly to Chara. It also matches Tape 5 in the True Lab, further showing this. But.. Where did Frisk get that from, if they never met Chara before? If they never knew Chara well enough to get that dream...?

There is only one explanation for this. This is a memory of Chara. And for Frisk to get a memory of Chara.. Chara must be there, with Frisk. Therefore, Chara is, indeed, with Frisk, on all of the routes, at least as early as the end of the Ruins.

Now that we've proven that Chara is with us (And got rid of the idea that Chara only shows up at the very end of the Genocide Route), let us move on to the narrator.

If you think there's a fault in the proof, and that I failed to prove that Chara is with us, please tell me where I faulted. (And please, do it before April. After April, meaningful discussion will be dead, as I'll be unable to update this to account for your comments. Blame Fandom, they created that deadline, not me.)

--

Part 2-The Narrator is a Canon Character

First things first:If we want to show that Chara is the narrator, we should probably show that the narrator, well.. exists, and isn't just an in-game function.

Fortunately, there's clear evidence that the narrator is indeed a canon character.

When you check monsters, the narrator gives you information about them. In Napstablook's case, the narrator says Napstablook doesn't seem to have a sense of humour. Napstablook actually responds to the narrator, saying "oh, i'm REAL funny".

That's right. Napstablook responded to the narrator.

Nasptablook can't respond to something if there was nothing TO respond TO.

And this isn't just Napstablook breaking the fourth wall.

When you choose to laugh at Snowdrake's Mother, the narrator gives this dialogue.

"You laugh, and keep laughing. It's SO funny, you can't stop. Tears run down your face. ... what? You didn't do that?"

The narrator actually responds, as a character would. They realized they were wrong, and corrected themselves. That's a trait of being a character, not a robotic, outsider omniscient voice.

So this clearly shows that the narrator is, in fact, very real, and a character.

---

Part 3:The Narrator's Identity

But, then who is it? Just because they're a character doesn't mean they're Chara!

Well, we can rule out any monsters that the narrator speaks to or about, as they aren't the same. After all, the narrator does use "I" in reference to themselves at times "It's me, Chara", so them talking about themselves in the third-person would be out of character.

Since the narrator talks about every character that we ever battle (in normal conditions) this way, we can rule out anyone who we've battled ever. So that's most of the main characters:Toriel, Napstablook, Papyrus, Sans, Undyne, Monster Kid, Mettaton, Asgore, Asriel...

This also rules out the annoying dog, as in his room, the narrator asks you if you want to fight the dog when you interact with the dog.

We can also rule out any monster that we've had to ever introduce ourselves to, as the narrator knows us from just after the Flowey fight. So, for example, this rules out Alphys, as she only knows of our existence by looking at the Snowdin cameras, while the narrator knew about us as early on as the Ruins, before we even showed up on the Snowdin cameras. We wouldn't need to introduce ourselves to Alphys if we'd already met long ago. Besides, Alphys doesn't fit the personality of the narrator at all.

The narrator also can't be Frisk, because they say "it's me, Chara", and Frisk knows that isn't their name, revealing their true name to Asriel after the battle. It also can't be the player, because of these quotes:



The first has the narrator directly talking to Frisk, though we were the ones who chose this action. Therefore, telling us to "look at what we've done" means this cannot be a representation of the player here. The second quote shows the narrator does not have full knowledge of what Frisk does, nor what we choose to do. (I mean, we didn't choose to cry).

We know what we do. The narrator does not. Thus, they cannot be us.

We've already proven it can't be Frisk, so, then.. Who else could it be? There's still Gaster, the Gaster Followers, and REDACTED, but REDACTED speaks in Wingdings, so we can rule out REDACTED. We can also rule out Gaster himself, because of Entry 17. (It shows that he also speaks in Wingdings.) As for the Gaster followers, well.. The narrator doesn't appear to have an existential crises like Goner Kid, and never once mentions Gaster except when you meet the Followers in person..? This is out-of character for the narrator, so the narrator cannot be them.

Could the narrator be Flowey? The answer is no. Narration can still be foundin the Epilouge, after Flowey already turned into Asriel. Plus, Flowey made it quite clear that he IS Asriel, so if Flowey was the narrator before, we still have the paradox.

Is it the River Person? No. The River Person always starts with "Tra la la", and the narrator never starts with that.

Is it Faun? No.

"That dog considers itself an artist, but doesn't ever know what to create. It probably doesn't help that its brain is the size of a piece of kibble."-Faun

"This dog is staring blankly into the snow, waiting for it to turn into art."-Narrator

"It's the broken head of a snowdog"-Narrator

"It kept trying to build a snowdog with its own emotions"-Faun

The Snowman wishes to see the world by giving you a snowpiece. But the narrator is quite aware of the world already, so they can't be the Snowman.

Any of the NPCs that fled during the Genocide Route can also be ruled out. Why? They fled for their safety, as they don't like Frisk.. Yet the narrator actively helps Frisk out.

"Strongly felt X remaining. Shouldn't proceed yet."-Narrator, Gencoide Route, happens when approaching Monster Kid without meeting the kill quota.

"Can't keep dodging forever. Keep attacking."-Narrator, CHECK on Sans after he dodges in Phase 1.

So that includes Grillby (he left), Bratty and Catty (they left, and Catty refers to Frisk as a "mega-evil weirdo"), Gerson (he actively sides against Frisk), and the vast majority of the NPCs. In fact, since the narrator helps Frisk out, anyone who actively tries to stop them, or considers Frisk's actions as a bad thing cannot be the narrator, as the narrator actively HELPS Frisk out.

So who does that leave? Well, we don't know if the six humans count or not. We already know Chara is with us, meaning that they're alive after having died. So what if the other six humans are also alive, in some form, and one of them is the narrator?

Well, that's unlikely.

"Thank you. Your power awakened me from death"-Chara, End-Of-Genocide

It was Frisk's power that brought Chara back to life. Based on Flowey's Genocide dialogue, it's likely that Chara was given a proper burial by Toriel (we know the Chara coffin is empty, so the body was moved).. Yet the other coffins are closed, only opening after the Barrier is destroyed.

Frisk's power awakened Chara in the Ruins, where Chara actually was. The other humans are all the way in New Home.

Plus, Chara died, yet the narrator still says the phrase "It's me, Chara". Why would they say that?

..Though, I can't rule it out completely yet. It's an interesting alternative.

But if we're going to talk about dead humans being the narrator.. Then we should really not leave Chara out of this...

Remember Chara? We haven't ruled them out yet, and Chara is someone who has been with us, at least since the end of the Ruins. They do make a good candidate for the narrator. So we might as well test them as well, right?

And that "It's me, Chara?" It could mean just that:It's the narrator, who is CHARA. Then the line makes perfect sense. And in fact, they fit the bill perfectly. Let's compare lines from the narrator to what we know about Chara, shall we?

(What a comfortable bed. If you laid down here, you might not ever get up. (6th image)

Interesting to note that, narrator. But the thing is.. that quote is specifically about Chara's bed. The bed they died in. And they don't say that anywhere else in the game. The rainbow text from seeing Asriel? Asriel was someone who was supposedly the sibling of Chara, so that works.

So, out of all the possibilties, Chara is the most likely candidate. Therefore, it's pretty likely indeed. (Plus, we already know they were with us.. So you'd probably expect them to say something, right..?)

-

Changelog

It seems that the Narrator theory STILL hasn't become unanimous. There's still debate on whether or not Chara is the narrator. Even after over four years.
 * V1.2:Started taking into account other possibilities, including NPCs and the six other humans.

Perhaps it's because neither side actually presented a conclusive, proof. Yes, evidence was presented to support the Charrator theory, but it was never quite proven. So of course it'd gain skeptics who decide to disbelieve it.

It's good to be skeptical of things that aren't proven. So the problem isn't that there are those people who can't accept the truth, it's that there are people who never discovered it. So I'm not going to fault you for not believing in it-There is no popular, conclusive proof of the Narrator theory.

But when it's been over four years, it's quite strange that the final proof has simply never caught on. The discussion is still going on. Four years later.

So, I'd like to change that. Hopefully before Discussions ruins all hope for meaningful theorization threads on this wiki.

If you're not new to my threads, you might notice that I've proven the narrator theory previously. After replies to it died out, I thought that meant the discussion was over.

But it turns out that it's not over.

So, it's time for Round 2.

---

Part 0-Laying Foundations

Now, before we begin, I'd like to lay down a few principles. If you disagree with them, then discuss them on their own terms. If you think these principles are invalid, go with that rather than just saying "This is not a proof!" Actually attack the principles themselves.

The first is that, whatever the truth may be, cannot have any contradictions.

So we also cannot, for example, claim that the six humans were previous incarnations of Undyne, Papyrus, Sans, Alphys, and Toriel, all distinct humans that lived at the same time. Because that is five monsters. It's simulataneously claiming that there were five, and that there are six.

And it also cannot contradict evidence within the actual game. That's the second principle. So if a hypothesis, say, declares that killing monsters is in fact impossible, we can rule it out, since we literally see monsters dying within the game.

That's really all we need. So if we're all in agreement, then let us proceed!

--

Part 1-The Presence of Chara

Let's start with a less extraordinary thing to prove first:The fact that Chara Dreemurr is with us during the events of the game. This will at least make the idea that Chara is the narrator a possibility. (Don't worry, I will actually prove that Chara is the narrator in this post, but we have to start small.)

So why don't we get ourselves refreshed on who Chara actually is?

Chara is the first fallen human. When they fell, Asriel heard them, and took them home. According to the monsters in New Home, they became like siblings. (We don't know if they're right yet-That can be saved for anotehr discussion. All we need to know is that this is what it appeared to be.) They came up with a plan to cross the barrier, kill six humans, and use that to free the monsters. What comes after in the plan is unknown. (At least for right now.) We do, however, know how things actually went through:When Asriel absorbed Chara's SOUL, the two shared control. Chara carried their own body to the golden flowers (this likely being the real meaning behind their wish), and were later spotted by humans, who thought Asriel killed Chara. Asriel refused to fight, and instead took blow after blow, as he returned to the castle, where he turned to dust. Chara and Asriel both died here.

So, we already know a few things. Chara knows Asriel, the player names Chara.. There's also a vital difference between Frisk and Chara:Chara's shirt has one stripe, while Frisk's has two. And Frisk doesn't meet Asriel (other than as Flowey) until the end of the True Pacifist Route.

So Frisk and Chara are definitely different people.

But that doesn't mean there's no connection between them.

When Frisk goes to sleep in the Ruins, they have a dream.. One of Asgore telling them to stay determined. That they're the future of humans and monsters.. To wake up. This can't be the narrator speaking to us, as the player, separate from Frisk, because, well.. We, the player, are awake. Chara's name is also used, so it's not Frisk. Since it can't be Frisk, or the player, this is almost certainly to Chara. It also matches Tape 5 in the True Lab, further showing this. But.. Where did Frisk get that from, if they never met Chara before? If they never knew Chara well enough to get that dream...?

There is only one explanation for this. This is a memory of Chara. And for Frisk to get a memory of Chara.. Chara must be there, with Frisk. Therefore, Chara is, indeed, with Frisk, on all of the routes, at least as early as the end of the Ruins.

Now that we've proven that Chara is with us (And got rid of the idea that Chara only shows up at the very end of the Genocide Route), let us move on to the narrator.

If you think there's a fault in the proof, and that I failed to prove that Chara is with us, please tell me where I faulted. (And please, do it before April. After April, meaningful discussion will be dead, as I'll be unable to update this to account for your comments. Blame Fandom, they created that deadline, not me.)

--

Part 2-The Narrator is a Canon Character

First things first:If we want to show that Chara is the narrator, we should probably show that the narrator, well.. exists, and isn't just an in-game function.

Fortunately, there's clear evidence that the narrator is indeed a canon character.

When you check monsters, the narrator gives you information about them. In Napstablook's case, the narrator says Napstablook doesn't seem to have a sense of humour. Napstablook actually responds to the narrator, saying "oh, i'm REAL funny".

That's right. Napstablook responded to the narrator.

Nasptablook can't respond to something if there was nothing TO respond TO.

And this isn't just Napstablook breaking the fourth wall.

When you choose to laugh at Snowdrake's Mother, the narrator gives this dialogue.

"You laugh, and keep laughing. It's SO funny, you can't stop. Tears run down your face. ... what? You didn't do that?"

The narrator actually responds, as a character would. They realized they were wrong, and corrected themselves. That's a trait of being a character, not a robotic, outsider omniscient voice.

So this clearly shows that the narrator is, in fact, very real, and a character.

---

Part 3:The Narrator's Identity

But, then who is it? Just because they're a character doesn't mean they're Chara!

Well, we can rule out any monsters that the narrator speaks to or about, as they aren't the same. After all, the narrator does use "I" in reference to themselves at times "It's me, Chara", so them talking about themselves in the third-person would be out of character.

Since the narrator talks about every character that we ever battle (in normal conditions) this way, we can rule out anyone who we've battled ever. So that's most of the main characters:Toriel, Napstablook, Papyrus, Sans, Undyne, Monster Kid, Mettaton, Asgore, Asriel...

This also rules out the annoying dog, as in his room, the narrator asks you if you want to fight the dog when you interact with the dog.

We can also rule out any monster that we've had to ever introduce ourselves to, as the narrator knows us from just after the Flowey fight. So, for example, this rules out Alphys, as she only knows of our existence by looking at the Snowdin cameras, while the narrator knew about us as early on as the Ruins, before we even showed up on the Snowdin cameras. We wouldn't need to introduce ourselves to Alphys if we'd already met long ago. Besides, Alphys doesn't fit the personality of the narrator at all.

The narrator also can't be Frisk, because they say "it's me, Chara", and Frisk knows that isn't their name, revealing their true name to Asriel after the battle. It also can't be the player, because of these quotes:



The first has the narrator directly talking to Frisk, though we were the ones who chose this action. Therefore, telling us to "look at what we've done" means this cannot be a representation of the player here. The second quote shows the narrator does not have full knowledge of what Frisk does, nor what we choose to do. (I mean, we didn't choose to cry).

We know what we do. The narrator does not. Thus, they cannot be us.

We've already proven it can't be Frisk, so, then.. Who else could it be? There's still Gaster, the Gaster Followers, and REDACTED, but REDACTED speaks in Wingdings, so we can rule out REDACTED. We can also rule out Gaster himself, because of Entry 17. (It shows that he also speaks in Wingdings.) As for the Gaster followers, well.. The narrator doesn't appear to have an existential crises like Goner Kid, and never once mentions Gaster except when you meet the Followers in person..? This is out-of character for the narrator, so the narrator cannot be them.

Could the narrator be Flowey? The answer is no. Narration can still be foundin the Epilouge, after Flowey already turned into Asriel. Plus, Flowey made it quite clear that he IS Asriel, so if Flowey was the narrator before, we still have the paradox.

Is it the River Person? No. The River Person always starts with "Tra la la", and the narrator never starts with that.

Is it Faun? No.

"That dog considers itself an artist, but doesn't ever know what to create. It probably doesn't help that its brain is the size of a piece of kibble."-Faun

"This dog is staring blankly into the snow, waiting for it to turn into art."-Narrator

"It's the broken head of a snowdog"-Narrator

"It kept trying to build a snowdog with its own emotions"-Faun

The Snowman wishes to see the world by giving you a snowpiece. But the narrator is quite aware of the world already, so they can't be the Snowman.

Any of the NPCs that fled during the Genocide Route can also be ruled out. Why? They fled for their safety, as they don't like Frisk.. Yet the narrator actively helps Frisk out.

"Strongly felt X remaining. Shouldn't proceed yet."-Narrator, Genocide Route, happens when approaching Monster Kid without meeting the kill quota.

"Can't keep dodging forever. Keep attacking."-Narrator, CHECK on Sans after he dodges in Phase 1.

So that includes Grillby (he left), Bratty and Catty (they left, and Catty refers to Frisk as a "mega-evil weirdo"), Gerson (he actively sides against Frisk), and the vast majority of the NPCs. In fact, since the narrator helps Frisk out, anyone who actively tries to stop them, or considers Frisk's actions as a bad thing cannot be the narrator, as the narrator actively HELPS Frisk out.

So who does that leave? Well, we don't know if the six humans count or not. We already know Chara is with us, meaning that they're alive after having died. So what if the other six humans are also alive, in some form, and one of them is the narrator?

Well, that's unlikely.

"Thank you. Your power awakened me from death"-Chara, End-Of-Genocide

It was Frisk's power that brought Chara back to life. Based on Flowey's Genocide dialogue, it's likely that Chara was given a proper burial by Toriel (we know the Chara coffin is empty, so the body was moved).. Yet the other coffins are closed, only opening after the Barrier is destroyed.

Frisk's power awakened Chara in the Ruins, where Chara actually was. The other humans are all the way in New Home.

Plus, Chara died, yet the narrator still says the phrase "It's me, Chara". Why would they say that?

..Though, I can't rule it out completely yet. It's an interesting alternative.

But if we're going to talk about dead humans being the narrator.. Then we should really not leave Chara out of this...

Remember Chara? We haven't ruled them out yet, and Chara is someone who has been with us, at least since the end of the Ruins. They do make a good candidate for the narrator. So we might as well test them as well, right?

And that "It's me, Chara?" It could mean just that:It's the narrator, who is CHARA. Then the line makes perfect sense. And in fact, they fit the bill perfectly. Let's compare lines from the narrator to what we know about Chara, shall we?

(What a comfortable bed. If you laid down here, you might not ever get up. (6th image)

Interesting to note that, narrator. But the thing is.. that quote is specifically about Chara's bed. The bed they died in. And they don't say that anywhere else in the game. The rainbow text from seeing Asriel? Asriel was someone who was supposedly the sibling of Chara, so that works.

So, out of all the possibilities, Chara is the most likely candidate. Therefore, it's pretty likely indeed. (Plus, we already know they were with us.. So you'd probably expect them to say something, right..?)

-

Changelog


 * V1.2.2:Ported the proof over to this page (also fixed a few typos)
 * V1.2.1:Removed an unnecessary artifact from the old Mini-Theory series
 * V1.2:Started taking into account other possibilities, including NPCs and the six other humans.
 * V1.1:Replaced an unfounded argument involving the narrator correcting themselves with Napstablook into an established case of the narrator correcting themselves with Snowdrake's Mother.
 * V1.0:The original creation of the thread!1.2.1:Removed an unnecessary artifact from the old Mini-Theory series
 * V1.2.2
 * V1.1:Replaced an unfounded argument involving the narrator correcting themselves with Napstablook into an established case of the narrator correcting themselves with Snowdrake's Mother.
 * V1.0:The original creation of the proof!