Undertale: Genocide Route

Undertale's Genocide Route is what happens when a videogame says "you can do this" and means it as a warning, not an invitation. It's a case study in Permissions that carry weight - where what's allowed becomes deeply uncomfortable.

Practice - what the Genocide Route does

The Three Routes

Undertale has three primary paths:

Route	How to Trigger	Tone
Neutral	Default - kill some, spare some	Bittersweet
Pacifist	Kill nobody, befriend everyone	Hopeful, earned happiness
Genocide	Kill everything. Hunt until areas are empty.	Horror, emptiness

What Genocide Requires

The Genocide Route isn't just "kill everyone you meet." It requires:

Active hunting: You must seek out every enemy in every area
Grinding: Random encounters don't stop until you've killed everyone
Persistence: The videogame tells you how many are left ("But nobody came.")
No exceptions: Sparing anyone ends the route

This is tedious by design. You can't stumble into Genocide. You have to want it.

What Changes

On the Genocide Route:

Music becomes slower, darker, eventually silent
NPCs flee or hide from you
Save points change text ("Determination." becomes numbers)
Boss fights are replaced with one-sided slaughters - or nightmare difficulty
The final boss is one of the hardest fights in any videogame
Dialogue reflects what you've become

The Permanent Consequence

Completing Genocide permanently alters your save data. Even after a full reset, the game "remembers." Future Pacifist endings are tainted. The videogame sold your soul - and the transaction persists outside any in-game reset.

This consequence extends to your actual computer's save files, not just in-game state.

The 4 A's Perspective

Action: Combat becomes mandatory grinding. The Gesture shifts from choice-based encounters to repetitive elimination.
Art: Visual and audio design degrades. Music slows. Colors drain. The videogame becomes hostile to look at.
Arc: Much longer than other routes due to required grinding. Intentionally tedious.
Atmosphere: Horror. Not jump-scare horror - existential horror. You're the monster.

Try This

Watch, don't play

The Genocide Route is designed to be unpleasant to complete. Consider watching a playthrough first. Notice how the videogame makes you work for every kill.

Compare the fights

Watch the Papyrus fight on Neutral/Pacifist vs. Genocide. Same character, same location. Radically different experience.

Craft - for educators

Why Use This Case Study

The Genocide Route is the clearest example of Permissions as moral architecture. Most videogames that let you be evil either:

Reward it (power fantasy, more loot)
Ignore it (NPCs respawn, no consequences)
Prevent it (invincible children, locked-out options)

Undertale does something different: it allows evil, but makes you earn it through labor, and makes the consequences permanent. This is permissions design at its most deliberate.

Teaching Sequence

Have students play Undertale blind (most will get Neutral)
Discuss the Mercy mechanic and what it represents
Introduce the existence of the Genocide Route - without spoiling details
Watch key Genocide moments together (boss fights, ending)
Discuss: Why did Toby Fox include this? What does allowing it say?

Discussion Prompts

Why is Genocide tedious? Is that a design flaw or intentional?
What's the difference between forbidding evil actions and allowing them with consequences?
How does the permanent save alteration change the stakes?
Can a videogame judge the player? Should it?
What does it mean that most players who start Genocide don't finish it?

The Labor of Evil

Genocide requires grinding - walking around empty areas waiting for encounters that become less frequent. This is intentional friction:

You can't kill casually - you must commit
The videogame gives you time to reconsider
Boredom becomes part of the horror
The effort involved makes completion a choice, not an accident

This is the opposite of how most videogames handle player agency. Usually, evil is easy. Here, evil is work.

Common Misconceptions

"The Genocide Route is the 'true' or 'complete' experience"

It's one of three routes. Many players (and the creator) consider Pacifist the intended "good" ending. Genocide exists to make a point, not to be played by everyone.

"You have to play Genocide to understand Undertale"

You don't. The route exists for those who choose it. Watching is valid. Not engaging is valid. The videogame respects that choice.

Theory - deeper grounding

Permissions as Moral Framework

From a Permissions perspective, the Genocide Route reveals that what a videogame allows carries meaning:

Allowed: Killing everything. The videogame doesn't stop you.
Required: Active hunting. Passive killing won't trigger the route.
Forbidden: Mercy. Any mercy ends Genocide.

The permission to commit genocide exists specifically so the videogame can respond to it. By allowing it, the videogame can judge it.

Complicity and Player Agency

Undertale makes the player complicit:

You weren't forced - you chose
You weren't tricked - the videogame warned you
You weren't efficient - you worked for this

This complicity is what makes the permanent consequences feel earned rather than arbitrary. The videogame didn't punish you - you punished yourself.

The Fourth Wall Break

Genocide breaks the fourth wall by:

Acknowledging your save/load behavior
Persisting consequences in actual files
Addressing "you" directly, not the character
Making the final boss explicitly aware of meta-game behavior

This transforms Genocide from "playing a villain" to "being judged for playing." The locus of moral evaluation shifts from character to player.

Aesthetic Heritage: RPG Violence

The Genocide Route critiques RPG conventions:

Grinding is standard in JRPGs - here it's horrifying
Killing for XP is normal - here it's examined
Power growth is rewarding - here it's corrupting
The "kill everything" player is a common archetype - here, that's the villain

Undertale transforms its Aesthetic Heritage from celebration to critique. It uses familiar mechanics to ask: why do we do this?

The Sans Fight

Sans, the final Genocide boss, is one of the hardest fights in any videogame. This serves multiple purposes:

Mechanical punishment: You wanted power? Earn it.
Narrative coherence: Someone finally stops you
Player psychology: Most Genocide runs end here
Meaning: The videogame is literally fighting back

The difficulty isn't arbitrary - it's the videogame's last attempt to stop you.

Unresolved Questions

Is the permanent save alteration a violation of player trust, or the ultimate consequence?
Can a videogame ethically judge players for engaging with content it provides?
Does watching Genocide (via YouTube) carry the same moral weight as playing it?
What does it mean that Genocide is the most-discussed route despite being least-played?

References

Sicart, Miguel. Beyond Choices: The Design of Ethical Gameplay (2013)
Bogost, Ian. Persuasive Games (2007) - procedural rhetoric
Toby Fox interviews on Undertale's design intentions

Permissions - the framework this case study exemplifies
Dark Souls: Bonfire - another videogame where difficulty carries meaning
Player Psychology - motivation and moral reasoning