Continued from Part 2a...

WARNING: THIS ESSAY CONTAINS BOTH UNDERTALE SPOILERS AND STUFF THAT MAY ANGER THE FANDOM; PARTICULARLY FANS OF GENOCIDE CHARA. Do not read unless you A. Have already played Undertale, and B. Can tolerate the contents of this post.

The Many Faces of Chara

A Comparison of Undertale Theories

Third Edition: Updated June 12, 2016

Contents:
PART 1:
    I. Introduction
        A. Where this essay came from.
        B. The goal of this essay is to compare theories, not be a theory.
    II. The factors.
        A. The Hierarchy of fan theory validity.
        B. All we know about Chara.
        C. The Main Variables
            1. Are the player and Chara (or player and Frisk) separate entities?
            2. Does Frisk have control over themselves at all times?
            3. Was Chara always with Frisk?
            4. Is Chara evil by default, or do they become that way?
            5. If Chara is evil, do they have a shot at redemption?
        D. The Chara Theory Questionnaire
PART 2a:
    III. The Theories
        A. Player Chara Theory
        B. Passive Frisk Theories
            1. Theory A: Frisk is dead.
            2. Theory B: Frisk is blind.
            3. Theory C: Frisk doesn't care.
            4. Theory D: Frisk is Chara.
        C. Genocide Chara Theories
            1. Theory A: Chara is wearing out Frisk.
            2. Theory B: The Player is fighting Chara for control over Frisk.
            3. Theory C: Frisk is wrestling control from Chara.
        D. Narrator Chara Theory
            1. Theory A: They are Frisk's Active Guide
            2. Theory B: They are Frisk's Passive Guide
            3. Theory C: They are your narrator only.
PART 2b:
        E. Summons Theories
            1. Theory A: Frisk Summons Chara
            2. Theory B: Player Summons Chara
        F. Third Entity Theories
            1. Theory A: The Player and Chara vs. Frisk
            2. Theory B: The Player vs. Chara vs. Frisk
        G. Redemption Theories
            1. Theory A: Frisk saves Chara
            2. Theory B: The Player saves Chara.  
        F. The Sliding Scale of Chara Portrayals
            1. Always Chaotic Evil Chara
            2. Redeemable Villain Chara
            3. Tragic Chara
            4. Anti-Hero Chara
            5. Heroic Chara
PART 3:
    IV. Chara's Final Speech, Annotated and Filtered Through Each Theory
        A. On Undertale's Flimsy Fourth Wall
        B. First Genocide Run
        C. Restarting the Game
        D. Second Genocide Run
    V. Where did Genocide Chara come from?
        A. Popular Opinion: Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's true.
            1. How an idea spreads.
            2. Comparing delivery methods of the various theories.
        B. Dodging Responsibility: Chara as a scapegoat for gaming violence.
        C. The Gimmick: The true villain of Undertale, and it's not Chara, but something all humans have...
PART 4:
    VI. Future Directions
        A. The Downfall of Genocide Chara Theory
            1. Militant fans that give the theory a bad name.
            2. Lack of solid evidence compared to other theories.
            3. Mobilization of the Undertale Community.
        B. The dawn of the new Charas
            1. Passive Chara fits the tale of Undertale
            2. Passive Chara has more character depth than Genocide Chara
            3. Passive Chara can be used in many more ways than Genocide Chara
        C. In the event Toby Fox announces the truth...
        D. Epilogue

The remaining theories are covered in Part 2a. Please read that first, or prepare to be confused.

Summoning Theories:

Description: An offshoot of the Genocide Chara theories, these argue that Chara was never with Frisk in the first place: they only awaken after the completion of the Genocide Route.

This only has two variations...

Variation A: The player is Frisk, Frisk moves by themselves, and Chara is not present.
Hypothesis: Frisk only summons Chara after committing enough evil acts.
Variation Notes: This variation puts the blame for the Genocide Route back on the player, now summoning a hideous demon through their actions. However, this one goes a little further in the opposite direction: now Chara is a non-entity who only appears after the Genocide Route, meaning they play no importance to the plot whatsoever.

Variation B: The Player is themselves, Frisk moves by themselves, and Chara is not present.
Hypothesis: The Player only summons Chara after making Frisk commit enough evil acts.
Variation Notes: The same as Variation A, only the player is forcing Frisk to commit the acts, meaning players can distance themselves from the responsibility. After all, it's not their soul they're selling to Chara after the Genocide route, but Frisk's.

Origins: An evolution of Genocide Chara Theory, this takes things a step further and says Chara needed Frisk to resurrect Chara in the first place. This variation makes Chara into something far more sinister, with Asriel becoming a hero sacrificing themselves to stop this demon, only for Frisk to have the possibility of waking them back up. The appeal here is that it makes Chara infinitely more terrifying: in order to be revived at all, they feed off of bloodshed.

Notable Influences: The same as the Genocide Chara theories, but where it varies here is a matter of interpretation.

Main Arguments:

• In-story content: Chara says Frisk awakened them from death, then refers to themselves as a demon in the second Genocide Run.
  

• Honest Creator Statement: N/A
  

• Argument from concrete in-story evidence: Asriel says that Chara wasn't the greatest person and hated humanity.
  

• Argument from vague in-story evidence: Chara must have poisoned Asgore on purpose, laughing it off maniacally, and then chose to use Asriel to fuel their bloodshed.
  

• Trolling or Vague Creator Statement: N/A
  

• Manipulation alone: The main appeal here is that Chara becomes a hideous sealed demon far worse than that of Genocide Chara theory.
  

• Blaming the mysterious: N/A
  

• Using a fan wiki or sources: Fan content and wiki content for Genocide Chara Theory is also used to support Summon Theory.
  

• Argument by Assertion: Like Genocide Chara theory, Summon Theory fans are downright militant, ferocious in defending their theory to the utmost. Any attempt at even mentioning the other theories will result in a hail of insults. (Or at least earn a block, followed by the rather hypocritical excuse, "They don't listen to reason!").
  

Implications:

• Chara was always evil and only needs the power of Frisk's violence to be resurrected.
  
• When Asriel says Chara has been gone for a long time, he meant it: Chara is gone. It only takes acts of extreme violence to resurrect Chara. 
• The narration is either just in-game or Frisk.
  
• Chara only summons during the Genocide Route. Chara's narration only comes as Chara grows stronger, but goes away when aborting the Genocide Route. Chara may or may not actually be controlling Frisk in the Genocide Route.
  
• In the final battle with Asriel, it's merely a case of mistaken identity that he calls Frisk Chara.
• If Frisk drops the locket back at Chara's grave, they're just giving it to Asriel. (Though, if Asriel didn't like Chara, this doesn't make a lot of sense.)

Questions Raised:

• If Chara is gone, why do we get Chara's stats on the menu?
• Why does the Game Over message keep asking for Chara to stay determined if Chara is gone?
• To what extent is Chara "gone" if they somehow start taking over control and changing the narration messages?
• Why does Chara suddenly appear at the end of the Genocide Route? Weren't they buried back at the start? Were they with Frisk the whole time? If so, how did they attach themselves to Frisk? And why did they attach themselves to Frisk?
  
• Is Frisk really in control of themselves during the Genocide cutscenes? Or is it Chara again? (Again, notice my notes from Genocide Chara Theory: most players attribute all negative actions Frisk takes towards Chara and all positive actions towards Frisk.)

Overall Notes: This theory raises a few questions and destroys the relationship between Frisk and Chara, so I'm not really a fan of it, nor are many others, sitting this theory near the bottom. On the bright side, it puts the responsibility of the Genocide Route back on the player, but beyond that, it has little to offer compared to the others. Even Genocide Chara's gimmick, somehow coercing the player/Frisk to do bad things, is more interesting than this one.

Some Summon Theory fans like to have their cake and eat it to by saying, "Chara was never around, but they influence Frisk to kill everyone anyway." How this works, I'm not entirely sure, but the few who believe in this have actually blocked me for entertaining the idea that there's more than one way to view Chara. (When we cover what's killing Genocide Chara theory, you'll see that most fans of the idea that Chara is evil are downright militant.)

Third Entity Theories:

Description: A rather strange mix between the Genocide Chara Theories and Narrator Chara Theories, these argue that you (the Player) and Chara share control over Frisk's body, and that Chara is not necessarily bad. However, as you aid Chara, their control over Frisk grows stronger and stronger, while yours grows weaker and weaker. The main emphasis here is on the fact that you, the player, have more power than Chara or Frisk has.

There are two variations to this theory...

Variation A - Dual Control Theory: The player is themselves, Chara has control during cutscenes, Chara is not evil.
Hypothesis: Chara and the Player share control over Frisk, and Chara only grows stronger/turns evil if the player starts committing evil.
Variation Notes: Think of this as an offshoot of Narrator Chara Theory C. Instead of Frisk being in control, Chara begins to control Frisk when the player forces Frisk to commit evil acts. Unlike Narrator Chara Theory, the emphasis is more on Chara also controlling Frisk than Chara being the narrator. Like the Genocide Chara Theories, players can blame Chara for causing all of the problems in the Genocide Route.

Variation B - Three-Way Control Theory: The player is themselves, Frisk has control during cutscenes, Chara is there, and Chara is evil.
Hypothesis: Chara, the Player, and Frisk are all wrestling for control, and Chara only grows stronger if the player makes Frisk commit evil acts.
Variation Notes: Think of this as a lighter version of Genocide Chara Theory B: here, Frisk still has some control, and if you make Frisk commit terrible acts, it's your fault Chara takes control. However, like the Genocide Chara theories, it reduces Chara down to a one-dimensional villain, plus it turns Frisk into something between the Player's puppet and the one-dimensional messiah. The one thing this theory has going for it is that the Player acts as the angel on Frisk's shoulder while Chara acts as the devil.

Origins: With people split over Genocide Chara and Narrator Chara, with all its constant arguements over who's fault it is for the Genocide Route, there eventually became more and more room for an alternative. The Narrator Chara players kept arguing, "It's not Chara's fault! It's the player's fault!" Taking this literally, a growing number of Undertale fans began depicting the Player as an actual character in the Undertale universe, also citing them as "canon" (but as we've seen in every theory so far, everyone says their idea is canon). This is, it has the good Chara of Narrator Chara Theory and the evil "take away control" Chara from Genocide Chara Theory. Under Variation A, it shares the same "the player, Frisk, and Chara are separate entities," idea of Genocide Chara, but also posits that the player and Chara can at least work together. Under Variation B, Frisk is also doing battle with the player over control in the same way Chara is.

Notable Influences:

• Mainly former Genocide Chara fans who have jumped ship thanks to Narrator Chara theory propagate this one. Most famously, we have No Chocolate: once a group of Undertale theorists who backed Genocide Chara Theory, their stance has softened thanks to Narrator Chara Theory, but not all the way. They see Frisk, Chara, and the Player as separate entities, but also think Chara can be the benign narrator, but also think Chara is an evil, horrible person.
  

Main Arguments:

• In-story content: N/A
  

• Honest Creator Statement: N/A
  

• Argument from concrete in-story evidence: Variation A uses Narrator Chara's evidence that Chara is the narrator. Variation B uses Genocide Chara's evidence that Chara was evil.

• Argument from vague in-story evidence: Variation A uses Narrator Chara's evidence that Chara is the narrator. Variation B uses Genocide Chara's evidence that Chara was evil. The tying connection is that both use Genocide Chara's argument that the player, Frisk, and Chara are separate entities.
  

• Trolling or Vague Creator Statement: N/A
  

• Manipulation alone: N/A
  

• Blaming the mysterious: N/A
  

• Using a fan wiki or sources: Thanks to Genocide Chara theory, all fan information hubs cite that the player is a separate entity from Frisk and Chara.
  

• Argument by Assertion: N/A

Implications:

• Variation A shares all of the same implications as Narrator Chara Theory. Variation B shares all of the implications as Genocide Chara Theory.
• Under Variation A, the Player and Chara act as a dual conscience for Frisk. Under Variation B, Frisk and the Player work against Chara.
  
• Frisk has two beings attached to their soul.
• Under Variation A, Chara is still the narrator, akin to Narrator Chara theory. Under Variation B, the narration is simply a game mechanic.

Questions Raised:

• Variation A shares the same questions raised as Narrator Chara Theory. Variation B shares the same questions raised as Genocide Chara Theory.
  
• How did the player attach themselves to Frisk in the same way Chara did?
• Why does the player not remember attaching themselves to Frisk? (Perhaps opening the game is your decision to attach to Frisk?)
  
• Why is Chara aware of the Player, but not the Player aware of Chara?
• Why is it that Chara has separate stats from the Player?
  

Overall Notes: These theories are the leftovers of the other theories: comprises not answered by Narrator Chara Theory or Genocide Chara Theory. What they both have in common is that the player is a separate entity from Frisk, but this weakens the relationship between Chara and Frisk, plus complicates the nature between who is really in control of Frisk. Trying to find a balance, both theories are weaker than Narrator Chara Theory and Genocide Chara Theory. Notice the intense lack of evidence here compared to the other theories: it tries to have the best of both worlds, but pleases none.

However, as of the late summer of 2016, there's been a great rise in Third Entity Theory thanks to fan art depicting the player as the manipulator of Chara and Frisk, not to mention new essays and fan discussions that state that, to paraphrase, "the player is stronger and more dangerous than Chara and Frisk." Third Entity Theory may unexpectedly rise unless Narrator Chara theorists can somehow bring back their previous efforts.

Redemption Theories:

Description: Under this theory, like Genocide Chara Theory, Chara is the main villain of Undertale, doing their best to use Frisk to kill and give them power. However, where the Redemption Theories branch is that Chara, like the rest of the Undertale villains, can be saved like everyone else, and going on the Pacifist Route puts their spirit at peace.

There are two variations to this theory...

Variation A - Frisk saves Chara: The player is Frisk, Chara has control during cutscenes, Chara is evil, but Chara can be saved.
Hypothesis: Chara starts off wanting to destroy everything, but Frisk can turn them good by avoiding the Genocide Route.
Variation Notes: Think of this theory as the predecessor to Narrator Chara Theory A, and it's still the most popular among its fans. The only difference here is that Chara is still that compelling voice to make you want to kill everything and not necessarily the narrator of the Pacifist Route (which is why Narrator Chara ended up replacing this one), but Frisk's good actions allow Chara to let go and let Frisk have the happy ending. The upside is that it paints Chara in a more complex light: they may be evil, but like everyone else in Undertale, it's really a front for giving up on kindness too early.

Variation B - The Player Saves Chara: The player is themselves, Chara has control during cutscenes, Chara is evil, but Chara can be saved.
Hypothesis: The player teaches Chara to let go and let Frisk save the day.
Variation Notes: It's basically the same as Variation A, but replace Frisk with the Player. Unfortunately, this variation hurts the dynamic between Frisk and Chara.

Origins: The link between Genocide Chara and Narrator Chara, this theory helped pave the way for the newer theories in early 2016. A group of comic makers and social media types under the banner "Chara Defense Squad," asked the question, "What if Chara can be saved like the rest of the Undertale cast?" When they began experimenting with this idea, especially the comics by Draikinator, the results created beautiful and dramatic stories of a hurting, tragic Chara struggling with their flaws. This hooked readers, and it soon paved the way for Narrator Chara theory.

Notable Influences:

• Anything made by the Chara Defense Squad, but above all are the works by Draikinator.
  
• Azurecanvas's SAVE Chara AU.
  

Main Arguments:

• In-story content: There's no way otherwise that Frisk would remember Asriel without outside help: Chara would be the only person who could do that.
  

• Honest Creator Statement: N/A.
  

• Argument from concrete in-story evidence: Chara's stats are present in both routes, despite the fact they weren't the nicest person. Also, although not quite as prominent as Narrator Chara Theory, the consistency of the narration implies that Chara is narrating through both routes. The main difference here is that Chara starts out just plain evil.
  

• Argument from vague in-story evidence: All of the backstory you hear from Asriel implies Chara was just plain evil.
  

• Trolling or Vague Creator Statement: None of the creators' statements on Chara seem to match up: Toby Fox implied Chara was the narrator, Temmie implied Chara was the player, the store implies Chara is evil. Here, we can have all three at once.
  

• Manipulation alone: N/A.
  

• Blaming the mysterious:  N/A.
  

• Using a fan wiki or sources: The primary strength of Redemption Chara theory is that the fan content created from this is emotionally powerful and fits Undertale's theme and tone. Again, Draikinator's comics have served as a major influence in sparking Redemption Chara Theory, as well as paving the way for Narrator Chara Theory.
  

• Argument by Assertion: Although not as prevalent as the other theories, some fans are extremely vocal about reminding everyone that Chara was not a good person and was likely never a good person to begin with.
  

Implications:

• Like Genocide Chara theory, it's still Chara's idea to do the Genocide Route, but Frisk convinces them to go on the Pacifist Route. From their, the narration becomes less snide and more optimistic as Chara learns to love again. Otherwise, the Genocide Route lets them indulge in their evil nature.
• Also like Genocide Chara theory, Chara really did poison Asgore on purpose and wanted to use Asriel to kill more humans than what was planned. Their death and being trapped with Frisk was their consequences.
• Upon completion of the Pacifist Route, Chara has no reason to exist and likely either fades away or joins Flowey/Asriel in the Underground for eternity.
• There's a relationship between Frisk and Chara, but it's very tense, depending on the route. In the Genocide Route, Chara goads Frisk into killing everything, while the Pacifist Route is a constant battle of ideals as Chara chides Frisk for doing the right thing, even though it got them killed. Though would also imply Chara is extremely pessimistic.
• Chara provides some of the narration, but not all of it: some of the narration is in parentheses while others are not.
  

Questions Raised:

• What actually does happen to Chara at the end of this route?
• Where does Chara's change of heart begin, if there is one? (Perhaps, since Chara is soulless, Frisk's kindness rubs off on them?)
  
• If Chara is so evil, why do they aid Frisk? (Is it because they have no choice, being their stats and all? Or do they think Frisk will have a change of heart?)

Personal Notes: Although this theory supplies one of my personal favorite ways to portray Chara in stories (which we'll cover right after this), it's not nearly as strong as what came after it, Narrator Chara Theory. This theory provides a good foundation, but soon after, the fans began noticing an interesting pattern: virtually all of the Pacifist Route narration is upbeat and chipper, and it only turns dark and evil during the Genocide Route. It wasn't long before fans began asking, "Wait: what if Chara was just neutral/good from the start? Sure, it doesn't mean they're totally innocent, but what if they're less evil than we originally let on?" And with that question, Narrator Chara Theory replaced Redemption Chara Theory.

Of course, Redemption Chara Theory still has extremely vocal fans, saying Narrator Chara Theory tries to "cover up everything Chara did wrong." I disagree: all of the characters in Undertale have dark pasts, but we forgive them. But thanks to Genocide Chara Theory, Chara's dark past is the only one we don't forgive or forget. Both theories point to the idea that Chara is the narrator, but the main difference between Narrator Chara Theory and Redemption Chara Theory is how soon does Chara learn their lesson? In Redemption Chara Theory, it takes the whole Pacifist Route, while under Narrator Chara Theory, it took the death of their brother, the loss of their own life and soul, the separation of their family, and the ruination of the Underground for them to learn they screwed up badly. Since the tone of the narration appears to reflect the latter idea, that's why I believe Narrator Chara Theory has garnered more support than Redemption Chara Theory.


And there you have it: seven views and over fourteen theories that explain the nature of Chara. Is Chara the Player, the Narrator, an evil force hovering over the Player/Frisk, an evil force waiting to be awakened by the Player/Frisk, a cooperative force for the Player, or using Frisk as a puppet since Frisk was never active to begin with? You may want to go back to the questionnaire earlier and see if your opinion has changed.

Finally, let's see what these theories have led to in terms of fan content:

The Sliding Scale of Chara Portrayals

From these theories, we get a tapestry of ways to portray Chara. Before we get in-depth about each theory, let's explore the current shifts in how people portray Chara. We've already explored the general way Chara is accepted, but I've also begun to notice a continuum of modern portrayals of Chara. The scale below ranks them from the most evil to the most goody-goody, but it also shows an evolution of how Chara has been portrayed. Please bear in mind THIS IS A SCALE, NOT "FIVE WAYS TO PORTRAY CHARA." Examples can fit anywhere between each one, so don't even think about saying, "Spaz, not everything fits into neat little groups like that," because I already know.

(Lastly, if you got a fan work to submit to this sliding scale, let me know! I'll add it if I think it fits.)

The Sliding Scale of Chara Portrayals, starting from most evil to most good (and earliest to newest), looks like this:

Always Chaotic Evil Chara:
In A Nutshell: "Murder is fun!"
Applicable Theories: Genocide Chara Theory, Summon Theory, Third Entity Theory
How Chara is Portrayed:

• Once the most common way to portray Chara, Chara is an irredeemable evil whose only goal is to kill everyone and everything. They have zero redeeming qualities and are a omnicidal maniac only out for blood.
• Chara is not and was never human: they are a demon, pure and simple.
• In life, Chara was a manipulative jerk who only cared about hurting others (often for fun)
  
• They deliberately poisoned Asgore and laughed it off because they're a monster.
• They manipulated Asriel on purpose to kill all humans. Asriel is a hero for trying to stop Chara.
• Chara spends the game trying to get Frisk to kill everyone and everything. By beating the Pacifist Route, you beat Chara.
• Chara controls Frisk during the Genocide Route cutscenes.
• Although widely held by Genocide Chara fans, fans of the other theories hate this one for its one-sided portrayal of Chara, reducing them to a one-dimensional villain.
  

Notable Works:

• Look anywhere. This is the base portrayal of Chara. Since it's harder to name examples that are not Always Chaotic Evil Chara, I'll only be posting specific examples of the others. To give you an idea of how widespread this depiction is, here's the most popular Chara pictures on DeviantArt, and here's what the people on Tumblr are posting, and lastly, here's what you can find on Youtube. Needless to say, this is the single-most popular way to portray Chara as of writing.
  

Redeemable Villain Chara:
In A Nutshell: "I am the demon who-" "Stop. You're not a demon. You're just a kid... We're just kids." "... Why are you so nice to me?"
Applicable Theories: Redemption Theory, Narrator Chara Theory
How Chara is Portrayed:

• Here, Chara starts out evil, but is eventually turned nice by Frisk. One of the earliest portrayals of Chara as a good person, this fits Chara in with the rest of the cast as a villain who, in the words of game reviewer Yahtzee in regards to all Undertale villains, simply gave up on being good to early, but can't keep up the facade of villainy in the face of Frisk's kindness.
• Chara may or may not actually have been human. They either assumed the role of a demon or actually is a demon.
• In life, Chara may or may not have been a jerk, but eventually decided to go into full-on villain mode.
  
• They poisoned Asgore on purpose and laughed it off because they're a monster.
• They manipulated Asriel on purpose to kill all humans. Asriel is a hero for trying to stop Chara.
• Chara spends the game trying to get Frisk to kill everyone and everything. However, Frisk can change their mind and embark on the Pacifist Route, or the Pacifist Route changes their mind in the end.
  
• Chara controls Frisk during the Genocide Route cutscenes.
• Popular among everyone except the Genocide Chara fans for its overly-sentimental portrayal of who they consider an irredeemable monster.
  

Notable Works:

• Draikinator's comics.
• YogurtYard's Entirely Made Of Love (warning: mild yaoi content, but the awesome/hilarious/heartwarming moments definitely make up for it if it makes you uncomfortable)
  

Tragic Chara:
In A Nutshell: "Loving anyone only got me killed. Loving me ruined everyone's lives. This is what love looks like: love is just a different kind of violence."
Applicable Theories: Redemption Theory, Narrator Chara Theory, Player Chara Theory
How Chara is Portrayed:

• Following Redeemable Villain Chara, Tragic Chara begins painting Chara in a more sympathetic life: somebody who was so horribly scarred that they either turned evil or just cynical. Here, Chara serves as a foil to the optimistic and cheerful Frisk.
• Chara was once human, but lost their soul, and with it, their emotions.
• In life, Chara may have actually been a good person, but tragedy twisted them into a miserable, loathing person.
  
• Whether they poisoned Asgore on purpose or not is a mystery for the ages, along with whether they laughed it off out of fear or sadism.
• Asriel may have actually been their friend, but the relationship was tense. Chara actually had an idea to unseal the barrier, but went a little too far with their plan, causing Asriel to try to stop them. Asriel and Chara are on grey moral ground in who was right or not.
• Chara's motivation for the Genocide Route is more rooted in tangible motivation: either for revenge, out of despair, to mercy kill the monsters that will never be free, or something along those lines.
• Chara controls Frisk during the Genocide Route cutscenes, but now there's a more tangible relationship between the two.
• This theory is more popular among the Narrator Chara fans. Again, this theory isn't well-liked by the Genocide Chara fans for portraying an irredeemable villain as somebody with emotional wounds or tangible motivation.
  

Notable Works:

• Draikinator's later comics.
  
• AzureCanvas' SAVE Chara

Anti-Hero Chara:
In A Nutshell: "So we're stuck together, huh? Might as well have fun with you!"
Applicable Theories: Narrator Chara Theory, Player Chara Theory
How Chara is Portrayed:

• This is where the modern Narrator Chara portrayals come into play. Chara is now a benign force who only turns evil under Frisk's influence. Otherwise, they willfully help Frisk save the Underground while playfully ribbing Frisk the whole way, supplying tons of sarcasm and snark throughout the story.
  
• Chara was once human, but lost their soul. They can only feel what Frisk feels emotionally.
• In life, Chara was a normal person with both a kind side and a dark and angry side. They were nice, but not a pushover.
  
• They poisoned Asgore by accident, laughing it off nervously.
• Asriel really was their friend, and chances are they treat Frisk the exact same way. They really did want to use the six human souls to unseal the barrier, but their hatred of humanity scared Asriel so much that he backed out of the plan.
• The Genocide Route is more-or-less triggered by Frisk. Chara only goes along with it just to see why.
• It's up in the air who controls Frisk during the Genocide Route.
• This has become the base for Narrator Chara theory. As such, it angers Genocide Chara fans to no end (but not as much as the next one).

Notable Works:

• Flavor Text Chara
• Underline

Heroic Chara:
In A Nutshell: "This time, I really will set all monsters free..."
Applicable Theories: Narrator Chara Theory, Player Chara Theory
How Chara is Portrayed:

• The latest series of Chara portrayals, this takes things in the opposite direction and makes Chara the true hero of Undertale. In this, they were the ones actively guiding Frisk to the Pacifist Route, not the Genocide Route, and that the Genocide route is entirely Frisk's fault.
• Chara was once human, but lost their soul. They can only feel what Frisk feels emotionally.
• In life, Chara was a normal person.
  
• They poisoned Asgore by accident, laughing it off nervously.
• Asriel really was their friend, and chances are they treat Frisk the exact same way. They really did want to use the six human souls to unseal the barrier, but their hatred of humanity scared Asriel so much that he backed out of the plan.
• The Genocide Route is explicitly triggered by Frisk. Chara only goes along with it just to see why.
• Frisk is in control in the Genocide Route.
• Not quite as popular as the other theories, but has its die-hard fans. Among all the portrayals hated by Genocide Chara fans, this is the single-most hated. Genocide Chara fans regularly joke by sarcastically saying, "Chara did nothing wrong!," before citing Chara's dark past. Whereas Always Chaotic Evil Chara turns Chara into a one-dimensional villain, this runs the risk of making them a one-dimensional goody-two-shoes.
  

Notable Works:

• None. (Yet...)
  

And since I'm all for making your own Chara portrayals, you can have fun mixing and matching the following traits:

• Where does your Chara fit on the scale? Are they 100% evil, 100% good, or somewhere in-between?
  
• Was Chara human or not?
• What were they like when they were alive?
• Did they poison Asgore by accident or on purpose? How did they react?
• What was their relationship with Asriel like?
• What triggered their behavior in the Genocide Route? Were they responsible?
• Who's in control in the Genocide Route? Who's in control period?

Remember: until there's an official statement on the nature of Chara, you're free to portray them however you'd like! The Chara Defense Squad did that, and their ideas paved the way for the current theories.

For example, for my own Undertale ULTRA project, here's what I developed for the June 2016 run:

• This Chara is morally grey: although they want to spare the innocent, they're all for killing anyone who attacks Frisk (Undyne, Mettaton, Flowey). Their only purpose is to protect Frisk, no matter what: whether Frisk is killing everyone or saving the world. They have no idea why they were brought back, and they hope Frisk has the answer.
  
• Chara was definitely human. They only see themselves as a demon if Frisk pursues the Genocide Route.
  
• Chara was a pun-loving goofball when they were alive, but also so determined that it got them and their brother killed. In death, they've become hideously pessimistic, but still love their puns.
  
• They poisoned Asgore by accident, but laughed it off since it was a pun.
• They loved Asriel to a point of sibling worship, constantly telling Frisk that Asriel could do no wrong. When Chara finally encounters him again as the final boss, they have a complete nervous breakdown. In the end, Chara realizes maybe Asriel wasn't perfect, either.
  
• Frisk triggers the Genocide Route, but Chara just rolls with it.
• Chara and Frisk share 50/50 control, but Chara takes over when Frisk gets stuck.

Does this mean this is my only view of Chara? Of course not! For future playthroughs of Undertale ULTRA, I could have a demonic evil Chara. What I've repeated over and over in this essay is that Chara can be flexible: even if a theory gets officialized, there are still the AUs to work with.

So far, we've explored all of the vague and not-so-vague hints and puzzle pieces left behind by Chara, but there's one thing we still need to explore: Chara's only dialogue in the entire game. You'd think this would provide all of the answers, but as we'll found out next, the answer is a bit more complicated...

Continued in Part 3...