Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
I've got a short, but broad question to ask. Do you think that Pokemon should be regarded as "people" in a canonical sense? For instance, a trainer does not own a Pokemon, as humans can't technically be owned, but rather trains alongside it since both trainer and Pokemon grow through experience. Furthermore, for example's sake, a family doesn't own a Growlithe as a "family pet," but rather as a companion. A society that sees Pokemon as people would encourage the relationship between Pokemon and humans as partnerships, companionships, so on and so forth. Some could support that certain Pokemon are more "people" than others by virtue of their egg group - the likes of Cacturne, Alakazam, Jynx, Machoke, etc. are all in the Human-Like egg group and bear many resemblance to human, such as their bipedal stature and other physical characteristics.
So what do you think? I don't want to put too much forward as far as my own opinion goes because I want this to be as broad a discussion as possible. Offering what I think aside from the facts I can pull to support the question would pigeonhole the focal point a bit too much so I'll add my thoughts if people latch onto this attempt at theorymonning.
I'm not quite sure what the question is, it might be a little too broad. To me most Pokemon never seemed to be more than pets. There are relationships between Pokemon and people that are already encouraged, they are usually a owner-pet relationship or a coach-fighter relationship, I'm not sure what else there can be because for the most part Pokemon are just animals. I don't see the difference between calling a Growlithe a companion and calling it a pet.
Technically yes, people don't own Pokemon, but it's the same way that parents don't "own" children, even though the trainer (or parent) is expected to provide guidance and sustenance and the child (Pokemon) is expected to be submissive in return.
Pokemon do have jobs in the Pokemon world, for example Machoke work with movers and Growlithe work with the police. I see this the same way service dogs are used by the police or fire fighters in the real world. They're doing it because their trainers want them to, it's not like they applied for the job or anything like that.
Pokemon deserve rights in the Pokemon world but they're not really people in the human sense. I don't think they will ever be considered equal to humans as they're not really interested in creating a global community or even trying to become equal to humans. Pokemon seem to be content where they are, rather than aspiring to achieve an equal status in society to humans or even replacing them aside from something like Mewtwo. Ironically its usually humans in teams like Team Plasma or Team Flare who want this.
I think that for the most part, Pokémon seem to be pets to their trainers, and the trainers generally command them. However, there is an exception in Legendary Pokémon.
Some of these legendaries, especially cover legendaries, are not pets to be played with but powerful forces you must struggle to control. Things like Kyogre and Giratina could - and very possibly would - destroy the world in a second given the chance, and trainers must keep them in check, try to be friendly and restrain them.
Other legendaries, such as Lati@s and Mew, actually can understand human thoughts and act very much like equals to humans. They go in Poké Balls only so they can travel with you, and sometimes don't even accept a Poké Ball.
The Eon Flute seems to signify Lati@s, at the least, can choose to exit their pokeballs at will, as they can exit their pokeball (if it's in the PC, Daycare, etc. etc.) to come to your location and pick you and to fly you wherever. It also joined you of its own free will, which means it's probably more than a mindless beast.
For the most part, I think some pokemon are more intelligent than others. Alakazam has an IQ of 5000 (if the pokedex is to be believed), but is for the most part content to stay with its trainer, even though it could be doing any number of things. At the same time you have pokemon like Carvanha, which seem like little more than animals. It seems to me that pokemon have some sort of instinct to stay with trainers, even if said trainers greatly mistreat them. We also know that trainers can unlock certain things within their pokemon, like Mega Evolution, that the pokemon could not do by themselves. So I'd like to say the Human-Pokemon relation is more complicated than Student-Master, Owner-Pet, or even equals. To some extent it has become a symbiotic relationship - people need the pokemon and the pokemon need the people, and have evolved as said people have advanced (Trubbish, for instance).
So I guess I conclude that Pokemon are subservient to people, but people are in some cases just as subservient to the Pokemon.
Part of the reason I didn't like the Gen5 games is because they set up to answer this question but dodged it at the eleventh hour for "surprise, the messengers are hypocrites" and a bunch of phrases that were meant to seem profound but really say nothing at all (the lowest point was definitely Marlon in the sequel refusing to help because he doesn't believe Team Plasma is evil, right after they froze an entire city).
And they had so much ammunition to work with that I think they could have answered this! A lot of pokemon display a mix of human and animal and spirit qualities, and several explicitly like fighting (it's a whole type of pokemon after all).
Personally, I feel that Pokemon are something different from human or animal, displaying characteristics of both. As for what that means, none exist in the real world so it is hard to say.
BTW, don't trust the Pokedex. For one, you can't have an IQ above 200. It's an average, not a point total (100 means average human intelligence. If everyone was as smart as Einstein then Einstein would have an IQ of 100).
Good topic! There's so many ways you can approach this question but you seem to be talking mostly about human rights versus animal rights. Those are fairly flameworthy subjects so I'll steer clear of going down that path as it's better suited to Congregation of the Masses with a great big "Serious" banner at the top.
I'll just point out that nobody has yet mentioned a third quality that Pokemon may possess besides "human" and "animal" - how about "robot"? They can be stored electronically, they don't die (in battle at least), they can understand specific commands like a computer does, etc... Pokemon have a lot of robotic qualities. Incidentally, look at Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics:
First law: A robot shall not harm a human.
Second law: A robot shall obey the orders of a human, except where this would break the first law.
Third law: A robot shall protect itself, except where this would break one of the first two laws.
Looks like Pokemon follow the same rules to me! The only exception I can think of being the unruliness mechanic where overlevelled traded Pokemon can disobey trainers.
Good topic! There's so many ways you can approach this question but you seem to be talking mostly about human rights versus animal rights. Those are fairly flameworthy subjects so I'll steer clear of going down that path as it's better suited to Congregation of the Masses with a great big "Serious" banner at the top.
I'll just point out that nobody has yet mentioned a third quality that Pokemon may possess besides "human" and "animal" - how about "robot"? They can be stored electronically, they don't die (in battle at least), they can understand specific commands like a computer does, etc... Pokemon have a lot of robotic qualities. Incidentally, look at Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics:
First law: A robot shall not harm a human.
Second law: A robot shall obey the orders of a human, except where this would break the first law.
Third law: A robot shall protect itself, except where this would break one of the first two laws.
Looks like Pokemon follow the same rules to me! The only exception I can think of being the unruliness mechanic where overlevelled traded Pokemon can disobey trainers.
If I recall correctly, there was a theory that most pokemon are in fact some sort of alien life form that came to the Pokemon Planet (Earth or whatever it's supposed to be) and thus are very compatible with technology like pokeballs and PC's. Pokeballs are in a way like little life support pods that manipulate space in that the pokemon has their own little world in there and a little ball can hold giants like Legends and Gyarados. It has been shown in the games and series that pokemon can die either in battle (Team Rocket killing a Marowak/ The War in X/Y) or of old age (the numerous pokemon graves). It's very possible that the pokeball has like an emergency function to automatically return the pokemon to the safety of the ball before it dies or the fact that the trainer does not wish to kill their pokemon. Same can be true when you are fighting wild pokemon as you are a 10 year old child who does not wish to kill the pokemon, so fainting them is enough to gain EXP (plus this is a kids game). I think in cases like the Great War in Kalos, trainers may have override the mechanism in the pokeball to return the pokemon to the ball when it fainted or maybe that the pokemon were so dedicated and in-tuned with their trainers that they were willing to die and kill for them.
As for if pokemon are people? I would say in the conventional sense no but they are still more advanced than mindless animals. They can become in-tuned with their trainers and even trainers can understand their pokemon with little effort. So I would go with that they are advanced organisms but are content with their place in the world, unlike people who want to expand and evolve in their life style. Most pokemon could kill a person with little effort but choose not to for the most part as they seem to have an in-bedded desire to have a trainer that will make it grow stronger. The struggle they put up while you are trying to catch them is a way for them to make sure you are worthy of their loyalty and trust (since you don't faint them when you catch them, which takes some skill with some pokemon). As what was said a few post up, pokemon need people and people need pokemon in order to survive and attain the most potential.
Good topic! There's so many ways you can approach this question but you seem to be talking mostly about human rights versus animal rights. Those are fairly flameworthy subjects so I'll steer clear of going down that path as it's better suited to Congregation of the Masses with a great big "Serious" banner at the top.
I'll just point out that nobody has yet mentioned a third quality that Pokemon may possess besides "human" and "animal" - how about "robot"? They can be stored electronically, they don't die (in battle at least), they can understand specific commands like a computer does, etc... Pokemon have a lot of robotic qualities. Incidentally, look at Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics:
First law: A robot shall not harm a human.
Second law: A robot shall obey the orders of a human, except where this would break the first law.
Third law: A robot shall protect itself, except where this would break one of the first two laws.
Looks like Pokemon follow the same rules to me! The only exception I can think of being the unruliness mechanic where overlevelled traded Pokemon can disobey trainers.
Being stored electronically is just because of the technology. It is the Pokeball that allows this, as well as the extremely advanced teleportation system. Humans can be transported in this universe too, remember there are warp tiles and such.
As for Asimov's three laws...humans can technically follow these rules if they wanted to. And Pokemon do not have to do it. Pokemon who are with a trainer will follow their orders, sure. But according to Asimov's laws, random wild Pokemon should be required to follow your orders...which just does not happen.
Certainly Pokemon can withstand much more physical punishment than humans, but that's just one of their qualities and it doesn't necessarily make them robotic. Sure, they can understand commands from humans, but in real life service animals can be taught to respond to commands too. They don't have to be robots to have intelligence or natural biological defenses.
I'm assuming that when you say they are robots, you mean that they are man-made. That doesn't really work either, because there would be no reason to create so many diverse species and there would be no reason to allow them to go into the wild. Robots also are not able to reproduce. I know technically, nobody ever sees how Pokemon reproduce, but it's certainly biological as they hatch from eggs. Pokemon also have to eat and do other things that animals routinely do.
Okay, so maybe rather than robots they were biologically engineered by humans, like in Jurassic Park. The problem is that Pokemon also have existed long before humans could ever have that kind of technology. They were probably around before humans even existed at all in the Pokemon universe, there are tons of prehistoric Pokemon.
I honestly don't see how this theory about Pokemon being robots can hold up without a lot of behind-the-scenes conspiracies like ancient aliens creating them or something. Sorry for the somewhat scattered post btw.
I think Pokemon could be people, they just choose to be obedient slaves forced to fly people around and fight for entertainment. I guess they could be seperate creatures, they just choose to do this.
I'll just say this, in the Japanese versions of Diamond, Pearl and Platinum it was said that there was no difference between humans and Pokemon a long long time ago. In English and Japanese it was also said that they used to marry a long time ago too. Meaning that they were quite alike and were considered people.
As for my own personal opinion, they have free will and common sense more than animals in the real world, they can speak and communicate, etc. other than just being animals in our world who fight survive, eat, etc. are they equal to humans? Obviously not, but they have rights compared to them too, are they slaves? I don't think so either they don't have to do everything the Trainer tells them, more like a companion or pet they have their own decisions. They have bigger bonds than animals of our world even though they are animals.
I won't make this any bigger, I think on some aspects they are people but not always.
I'll just say this, in the Japanese versions of Diamond, Pearl and Platinum it was said that there was no difference between humans and Pokemon a long long time ago. In English and Japanese it was also said that they used to marry a long time ago too. Meaning that they were quite alike and were considered people.
As for my own personal opinion, they have free will and common sense more than animals in the real world, they can speak and communicate, etc. other than just being animals in our world who fight survive, eat, etc. are they equal to humans? Obviously not, but they have rights compared to them too, are they slaves? I don't think so either they don't have to do everything the Trainer tells them, more like a companion or pet they have their own decisions. They have bigger bonds than animals of our world even though they are animals.
I won't make this any bigger, I think on some aspects they are people but not always.
If I recall correctly, there was a theory that most pokemon are in fact some sort of alien life form that came to the Pokemon Planet (Earth or whatever it's supposed to be) and thus are very compatible with technology like pokeballs and PC's. Pokeballs are in a way like little life support pods that manipulate space in that the pokemon has their own little world in there and a little ball can hold giants like Legends and Gyarados. It has been shown in the games and series that pokemon can die either in battle (Team Rocket killing a Marowak/ The War in X/Y) or of old age (the numerous pokemon graves). It's very possible that the pokeball has like an emergency function to automatically return the pokemon to the safety of the ball before it dies or the fact that the trainer does not wish to kill their pokemon. Same can be true when you are fighting wild pokemon as you are a 10 year old child who does not wish to kill the pokemon, so fainting them is enough to gain EXP (plus this is a kids game). I think in cases like the Great War in Kalos, trainers may have override the mechanism in the pokeball to return the pokemon to the ball when it fainted or maybe that the pokemon were so dedicated and in-tuned with their trainers that they were willing to die and kill for them.
Pokeballs weren't around at the time of the war in Kalos. Drayden in B2W2 says he remembers a time before pokeballs. I think that period of time was more like how it is depicted in Pokemon Conquest.
Pokeballs weren't around at the time of the war in Kalos. Drayden in B2W2 says he remembers a time before pokeballs. I think that period of time was more like how it is depicted in Pokemon Conquest.
I didn't like B2W2 very much so I missed that tidbit, but it still shows that trainers and pokemon have a certain restraint when it comes to battling but in times like Wa,r pokemon will kill other pokemon and people when commanded to.
I didn't like B2W2 very much so I missed that tidbit, but it still shows that trainers and pokemon have a certain restraint when it comes to battling but in times like Wa,r pokemon will kill other pokemon and people when commanded to.
And who teaches wild Pokemon that have yet to be tamed by a trainer that killing other Pokemon is unacceptable? I've never seen an anime episode or a period in the game in which any trainer tutored their freshly captured Pokemon that they should show a sort of restraint when in regular battles and that "there's a limit," that limit being fainting rather than killing.
And who teaches wild Pokemon that have yet to be tamed by a trainer that killing other Pokemon is unacceptable? I've never seen an anime episode or a period in the game in which any trainer tutored their freshly captured Pokemon that they should show a sort of restraint when in regular battles and that "there's a limit," that limit being fainting rather than killing.
No idea, maybe it's just a trait among all pokemon but in the game dex it's repeatedly states that pokemon eat each other. I usually don't consider the anime part of the game cannon; there is a pikachu that forgets everything it know every time it goes to a new region :/.
The current Pokemon Games are much more advanced in chronology (pokeball technology) as compared to times in Pokemon Conquest or even POKEMON MYSTERY DUNGEON.
They had their own community and tribal stuff way before "humans evolved" or "came along", and I think that although the science of Pokemon may be better known by trainers and scientists, there is a lot more to them has yet to be discovered: e.g. mega evolutions, new gens, new pokemon,
this implies that science in the pokemon universe, of course, isn't "complete" at all; and that pokemon are probably smarter than they appear. Of course there are dumb ones (slowpoke) but can you deny that gardevoir and gallades are comparable to humans? Alakazam 5000 IQ? (remember, science in the pokemon universe is pretty bad since we depend on magic pokemon powers instead of real science physics)
Pokémon aren't people, but people are Pokémon. Confused? Ok, hear me out.
Cats in the UK and USA, and, for lack of a better example, Ash's Pikachu are both allowed to roam free from their trainers. This helps us develop an idea on what a Pokémon societal status is, and it means that if a Pokémon forms a true enough bond with their trainer, much like if a cat or dog forms a true enough bond with their owner, they do not need to be bound to said owner, and will seek affection and presence from their trainer or owner anyway. So this theoretically means that Pokémon are their trainer's equals, right? Well no, it's essentially a trade off. The cat gets food and shelter from their owner, whereas the owner can give their cat love and attention. In the Pokémon world it's a little more extreme. Pokémon are able to get food and love, but more importantly for many Pokémon, they are allowed to have organised battles, and to release their bottled up aggression which they clearly have, as showcased in Black & White, whereas trainers get all of the glory for their Pokémon's hard work. It's a trade off just the same as cats in our world. However, through this, it is easy to see that Pokémon are definitely OWNED by trainers, and as such they are not on the same level as people in the regions we currently have our games take place in. I would be very interested to see a game set in various countries where pets are allowed to quite simply roam free, which would then lead on to Pokémon being allowed to simply roam free.
So from a society viewpoint, Pokémon aren't people, and this is irrefutable. However, physically, people ARE Pokémon, and there is one simple way to prove this: Ghost-Type Pokémon. What happens when you die in the Pokémon world? It depends on who you were through your life, but many people will just turn into a Ghost-Type. Pretty much every single Ghost-Type has some lore or ties to a human, depending on where and/or how they died.
Misdreavus:
Misdreavus can be male or female, however looking at the design it is clear to see that it is based on a female human, looking at the pearl necklace, long flowing "hair" and the "dress" that it has instead of a body. It has a distinct personality -- that of a prankster and trickster -- but is clearly playing those pranks out of some kind of pain; in generation 2, Misdreavus was the only Pokémon capable of learning Pain Split. It seems obvious that Misdreavus embodies a young girl who died at an early age. She is still in pain about her death because she was only a child, and the only way she knows to act out with this despair is by enjoying herself and playing tricks -- seeking the attention which she has lacked since her death. Misdreavus also feeds off of fear, which also helps this analysis. Misdreavus just wants to be normal, and she wants others to be as fearful as she is.
Shuppet:
As depressing as this is, Shuppet seems to be a young child who came from a rough or abusive urban area. Think about it: Shuppet is clearly a child wearing a sheet over their head in an attempt to look scary, like the stereotypical non-scary costumes children wear on halloween, but there is an important piece to Shuppet's origins which is often overlooked: its horn. Why the horn? Well the horn feeds off of negative emotions such as anger, malice, jealousy and envy. Its entry from diamond, pearl and platinum says:
"It loves vengeful emotions and hangs in rows under the eaves of houses where vengeful people live."
Shuppet is a young child who wants to be the same as any other, cute and naive, but is too afraid of leaving his previous, angst-filled life behind. In fact, it tries to cause others to feel this emotion so that it gets its fill of negativity, as if it is some kind of drug, as seen in its Sapphire PokéDex entry:
"It roams through cities in search of grudges that taint people."
Yeah, it must be a sad life to be a Shuppet. Shuppet is also actually very weak in terms of stats, because it has been beaten down by its previous life, and it is only a child...
Banette:
Less ties to humans than most other Ghost-Type Pokémon, but there is one key part to this puzzle, and that is where you find it in X&Y. Pokémon Village. You find Banette hiding in the shaking trash cans (on Thursday, anyway) in Pokémon Village, where poor, abused Pokémon run away to hide in peace. It is said in Shuppet's dex entries that feeding off of the emotions is how it grows. As such, we need to think of Banette not as some neglected toy that grew a spirit, but rather a neglected human that died and came back as a Shuppet, who then forced so many others to feel as neglected and angry as he did in his life that he evolved into a more matured Pokémon with a never-ending cycle of anger. That said, Banette still finds enjoyment in playing pranks on others. Its Black 2 and White 2 dex entry says:
"A doll that became a Pokémon over its grudge of being thrown away. It seeks the child who disowned it."
Actually, I think that Banette is deeper than that, and that the PokéDex got it wrong. Banette isn't a doll who was dumped by a child, the child who became Banette is essentially some kind of disposable doll. That's how it feels, anyway...
Duskull:
Seemingly a child, Duskull is actually the complete opposite -- Duskull is a parent, and a parent with disobedient children. This one is written clearly in the facts: Duskull likes the sound of crying children, and it spirits away disobedient children into the underworld. It is also based on the Namahage, who essentially does the same thing, and they are adults. Duskull, like pretty much every Ghost-Type, is also associated with powerful emotions. This time, it is the emotion of wanting to feel accepted, and the parent's lack of acceptance from their children. It's PokéDex entries in generation 5 say:
"It loves the crying of children. It startles bad kids by passing through walls and making them cry."
This seems mean-spirited, but it sounds more like a parent trying to be funny with their children, and having their child start crying in return.
Dusclops and Dusknoir:
I have absolutely no clue. The most we can figure out for certainty is that, like many other Ghost-Type Pokémon, Dusclops is in cahoots with the devil:
"It seeks drifting will-o'-the-wisps and sucks them into its empty body. What happens inside is a mystery."
Will-o'-the-wisps throughout folklore are regarded as spirits who the devil didn't allow into hell because he didn't like them, but lived too bad a life to be allowed into heaven. The devil gives their sous a lantern, and they live the rest of their lives wondering atop marshes and swamps etc. until the devil goes back to find them. Chances are, the devil told Dusclops to go and gather them for him to punish properly! There's nothing more we can draw about Dusclops' human origins with the info we currently have.
However, Dusknoir is similar to Dusclops in that he is in cahoots with Satan too, however it is much more serious now. The antenna on Dusknoir's head gives it transmissions from the "spirit world", otherwise known as hell, telling it to take people there. However, interesting, Dusknoir also protects people whom it likes from being taken to hell by other Pokémon, which means that though the devil gives it work, it has enough free will to decide against it. This means that it could be the spirit of some kind of rebel, but it's a long shot. These two appear to be pretty much the only two Ghost-Type Pokémon without a clear connection to the human world...
Anyway, a lot of you will know the other main Ghost-Type Pokémon. One thing is clear: they are all humans, and another slightly more obscure fact is that all Ghost-Type Pokémon are humans who were feeling an incredibly strong negative emotion, presumably at the time of their death. Yamask is actually confirmed to be a human. So, you may be asking yourself, how the fuck do you not turn into a Ghost-Type Pokémon upon death? Well it's simple. Live an emotionless life! Good luck :p
Jokes aside, it's clear that reincarnation is a thing in the Pokémon world. Kadabra has multiple PokéDex entires detailing how it is a boy turned into a Pokémon. This was probably reincarnation, and the boy probably died in his sleep. If a person, particularly a child, is filled with fear and/or angst when they die, they are turned into a Ghost-Type Pokémon. If they are feeling sad about having to move onto the next stage of their life, they are reincarnated as a Yamask and forced to dwell on that emotion for eternity. I would also argue as a theory that if you live a perfect life, you may even be reincarnated as your favourite Pokémon, though most people will just be reincarnated as humans again. So because of everything in this post, the answer to this question seems likely, though we have no confirmed answer:
Physically, people are Pokémon, but in every other way, Pokémon are NOT people.
Pokémon seem like they hold a weird position between pets and citizenship. I'm just throwing this out there, but to me, it seems like they rank somewhere around the level of "butler" - definitely capable of doing what they want without question, but bound to someone at a higher status regardless and perceived as lower because of it without much thought as to what they do on their own. After all, would you consider your butler part of your social circle, despite the fact that you'd be around each other all the time if you had one?
