As I imagine most people probably know at this point: if after beating Orange and Green, you decide to close Kris's eyes and think about Ralsei, there will be [dialog](https://youtu.be/hITTyDHHWBg?t=104) where Flowery calls him an "impossibility". This basically all but confirms he can't be an object, since there's not really much of a reason why Flowery would consider any particular object becoming a darkener and "impossibility". As someone who never really liked non-object theories, this tripped me up, but I was willing to work with it. And I even developed a non-object theory in my head a couple days ago.

But then yesterday: I remembered the scene where [Ralsei failed attempt to comfort Tenna](https://youtu.be/PsECdnv9vRQ?list=PLRBCukFwWzHurzsalzooHhmfQlHMNJYl_&t=13279), which was something that was always hard to explain unless he was an object. And I realize that it doesn't just go away just because we have a new earth shattering revelation, because the new revelation doesn't inherently give a non object explanation for his dialog there.

We now have both a silver bullet for Object Ralsei, and a silver bullet for Non-Object Ralsei. But barring some creative, complicated mental gymnastics To come up with a candidate that can be both an object and a non-object depending upon how you think of it (which itself could actually fit Flowery's statement quite well): these can't both be true. So one or both of these dialogs must be reinterpreted to resolve the conflict. But which one is we interpreted will ultimately come down to subjective opinion.

I get most of my theories from YouTube, but I can only imagine the kind of toxic debates that have erupted on discord servers, because both sides are entirely convinced that their piece of dialog 100% confirms whether or not he's an object in their favor, with neither side acknowledging that it's actually incredibly complicated.

In general: debate around what Ralsei is has fallen victim to Forgetting different details that are quite important to narrowing it down. So I figured: A canonical list of evidence that any Ralsei theory must account for. This post is my attempt at at least starting the development of one, by giving my own proposals. I am willing to expand upon them if any suggestions are given, but we're going to start with everything I can think of.

# The Criteria

1. Explain why Ralsei was alone his "entire life" (however that would be defined).
2. Explain his many similarities to Asriel.
3. Explain why he seemingly related to Tenna. Potential meanings of this can include, but are not limited to:
   * He was lying, and this dialog actually means nothing. (Very, very stupid.)
   * He is an object like Tenna, which used to have a purpose outside of the prophecy.
   * He used to have some purpose that he tried his best to fulfill, but has now somehow lost it.
   * He always wanted to have a purpose, but never got one.
4. Has to be something Flowery would consider an "impossibility". Interpretations of what that can be include, but are not limited to:
   * Flowery it doesn't actually know anything about what Ralsei is and/or is lying, and his comment doesn't actually mean anything. (Goes against Ralsei's reaction, and is very very stupid.)
   * He is not a physical object.
   * He is an object that would not normally turn into a darkener. (Such as an article of clothing, or a piece of a lightener.)
   * The form he takes significantly deviates from how our object would normally be transformed into a darkener. (Such as being heavily based on a specific lightener.)
   * Is simply referring to the many other mysteries about him. (Such as why he knows what he knows, or why he doesn't turn to stone in any dark worlds, seemingly.)
   * Him being trans, which is for some reason even more exceptionally rare in darkeners then in lighteners. (This is the same scene where he calls him "princess".)
5. Needs to be "non-arbitrary" in regards to other dark world residents, which can include, but is not limited to:
   * Explaining why we don't see other darkeners like him yet.
   * Explaining why we have actually seen darkeners like him in the past, but we just didn't know they were connected.
   * Be something that there is only one of, with no similar counterparts.

I feel like criteria 5 needs some elaboration that wouldn't necessarily fit into the bullet point format: it's mostly therefore non-object theories, but still technically applies to object theories. It's basically that you can't just throw out a possibility for what Ralsei could be without it being something we either already have debatably seen, or that we would have good reason to not see more of at this point. For instance: if he is the embodiment of "hope" itself, Then we should expect to see embodiments of other emotional concepts of similar strength, nature, and/or importance, such as despair, love, hatred, friendship, Et cetera. If he is the embodiment of a fictional character: then there needs to be an explanation for why we seemingly don't see other fictional characters appear in dark worlds. And if he's an incredibly small particle: then there needs to be an explanation for why we don't see a bajillion of them in every dark world.

You can't just ignore other things of a similar nature to what you propose he is, and say it "doesn't matter". Because to maintain immersion: the rules of the universe must at least be consistent enough that things you would expect to happen don't just not happen for no reason. The exception to the rule has to itself be a rule, because otherwise it would just be unsatisfying. I honestly don't even care if you invoke Gaster, because at least you're then trying to explain why he would be an exception, without just saying he "just is".

I chose this set of criteria because, in my opinion: they're non negotiable. I can't exactly stop you from considering possibilities that don't satisfy any or all of the criteria. But if you can't explain all of them: then I definitely don't have any reason to consider your theory. This criteria are that important to me.

Which brings me to something: yes, I've seen [Cammy's video on why he can't be an object](https://youtu.be/YcKCDp3EGyc?t=755&si=Xuh7DTLm3ZSI2Zmh). but frankly speaking: I don't find his arguments on why he can't be an object at all to be convincing (even if his points regarding what specific types of objects he cannot be are still good). I don't want to blot this post with negativity towards a specific video, but know that I have my reasons to disregard his points, which I am willing to elaborate on, if you ask.

I intentionally excluded Explaining why he can go between dark worlds, and why he knows what he knows are intentionally excluded from the list. I was even going to have explaining how, why, and in what sense he is a "prince" as a criteria, before realizing it ultimately goes against the point of the list. The point is that this is not meant to be a criteria for a universal theory of Ralsei, I don't think forcing people to make one actually does any good. This is meant to be specifically what Ralsei is, and other questions can be answered after or independently of it. So I would like for more people to talk about Why he's a "prince", because it's honestly very weird if you think about it, I am willing to compromise on it, and save that the paid for later if you can't tie that mystery in.

What Every Ralsei Theory Needs to Explain (Major spoilers for Chapter 5)