>>1716214
Not going to argue too much on the first part because you do have a point on Undertale's moral system being overall iffy in any possible aspect, both in gameplay and in storytelling... and I also never did a No Mercy run; heck, what I know about Genocide is purely second hand lmao.
>it's not as obvious and it's very likely you'll kill at least one enemy through your first playthrough which leads flowey to be a smartass.
I see what you mean by calling this a gotcha, but have you consider that one bit of narrative bit being less of an author gotcha and more of a character gotcha? Storytelling works in a way that character and author don't necessarily reflect each other's thoughs. I can see that gotcha being less of Toby calling you a fool for playing the game "unintendedly" and more so of Flowey doing so... Cause I dunno, the game makes itself very clear as far back as the trailers that it's pursuing a moral-based type of gameplay (an undercooked one at that, but I digress), so calling blame on author for a character's words on this regard doesn't feel right to me.
>If a game that presented choices on morality was truly to be "thought-provoking", at the very least it would lead you into a zone of discomfort where you truly have to gauge between good and evil and your own individuality as a player
You do have a point there and did say as much, there's an imbalance in which choices are favored and that is not good neither narratively nor in gameplay. Then again I
kind of get it when going out of your way to do the long path regardless of morality should be met with a worthwhile reward in any context, so I suppose this is where the bias comes from? Not a good solution, but you can see where it comes from, this is why I also mentioned you're better off keeping things balanced give players rewards and consequences akin to their choices instead of favoring one or the other.
>Doing away with morals has a lot of benefits which is why we can notice a trend of certain (((individuals))) reaching positions of power, along with the correlation in sociopathy and money/power.
I meaaaan... if you want to go that route, morals between groups don't necessarily align with those of other groups, so even if one group act lawful towards each other with good will in mind, that doesn't mean their actions wont have consequences on others. Morality is sometimes a hierarchy in which we will always step on someone's toes regardless of awareness or even willingness. Heck, even in politics, where the system is built around "working together" (eg, nepotism, asking/doing favors, etc...) instead of doing your own thing.
>being an individualist bastard is the only real way to rise to the top
In my personal experience, that's not true, I say this because the best things that have happened to me came from being thoughtful of others instead of thinking about myself; while the worst things also came from selfish thinking. It's not always this way for sure, in some situations one is more favored than the other, but at that point we are dwelling into the intricacies of human society and that is more of a tangent lmao. Point is: Humans and morals are not as black and white to say one behavior is certainly more favored than the other.
>>1716688
>You get the consequences regardless if you get "quick rewards".
Also that. Actions have consequences, specially chaotic actions.