EDIT1: I made a mistake with the original version. I corrected the mistake, and the updated version should be available in the image link. (I was honestly mentally exhausted by the time I was adding the "yes" and "no"s, so honestly surprised I didn't make more.)

EDIT2: Noticed a second mistake AHHH!!! (Had to break the rule of "yes" on the left, "no" on the right'cause swapping the positions of the two things in Dia just made it look ugly and confusing.)

So for context: I'm making a spreadsheet rating different Ralsei theories against the evidence we have (and when I constitute as "evidence" is so broad that I exhausted the entire alphabet twice over in my Libreoffice Calc file), and of course: one of the pieces of evidence is flowery culling Ralsei "the impossibility himself". A text box that is deceptively complicated.

The thing about considering Ralsei an "impossibility" is that it eliminates him being something completely "normal" by the standards of darkeners in this universe, and a completely normal example of that thing, and literally nothing else! He could be something abnormal; a normal thing that is strange by the standard of that normal thing; or even something that is "not normal" in this universe, but is an outlier even within that not normal category! (And people have been calling Asgore the "king of vague posting")

There are so many different ways to interpret what he says that is not even clear what criteria I should even use to judge how well the theory fits this text box. So I made this flow chart to make it a little bit easier. But also try to also make it useful for basically anyone else trying to solve this mystery like me.

The point is to create a hierarchy of interpretations based on a series of questions. The first question essentially essentially divides the interpretations up into "object" and "dark entity" categories. "Dark entity" is my catch old term for essentially any resident of the dark worlds that are not native to the light world. So lighteners, plants, and objects made into darkeners don't count; but titans, titan spawn, the "friend" species, and darkeners pattern after ideas and concepts like imaginary friends, emotions, and memories would count as dark entities.

All the circles that say "Evaluate" simply indicate that that branch of the flower is a complete criteria, and anything else to ask would be specific to each theory. The two circles that say "Invalid" just means that that particular chain of answers leads to a Ralsei Theory that cannot possibly fit Flowery's text box (at least for as far as I know).

Object Side

On the object side: they're basically just arranged in order of most significant to least significant. Like: If the object is something that symbolically represents an "impossibility", or would be very difficult to make, then there's no point contemplating whether or not something like it would turn into a darkener or not, because one of those facts alone already makes it fit the description of "impossibility himself" about as well as any object can.

"Does it symbolize an 'impossibility'?" is mostly there for Headband Theory, but could theoretically apply to other possibilities. Basically: If the object represents some sort of "impossible wish", or anything else that someone would hope and dream but probably couldn't: then that pretty sufficiently explains what Flowery said without much need for elaboration. And his object representing something that "should not be" would be pretty powerful thematically.

"Is it an object that's unlikely to exist?" is about objects that require highly specific circumstances in order to become a thing in the first place. Whether it be something especially hard to make, requiring very specific material, requiring certain events to occur, or some combination thereof: it's existence is unexpected. A bit more of a stretch for what he means by this, but not too much. I could definitely see this working in story.

"Would it not turn into a darkener?" is pretty self explanatory. We don't know all the rules for what does and doesn't turn into darkeners (and we likely never will), but there do seem to be some patterns (clothing and accessories turn into clothing and equipment; writing utensils turn into swords, etcetera), so it could be explained later that Ralsei is the exception to some rule regarding this. This is where the stretches start to become questionable, but I could see it working if given the right explanation.

"With a darkener of it look like Ralsei?" is something I'm questioning if I would even keep at this point, but it would still technically fit regardless. Why he kind of looks like Asriel (or a Dreemurr in general) it's still a huge mystery surrounding him. So the explanation for that also being the exception rules about what darkeners look like based on their object could also make sense. This one's honestly such a big stretch that I have a hard time seeing it working in story, but I don't want to rule anything out without hard evidence.

"Would it explain Ralsei's other mysteries?" is basically just the default, pity interpretation. If an object he is can basically explain all mystery surrounding him, but still does not fit under the above interpretations: then we're basically out of things Flowery could mean by this. Technically a little bit better story wise than the previous interpretation, because while it would be a little disappointing to realize that this text box doesn't actually give us new information: the answer to these various mysteries, such as why Ralsei is so knowledgeable or powerful will hopefully be very interesting and exciting anyway. But since it's a sense like the default, and all it really means for a theory is that this text box doesn't contradict it: I put it at the bottom. (I also now realize it could technically also go on the object side, but one of the other interpretations also tactically covers it, so probably best to keep the charts simple anyway.)

Dark Entity Side

"Is it a concept?" is self explanatory. It just covers whether or not he's essentially a darkener of a more abstract, non-physical idea, such as emotions, imaginary friends, memories, the prophecy itself, Deltarune.exe itself, and basically anything else you can think of. The questions on this side in general are more for narrowing down the type of dark entity he is, which does vastly change how we approach it. The alternative is that he's a dark entity that isn't the manifestation of anything in particular, and justice kind of is. Much like how light world entities aren't exactly the "manifestation" of something, and just kind of exist.

"Is it a concept that would be considered 'impossible'?" is basically just "Does it symbolize an 'impossibility'?" but for dark entities. But since whether he's an object or a dark entity does fundamentally change the approach: it didn't really make any sense to try to get the arrow to go to that question, since it would only mean there are four branches, with two of them being determined by how you entered that question, so this is just simpler. If he's the abandonment of an "impossible wish", or some other concept people could think about there would not be traditionally considered "possible": then that would explain the text box quite satisfactory. Answering "No" brings you to the same place as answering "No" to "Is it a concept?" because him representing a concept that isn't "impossible" doesn't necessarily evaluate the theory, but does make it functionally the same as him not being a concept, so they would be evaluated in the same way.

"Is there an already known dark entity that could embody it?" Is something I would probably cut if I made an updated "graphical" version, four since both answers just lead to "evaluate", but to be fair of me of yesterday: the answer to this question does significantly change how we approach it. If there isn't already a potential candidate for a dark entity that embodies what Ralsei embodies, or something in the same category as that: then that raises the question of "where are the other darkeners like him?" But if you believe we have already seen dark entities like this (such as the friend species), then we don't have to worry about that.

"Have we seen this dark entity before?" is just asking if the theory is speculating Ralsei one of the already hinted at dark entities. We so far have titans (which are also stated to be "the embodiment of fear"), titan spawn, seemingly the species represented by the image_friend face (the "friend species" as I've been calling it (which speaks to text keeps mishearing as the "French species")), debatably the Knight, and even more debatably several cyber World and TV world darkeners (though I'm highly skeptical that any darkeners from these dark worlds are actually non objects). There could be more than I missed: but that should cover the broad strokes of what we know. As mentioned with the last question: if he's a dark entity we've never seen before, then that raises the question of why we haven't seen any others like him yet? But if he's a member of the same species as one of the dark entities listed in this paragraph: then that concern goes away.

"Would the candidate or Ralsei himself be an exception to the rules, or be different from what we would expect?" was a question I struggled to summarize in fewer words, but is actually deceptively simple. It's basically just asking if what Ralsei is or Ralsei himself or break any rules, established or theorized. For instance: titans have been stated to be essentially beasts of pure violence, incapable of understanding mercy; and Ralsei is distinctly not that, so he would be breaking one of the rules of titans, making the candidate a valid fit. And if you speculate he is some species of dark entity that as a class shouldn't exist, but does anyway: then that would also be a valid candidate. And there are also of course implied characteristics of dark entity species they haven't necessarily been confirmed to be rules for them, but seem likely given the evidence. For instance: with how ruthless the friend species are described, you wouldn't expect many of them to be kind; but Ralsei is definingly kind, which would theoretically make him an exception. As implied earlier: the other mysteries of Ralsei, such as his knowledge and power, who could also be "exceptions" to the rules of a species. Breaking rules creates it's own problems, but if exactly like every other member of a species, and his species isn't breaking any particular rules: then there's basically nothing left For Flowery to consider an "impossibility", so at least some rule bending is required.

I can definitely see people questioning some inclusions, or even coming up with other variables I didn't even think of. But this should at least be a good start for interpreting Flowery's statement, and a good way to show how flexible it really is.

It doesn't matter if it's a small penny sized opinion or an opinion which can only be expressed by writing a comment longer than the Bible just say it

I actually prefer Mad mew mew in Undertale over pink in Deltarune ( mainly for the design ,character wise I prefer ut's version because in dr because it's two characters and to me they end up less defined to mad mew mew) also I'm neutral to her being the boss but they could've done something way better she's like my least favourite secret boss like I like eram more

For those unfamiliar: in the TV series Gravity Falls There was a character named "Bill Cipher". (He's a triangle with an eye and stick figure limbs. He competed In the Tumblr Sexy Man tournament with the Sans. He's pretty popular.) The show Alex Hirsch did a Q and A on this shows sub in the character of Bill Cipher. One of the questions someone asked was:

>Do you have something like a best friend, or a friend, at least?

And Bill responded with:

>MY FRIENDS LOOK LIKE THIS https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/05/4a/9c/054a9ce9cbc0e0a92ba9068c143fa616.jpg

(Linked image above.)

This tidbit combined with another answer indicating he doesn't have family "anymore", and leaks of someone voicing a character in the series named "Tad Strange" led to people to theorize that Bill Cipher was going to have a secret brother with the before mentioned name, and who was going to be a square instead of a triangle. Even when it was revealed that Tad Strange was just a gag character who clearly had no relation to Bill, people still hanged on to the theory that he had some sort of secret sibling for a little bit.

The problem with this theory, that's been with it since literally the beginning: it's that it's based on noting the square with the mouth in it in the top right corner of the image Bill used to illustrate what his friends look like, assumed that the image was meant to hint at another member of his kind (even though most of the fan art of this theorized character depicted him with an eye in no mouth like his brother), and ignored the candy eggs shaped "M" abomination that was clearly supposed to be the main focus of the image! Everyone just ignored the figure that took up over half the image, and essentially just assumed the only important part of the image was that one little square in the top right corner. No one ever brought any other part of the image!

We actually get to see Bill's friend group, and there designs are actually similar to the uncanny figure in the example image (one of them even obvious homage to this theory (Kryptos), which no one ever seems to bring up). Something fans could have easily predicted if they didn't have such tunnel vision on relatively minor details that caused them to ignore the big picture. And even though I thought this theory plausible at the time: I still noticed this glaring problem with it. (But I was illiterate at the time, so I couldn't point it out in comment sections.)

Why did I spend multiple paragraphs explaining that Gravity Falls theory in Deltarune subreddit? Because as the title implies: I feel like this fandom is making similar mistakes.

This is so long I needed to subdivide this AH

The first example of this I can think of is Noelle Girl, a theory I have a lot of problems with, but chief among them is the image used to depict Hope Girl. It shows her as having a long, round muzzle; and a long, jackety hair. And legitimately: the only character that has both the right head shape and hair is Susie (while characters can always grow up their hair, the only other character I can think of of a similar head shape is Toriel, who is bold). Whenever I bring this up: the only counter anyone can ever seem to bring up is that what the image looks like is subjective. And while that's true to an extent: if I showed you a sprite of Flowery and told you was Berdly, You would probably rightfully be like "no, that's not Berdly. Berdly doesn't look like that."

We have to draw the line somewhere on how we can and can interpret imagery, and the mental gymnastics that need to be done in order to see Noelle in the Hope Girl image is frankly staggering. People (Game Theory in particular) have even said that the image "doesn't look like Susie", based solely on the girl having a sword and wearing a robe. Why is it inconceivable that Susie could get a sword and start to wear a robe? people have even tried to claim that Hope Girls hair is clean while Susie's hair is messy as a potential difference, even though both are portrayed with a similar level of jaggedness. But her hair is smooth on top and Susie's isn't, so they must be different characters"!"

Another random title to break things up

Most theories about what Ralsei is also tend to have some more problems. I'm currently making a whole spreadsheet rating different theories against the evidence, which I hope to make something out of eventually. But one theory I take particular issue with is the one of him being roots. This is because it tries to explain how he's able to be in every dark world, by proposing the roots go all the way down to the depths.

The problem: implicit in this theory is an explanation for how he could traverse the Dark Worlds THAT ISN'T TIED TO WHAT HE IS. So what's the point of going through the logistical nightmare of figuring out how deep the roots of this forest go versus how high up the depths are, when we could just say he goes through the depths in order to get between Dark Worlds?

I suppose it's possible that only darkeners made in the Depths can go between Dark World. But at that point it's just chapter two Closet Knight all over again: making up random rules out of thin air that have no support in the text, just to act as arbitrary criteria to narrow down possibilities! what do we actually gain from making these random assumptions?

It's kind of the perfect example on what happens when fans are dead set on what he is being directly tied to how he's able to go between Dark Worlds (for some reason beyond my comprehension), and trying to go through hoops to come up with a theory that explains that. Just combine that with Charter 5 giving us confirmation that plants gain special information (even though Ralsei explicitly stated he doesn't know why he knows the things he knows, which would seem to imply that it's at least possible it has nothing to do with what he is, so why are we using it to narrow things down?) and the prophecy panel that only has the word "roots" on it: And you get this theory.

Blah blah blah blah blah

The ultimate point I'm trying to make in this post is that theorists have a habit on focusing on minor details, while ignoring the bigger picture, and in particular: more significant evidence.

This leads them to prop up very unlikely possibilities that have a lot of innate problems. While ignoring other possibilities that are actually quite likely. Which I find incredibly annoying.

I'm actually quite open minded when it comes to theories. (Ralsei being in the vessel is one of my top three candidates. And after watching videos on the theories: I actually think him being a bug or Deltarune itself could make sense.) But at some point I have to wonder what the point of a theory even is?

The way people can take some of the weakest theories, and present them as though they're actually quite strong is so confusing to me.

Especially when people have tried to call me out for making long posts in the past. Saying that I "didn't need to write all that". And I'm like: did you not see all the evidence I tried to cover? Did you not see all the arguments I tried to address?

It legitimately feels like I'm being insulted for actually taking into account the bigger picture, and trying to consider as much evidence as possible! And like: literally what is even the point of theorizing if you're not going to do that?

Maybe an NPC is seen "photoshopping Flowery" or something. Or maybe there's a joke about "Photoshop attack", where you are attacked with photoshopped images.

More Kindness X Grillby (or Kindby).

chapter 5 should have been an Asgore chapter. we didn't need flowery, Asgore could do literally anything that flowery did. Asgore should have been the villain or at least the main character, because of this stupid rule of not making the ut cast relevant that toby has for some reason, chapter 5 had Asgore written very badly and felt like he was only there because he needed to be there

This is something I just felt like talking about, even if it's obvious.

A primary difference between Darkners and flowers is how they interpret being alive.

Darkners are objects, meaning that a Dark Fountain gives them life. However, that life is pre-determined based on the history of the object the Darkner is based on. They have memories as if they've always existed as people even prior to a Dark World being created.

Flowers are living beings, which translates to them remembering life in the Light World as immobile plants that can't do anything. They don't have a pre-determined life the way Darkners do.

Due to this, the darkness allows flowers to realize themselves as people in a way they can't in the Light World. Darkners don't have this issue since they always remember their lives even during moments when they aren't inside a Dark World.

Flowers remember their lives in the Light World as being "stuck" as plants, with them being able to be people inside a Dark World. Darkners always remember their lives as people regardless of the World they're in.

The arguments I'd be hearing were things like "Ralsei is just meant to look like a Boss Monster, and Susie and Noelle are generalizing Ralsei's appearence due to a lack of familiarity". But I didn't think those arguments landed since the game very clearly intends for you to compare Ralsei to Asriel, specially with Noelle, someone who did know Asriel back then (apparently her opinion just didn't matter because Kris is adamant about Ralsei and Asriel looking different).

The game does emphasize that Ralsei looks different from Asriel besides the similarities, but when you even got Asgore now saying that Ralsei looks like Asriel at a glance.

Also, Ralsei's name is very unsubtle. I don't understand why people would just ignore that.

I'd sure look forward to meeting Clockery in the upcoming hit game, O.P. Aid Cane!

It also means that Flowery paralleling Rudy is him trying to appeal to Asgore. And any other parallels the flowers have to other characters are them deciding to be that way.