Is Undertale's Neutral Route Morally Wrong?

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 😂😂

Lore of Is Undertale's Neutral Route Morally Wrong? Momentum 100

Papyrus literally cannot kill you, he is the most spareable monster ever

i play neutral route to make papyrus king

i dont think not saving monster kid would be morally wrong. its not like youre letting monster kid die out of your own will, undyne could easily kill you while you try to help them up. its just a simple "me or them" situation, which, as you mentioned, isnt heroic but also not outright evil. plus, its possible frisk assumes undyne would save monster kid if they fell, but theres no way of confirming what frisk thinks.

Its definitely very sad to kill toriel, especially considering her relationship with sans. But i do kinda agree that attacking her is mostly justified. She is trying to trap you there with her so you cant go back home. If you think about it toriel in a way is being a little selfish here, while yes she is saying "its for your own good" and she wants to protect you. You have a right to want to return to your home from here and toriel is trying to force you to stay with her.

The thing is that you can't kill a robot, but you can kill a monster. You still get execution points because you're kinda still distancing yourself from the mosters.

to be fair if someone tries to fight you, you aren’t morally obliged to literally kill them 🧍‍♂️

Monsters Encounter human child and their first instinct is to kill. I feel like Any murder that happens?There is completely justified in frisk's favor

Generally speaking, even if you know someone is easily capable of being better, you are never obligated to help someone get there.
If they choose to be evil, that's their choice.
Whether you want to stop them and show them a better way, or fight back because you don't care, both choices are morally correct.

Now, if they stop of their own volition and you go ahead and kill them anyways, that's wrong.
Frisk not saving Monster Kid is still perfectly fine.
Nobody is ever under any moral obligation to help anyone.
It's not a good choice, but it's not an evil one either.

I recently watched About Oliver's let's play of Undertale, both his neutral run and pacifist run, and if Frisk loses to Papyrus enough times, (Frisk doesn't die when they "lose", he just locks them up in the shed, not even tying them up LMFAOOOO) he gets tired of repeatedly fighting Frisk and locking them up and eventually just lets them go. So in my opinion, killing him is completely unjustified here.

I also want to say that that method of getting through Papyrus's boss fight is something I've never seen before. Difficulty is truly subjective; I, and probably many others, don't find Papyrus to be a difficult fight at all, but AO had so much trouble with him. I learn new things about this game every time I hear about it.

you cant die for papyrus.

I would mention in Hotland, Vulkin is one of the monsters you are not justified in killing (assuming you check them first) because Vulkin thinks the lava is healing you and isn't trying to hurt you. Also, if you check Greater Dog, he isn't trying to hurt you either.

How is killing a animal justified....

i recall mettaton saying “i have no desire to kill humans, my only desire is to entertain”
so he doesn’t truly have a thirst for human blood. Alphys lies to you and enlists mettaton to torment Frisk so she can save them throughout Hotland to gain Frisks favour.
That being said, he agreed to so I guess?

In my first playthrough, I killed no monster but skipped befriending Undyne, so I ended up with the "neutral" route outcome.

holdup, isnt being neutral makes you between good and bad? if so, then it depends on how much frisk has killed, no?

Neutral is neutral.

It’s everything in between Frisk not quite getting Genocide down (evil) and Frisk not quite getting Pacifist down (good)

Killing toriel is morally wrong because regardless of who challenged who, she is not intentionally trying to KILL you. If you lose or your hp is low, she doesnt hit you. Youd only ever die to her if its on purpose.

"People called me names for.playing genocide."
They arent being serious, why are you taking it seriously

In neutral route I purposely was looking for monsters to defeat in order to level up enough to defeat mettaton

Its not Justice, Frisk probably has absolutely no idear what is even going on in the underground

You have to remember that loading and resetting are real within the world of the game, and that it's also quickly made obvious that every enemy can be spared except when they obviously can't be. Frisk could actually learn about save files sooner than the player, if you reload at any time before Flowey tells you about it. Or maybe Frisk even understands that from the first time you save your file, since there's no indication of it not being immediately understood.

So, you're not actually killing anyone in self defense, you're executing enemies for being in your way, because it's the simplest way to get past them. The only enemies you might be justified for killing are the ones you killed before you knew about loading, because you can debate over whether or not you have a responsibility to bring them back from the dead. Even then, the moral choice may be less about objective good or evil, and more about whether you'd rather betray the world or let the world betray you. You also get the Execution Points not just for killing them, but for the totality of suffering you create in the world by killing them.

Remember Chara is not a demon people! We need more people who understand this. If you kill everyone YOU killed everyone. Chara only helped, even if you do a few genocide routes Chara even shows disgust.

You are actually wrong about killing Toriel in self defense being acceptable, she thought she adopted you and was protecting you from the dangers outside. It's like killing the foster mom because she wouldn't let the child go see their real parents on their own.

Really interesting video! I'd like to see a similar analysis for other games, and also the genocide route. How many of those killings could be considered self-defense?

Very nice video. I like the genocide route too and the neutral ones. You know at the start I tried sparing as many as I could but at some point I stopped trying because they were indeed merciless. I kinda went towards justifiable route. Of course never killed Papyrus. Hell on my first genocide route which I tried to surpress I could barely make myself kill him. Took my solid 30 seconds to press that button. But yeah neutral route is mostly fair to fight some monsters. Although I like to think trying to run away first is morally right in a way and better because at the end of the day nobody wants to fight anybody. At some point even a child would see that it is better to avoid the fight until it is impossible. As there sometimes failed attempts at running away so then you are justified completely to fight back.

i feel like this video is pretty cruel, i feel like you could get rid of alot of the useless murder.

firstly, after the first froggit, i dont see why you would try to kill a creature. after the first froggit you know how to fight. napstablook i think you could try to kill, at first i think you would try to spare it because it was in your way and your trying to move them.

toriel im on the fence about, on one hand if your low enough she wont try to kill you, sparing you basically, on the other you didnt want to fight in the first place.

papyrus you shouldnt kill, he would keep you alive if you almost die, and he offers to spare you, its disrespectful to kill him then.

mad dummy is justafiable because they try to kill you all the way, no mercy so killing them is fine.

undyne is a 50/50, if you try to kill them its justifyable because the reasons you said, but if you try to run i think you should give them the water.

muffet is the same case as undyne.
mettaton i would kill. its a human murderering robot plus it trys to kill you two times before the fight.

asgore i would spare, you can tell he doesnt want to kill you, he seems reluctant to kinda like its against his will. but flowey would be killed, although in my first play through i did spare him

As for Papyrus, I would say that Frisk is still justified because Papyrus attempts to harm Frisk or put him in dangerous scenarios. Frisk doesn’t know that Papyrus won’t lie or backstab after mercy. Not everyone is insightful enough to know Papyrus is good and some people have anxiety about ppl harming them especially after they have already attempted to harm them in some way.

I feel like the netural route is almost always justified. You have taken control of an 8 year old that constantly gets attacked by several monsters that are way older and way stronger than you.

I mean, if you know that you have the power of de-termination (aka being unable to d!e) and the monsters doesn't then yes, it's morally wrong.

Papyrus did try to capture you, so you might be scared he will heal up and come for you later.

I disagree with saving the kid. You have no moral obligation to help someone else if it puts you in danger.

It's very confusing i usually kill the monsters just like how i usually play a rpg game and i like to do the genocide route too because it's more interesting

"They attacked self defense something something" why is this video 17 minutes long?

Neutral meant to be neutral so its not pacifist or genocide, you can kill all monsters except for 1 single froggit or spare everyone except for temmie its players choice to make perspective of murderer or saint guy morally in this run

Papyrus can’t kill you he just leaves you on 1 hp

my first playthrough of undertale I didn't really consider the implications of killing the random critters, and I didn't even know you could spare toriel tbh :(

If you kill ANY monsters, you're locked out of the pacifist ending, Sans will judge you to be wicked, and you will have to fight him as he guilt-traps you. Have fun!

Lol but you cant die to papyrus

I kinda love how the final choice on whether to kill or spare Flowey can even give pause to somebody who committed to a pacifist run on a first playthrough. I remember when Markiplier got to that point, despite having spared everyone else he encountered, he hesitated for a moment, and said, "If anyone deserved to die..."

The neutral route is 100% morally wrong if you decide to kill undyne in it. In genocide you get this really cool boss battle with the epic theme and she's fighting at her full powe, but in neutral... It's kind of depressing.