I've been reviewing certain projects where Papyrus is the main focus, and I've been quite surprised how easily various interpretations of Papyrus can be incoherent, like... Read this entire post for better understanding.

• Papyrus's vocabulary.

It pains me to see Papyrus, my favorite character, being so misunderstood within these fangames, even the most famous ones manage to distort the way Papyrus is shown due to several factors, one of them being his vocabulary.

Where do people get this view where synonyms and variations of such SPECIFIC words are so normal in Papyrus's dialogues?

From what I studied about him, he has a normal vocabulary like any other character in UNDERTALE, of course he speaks some specific synonyms but this is not as frequent as shown in several fangames there.

• "THE KING RELEASED A MANDATE ON PUZZLES RECENTLY."

• "HE THINKS SPIKES ARE INEFFECTIVE AND HAZARDOUS TO KIDS."

Words like this one marked in bold are actually present in his vocabulary, but contrary to what many think, Papyrus does not use these types of words constantly as if it were a highlight in his way of speaking, only his way of addressing people is different from others, and most of the time, these synonyms are not needed if the words are used correctly, like these lines:

• "NAH..."

• "THAT'S WEIRD."

• "THERE ARE WAY BETTER ANIMALS TO MARRY."

• "LIKE SKELETONS!!!"

Do you notice this mix of facts that Papyrus uses in his dialogues? In fact, skeletons are not animals, but as he said, they are the best option among the other animals. This is a type of communication where Papyrus stands out, using mixtures of too many facts and humanly improbable things to maintain communication where he shows that he is him, and if you look at all his dialogues, you can see that his vocabulary is normal, nothing different from how Sans or Undyne speak (even though Papyrus uses informal communication sometimes, it's not that constant like Sans does).

• His behavior in certain situations.

We can take as an example Papyrus' entire trajectory until his battle at the end of Snowdin, you noticed that he made it clear like no one else that he wanted to capture the human, and is most evident in his planning of puzzles and dialogues with Sans.

During his battle, Papyrus tells the human his ambitions and doubts, this is a promising behavior from someone who aims to join the Royal Guard, it is direct, not repetitive in facts and is understandable for the player, now my point is: Most interpretations of Papyrus show him being a superfluous and generic superhero.

Let's take an example, DUSTBELIEF (not the original, but based on some takes): It wasn't enough for Papyrus to see his brother die in his arms, he has to get to the human and show how pissed off he is, thinking that the human themself doesn't know about the situation. What use is there in Papyrus going back to talking about something that WE already know in his monologues? Isn't there any better fact for us to know, like the moments that effected his change, etc.?

Papyrus doesn't have to summarize a situation we're already aware of in his battles, nor act like an effeminate superhero where he says he's going to defeat the human with empty and pretty words. He's serious at the worst times, although he likes to make jokes to lighten the serious atmosphere of the moment, he knows how to behave in such a situation, HE'S NEVER BEEN A GOOFY WHEN HE DOESN'T NEED TO BE.

Knowing these facts, anyone can get it right when writing a script about Papyrus, he's not as complex and stupid as some think, just play UNDERTALE to understand. Anyway, I hope you understood the message, if you have any criticism or fact not included here, comment, I'm always open to criticism and new facts.

• Lucas Kioshi.