• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

HM Slaves and Civil Liberties

Is "HM slave" an appropriate term?


  • Total voters
    32

Tek

939
Posts
10
Years
Pokemasta, you make a good point. Pokemon obey or disobey as they choose, none of them are slaves. In that sense, the term 'HM slave' simply does not apply.

But when it is seen that 'HM slave' is a label of inferiority, it makes perfect sense. The slaves are not as valuable as the other team members. That's why I created this thread - I used the term myself many times before I became aware of the mental gymnastics, so to speak.
 

LilyAnn

All your base are belong to us
351
Posts
10
Years
It's a game..Taking this seriously...It's not like we're actually hurting them or anything. How would the Pokemon notice? And if it really bothers you, don't have a pokemon that people would use the term for. And don't actually use the term. I guess people just use it to make it easier for others to understand? I dunno.
 
4,181
Posts
10
Years
You're thinking WAY too deep into this. 1. It's just a game, 2. Pokemon are fictional creatures, and 3. HM slave is just a convenient term to refer to Pokemon that's used solely for HM Moves.
 

Tek

939
Posts
10
Years
It's a game..Taking this seriously...It's not like we're actually hurting them or anything. How would the Pokemon notice? And if it really bothers you, don't have a pokemon that people would use the term for. And don't actually use the term. I guess people just use it to make it easier for others to understand? I dunno.

I thought I was clear on this... It's not the well-being of a digital signal represented on an LCD screen that I am concerned about.

You're thinking WAY too deep into this. 1. It's just a game, 2. Pokemon are fictional creatures, and 3. HM slave is just a convenient term to refer to Pokemon that's used solely for HM Moves.

Once again, I propose that it is not just a term. The term (or label) represents a mental attitude, specifically the attitude that the HM slave has less worth than the other team members.
 
Last edited:

HUF_DBC

Guest
0
Posts
Have you ever tried to play through the game without a HM Slave? You can't! The slave is necessary to the game. You need the slave, so you don't have to waste a move slot on a less desirable move on a good well balanced pokemon.

They exists because they need to. Because they're the pokemon that the players deserve, but not the one they need right now. So we won't give them their freedom, because they can take it. Because they're not our normal pokemon. They are a silent guardian, a watchful protector. They are a Dark Knight.
 
76
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 38
  • Seen Mar 31, 2014
Uh, I just suck it up and use Fly, Strength, Surf, and the other damage-dealing HMs as damage dealing moves in my Pokemons' movesets. So, yeah, I have played without an "HM Slave." I don't play competitively so it's not like I have to have 100% the best moves and can't have a move that's not ZOMG AMAZING. The NPCs aren't so tough that HM moves are useless against them. And I think of Fly as being a legitimately useful move, so I like it. Even whatever Pokemon that has Flash has a fair shot of staying with me the whole game if I like its species enough and don't replace it with a Pokemon whose species I just happen to like more.
 
111
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Jan 1, 2017
Have you ever tried to play through the game without a HM Slave? You can't! The slave is necessary to the game. You need the slave, so you don't have to waste a move slot on a less desirable move on a good well balanced pokemon.

They exists because they need to. Because they're the pokemon that the players deserve, but not the one they need right now. So we won't give them their freedom, because they can take it. Because they're not our normal pokemon. They are a silent guardian, a watchful protector. They are a Dark Knight.

The problem is not on the use of the HM carrier, but on the the term we use for it.
 

stp

ShootThePuck
196
Posts
11
Years
Once again, I propose that it is not just a term. The term (or label) represents a mental attitude, specifically the attitude that the HM slave has less worth than the other team members.

But that isn't the definition of the term, that is simply a mental attitude that can be developed along with the term. There's nothing to suggest that people think that way. It's simply a term used to describe a Pokemon that does what the Trainer wants it to do, as the term implies. Personally, I don't really see how something that does so much can have "less worth" than my other team members. Some are meant for battle, some are not.

I mean, if you're going to look at the morals of Pokemon, the whole concept of battling seems pretty immoral, don't you think?

Either way, it's just a game. I can understand that you might feel uncomfortable with the term, but there seriously is no way to faze it out, unless you'd like to ban the term from PC, which just sounds ridiculous to me.
 

pokemasta92

3rd Gen. Enthusiast
322
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • USA
  • Seen Dec 28, 2021
Have you ever tried to play through the game without a HM Slave? You can't! The slave is necessary to the game. You need the slave, so you don't have to waste a move slot on a less desirable move on a good well balanced pokemon.

They exists because they need to. Because they're the pokemon that the players deserve, but not the one they need right now. So we won't give them their freedom, because they can take it. Because they're not our normal pokemon. They are a silent guardian, a watchful protector. They are a Dark Knight.
I've played through every Pokemon game I've ever owned without shoving all HM moves onto 1 or 2 Pokemon and had no trouble beating them. In fact I split up all HM's amongst my main team because I don't like to be restricted at any point in the game and have to go the PC in the Pokemon Center. I also don't like to have any Pokemon on my team that I can't use in battle. I'd rather have 6 very strong Pokemon with HM's than 4 perfect Pokemon and 2 Pokemon with a useless moveset and low level. Each Pokemon has 1 HM and a couple have 2, but they also have 2-3 other moves that are extremely powerful, not to mention the fact that their level keeps rising making them stronger. I don't see how anyone has trouble beating the "campaign" this way. I love The Dark Knight reference!
 

Tek

939
Posts
10
Years
But that isn't the definition of the term, that is simply a mental attitude that can be developed along with the term. There's nothing to suggest that people think that way. It's simply a term used to describe a Pokemon that does what the Trainer wants it to do, as the term implies.

The definition of a slave is a person that is owned by another as property. The usage of the term itself reflects and arises with the perception. If you refer to your car as a bucket of bolts, it is indicative of a certain attitude towards the car. Calling it a finely-tuned machine shows a different perception.

I mean, if you're going to look at the morals of Pokemon, the whole concept of battling seems pretty immoral, don't you think?

PETA thinks so. I think it depends on how the trainers treat their pokemon, and Game Freak has a long history of encouraging this sort of introspection.

Either way, it's just a game. I can understand that you might feel uncomfortable with the term, but there seriously is no way to faze it out, unless you'd like to ban the term from PC, which just sounds ridiculous to me.

Getting rid of the term is actually very simple. I view pokemon as my friends and trusted companions, and not as my property. So I choose not to refer to any of them as slaves. If the other forum members made this same choice, the term would be phased out, kaput, a thing of the past.
 
28
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 26
  • Seen Mar 17, 2014
Once again, I propose that it is not just a term. The term (or label) represents a mental attitude, specifically the attitude that the HM slave has less worth than the other team members.

But they have less worth than the other team members, barring a few special cases - such as Mew. Most of them are rather common Pokemon like Geodude or Bidoof/Bibarel that are scrapped most of the time in favor of better options later in the game, and even if I do want to use them I can catch two and pick one to be the slave.

Pokemon, at least in the only form of canon that really matters, are your property and will blindly obey you. You can catch any Pokemon call it Dumbface and have it completely obey you, save for a few exceptions - non-fateful encounter legendaries.

Calling them HM Slaves or HM Carriers or even "Highly appreciated move specialist that are very much needed" or whatever won't change the fact that at the end of the day, they don't care.
 
3,869
Posts
10
Years
  • Seen Feb 5, 2023
Yeah, HM Slaves are appropriate imo. Loyal Pokemon serve their master, slave is viewed as derogatory but the pokemon are servants. I don't see anything wrong with the term.
 

stp

ShootThePuck
196
Posts
11
Years
The definition of a slave is a person that is owned by another as property. The usage of the term itself reflects and arises with the perception. If you refer to your car as a bucket of bolts, it is indicative of a certain attitude towards the car. Calling it a finely-tuned machine shows a different perception.

The perception you're talking about has come from two thousand years of human usage of slaves and doesn't come from a name for useless Pokemon only used for manual labor.

Technically, in the definition of slavery, there is no perception of it being derogatory. Being owned as property doesn't particularly imply anything bad. In the anime, most people that own Pokemon treat them as friends and property. The Pokemon don't seem to have a problem with this.

PETA thinks so. I think it depends on how the trainers treat their pokemon, and Game Freak has a long history of encouraging this sort of introspection.

It's pretty immoral. You're basically telling wild animals to claw, bite, and scratch (among other things) other wild animals to make your ego and "success" bigger.

Getting rid of the term is actually very simple. I view pokemon as my friends and trusted companions, and not as my property. So I choose not to refer to any of them as slaves. If the other forum members made this same choice, the term would be phased out, kaput, a thing of the past.

What I'm talking about is world-wide usage, which will never end just because PokeCommunity has strict rules on this nickname. Of course if all the other members on PokeCommunity were to cease using the term, it would most likely be phased out. To me it just seems like there's a very small minority that actually cares about this sort of thing. Personally, I don't care. It's a video game and I don't think that using the term HM Slave really does anything bad.

Like I said before, in the anime most people that own Pokemon treat them as friends and property. If your whole argument is that the term HM slave implies a state of superiority and that your HM slave is your property, I wouldn't agree, but I do agree that Pokemon are property and we obviously have some kind of superiority to them if they obey us simply by getting caught in a specially designed ball.
 

Cerberus87

Mega Houndoom, baby!
1,639
Posts
11
Years
I don't like the term because it makes the HM Pokémon sound inferior to the others, while they're just as useful. A Pokémon (or a combination of Pokémon) who can learn most HMs is a godsend, really.

However, this system is one of the things I hate about Pokémon. What's wrong with allowing a Pidgeot to automatically be able to fly you to any previously visited city after he evolves and you have a certain badge? Why am I forced to teach him a nearly useless move just so he can Fly me to any city? There are quite a few Pokémon who can afford to waste a moveslot for something like Cut, but IMO if the HMs are so important (they're called "Hidden" Machines after all, and can't be deleted), they should teach useful moves, not crap like Cut and Dive.

The HM lineup consists of many redundant and otherwise useless moves, so teaching them all to your main party puts you at a disadvantage. They realized this and made the games less intensive on HMs from 5th gen onwards, but it doesn't change the fact the system is stupid. I'd say scrap HMs and make them act purely as field moves. The only useful HMs as of 6th gen in battle are Surf and Waterfall and no one is going to miss Surf when Scald and Mega Launcher-boosted Water Pulse are better, while Waterfall could be replaced by Aqua Tail or a new move in most Pokémon.
 

Nah

15,926
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen yesterday
However, this system is one of the things I hate about Pokémon. What's wrong with allowing a Pidgeot to automatically be able to fly you to any previously visited city after he evolves and you have a certain badge? Why am I forced to teach him a nearly useless move just so he can Fly me to any city? There are quite a few Pokémon who can afford to waste a moveslot for something like Cut, but IMO if the HMs are so important (they're called "Hidden" Machines after all, and can't be deleted), they should teach useful moves, not crap like Cut and Dive.


That's the thing I never got about HMs. Why is it that we need to use a machine on a Pokémon to teach it something it already knows how to do? It's very clear that Pidegeot can fly and carry a person on their back while flying. Lapras is obviously capable of swimming and ferrying people on its back, yet it can't do that for you until you teach it Surf with the HM.


So, wtf, Game Freak?
 

pokemasta92

3rd Gen. Enthusiast
322
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • USA
  • Seen Dec 28, 2021
That's the thing I never got about HMs. Why is it that we need to use a machine on a Pokémon to teach it something it already knows how to do? It's very clear that Pidegeot can fly and carry a person on their back while flying. Lapras is obviously capable of swimming and ferrying people on its back, yet it can't do that for you until you teach it Surf with the HM.


So, wtf, Game Freak?
I agree, although what makes perfect sense in real life doesn't always work in a video game. If I caught a Pokemon that could surf right at the beginning of the game I could immediately go and surf to a town that I'm not suppose to visit until much later. This would not work because there is a linear plot to follow.
 
28
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 26
  • Seen Mar 17, 2014
I agree, although what makes perfect sense in real life doesn't always work in a video game. If I caught a Pokemon that could surf right at the beginning of the game I could immediately go and surf to a town that I'm not suppose to visit until much later. This would not work because there is a linear plot to follow.

But the thing is, you still could have the badge requirement, just not the slot-wasting move to use; maybe completely get rid of some HMs or make them purely optional?
 

stp

ShootThePuck
196
Posts
11
Years
But the thing is, you still could have the badge requirement, just not the slot-wasting move to use; maybe completely get rid of some HMs or make them purely optional?

Good luck trying to convince people that your Pidgeot can't fly because you don't have the fourth gym badge.
 
28
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 26
  • Seen Mar 17, 2014
Good luck trying to convince people that your Pidgeot can't fly because you don't have the fourth gym badge.

Good luck trying to convince people your Pidgeot can't fly because it doesn't have the move. All in all, this only applies in game physics where it acts as roadblocks, the way you're suggesting - anime/manga physics - there's no need for badges or whatever since Pokemon more or less know every move they can at once - and most HMs become more of a "Use your claws to cut" than "Use Cut" situation.
 
Back
Top