He's pseudo-canon in the sense that he's a gameplay device placed into the game to act as a mediator between player and gameplay... He describes your Pokemon and their level of friendliness. Considering Pokemon is about friendship and relationships, and things such as a friendship are encouraged to develop, he's obviously a feature placed in their to give you an indication of where you stand. His function is the same as turning around and seeing how your Pikachu feels in Yellow.
There are three types of canon in the Pokemon series: old canon (the main games), new canon (things that are clarified or expanded upon in remakes and the third games of each generation), and gameplay features (things that are in the games solely as gameplay mechanics. The presence of the legendary beasts in FrLg are gameplay mechanics; clearly the beasts are one-of-a-kind, so they're only in FrLg as a mechanic to let you catch them... They're outside canon)
You state he is a gameplay device, but
what he says is not a gameplay device by rather canon information. Stop ignoring other points raised that contradict yours, it just gets tiring to read very quickly. Same for what Pikachu tells you how it feels in Yellow (or any Pokemon in HG/SS) - you interacting with them is a feature, what they say and show and do is canon and not a feature, or pseudo-canon, or whatever you'll call it next.
Also, the legendary beasts is not a game mechanic solely, as canon can derive from it. On a related note, the fact that you see the Kanto Legendary birds not only in RBY/FRLG but also in Platinum and HG/SS AND Pokemon XD tells us more info about the nature of them, perhaps the fact there appears to be multiple, and so forth - they cannot be simply dismissed as mere gameplay mechanics. Nor can the 'new canon', as you call it, simply be disregarded - it's canon in the main games, and again, that's what this debate is about.
If a Pokemon refused to battle and was released into the wild, I would have to say that, you know, maybe they wanted to be relased.
Or maybe they want to battle but are just too weak? Or... well, let's just say there's more than one way to go about it.
Some Pokemon want to be trained. Some don't. Isn't there a possibility that some Pokemon are caught and forced to battle? The corrupted Pokemon in XD are an extreme, canon, example of this... Couldn't the badges and Pokeballs serve a milder function? That purpose is surely hinted at in the main games and manga, right?
Yes, there's a possibility. But this is not shown in canon. Again, we are not debating the possibility of it, but rather if it is supported and claimed in canon and canon only, not interpretations of it involving ideas from us people outside of the group making the games. And as far as canon shows, the badges and Pokeballs
do not brainwash or do these things at all - that was your idea, so again, these are really just worthless points as they do nothing to convince me they came solely from canon.
If you are going to give me points about 'oh, this
could happen', or anything that comes from speculation and not cold hard facts, then I don't really see any point repeating myself and pointing that out. =/
I didn't state they don't fight in the wild... I said they don't fight in the wild for no reason. I've yet to see any example, in the games, manga, or anime, that suggests Pokemon battle each other for no reason other than the sake of battling. (Fighting types are an obvious exception)
Then you are suggesting that Pokemon battle for trainers 'for no reason' or for no personal gain and from that said brainwashing occurred - and again, the games do not support this whatsoever - and clearly so they they
do battle for trainers for many reasons. Even fighting types don't do it for no reason - they do it to get stronger, to make themselves better, and so forth. That's hardly 'no reason' at all. Only you ignore the fact by calling things pseudo-canon or features, which is just refusing to accept canon. (The debate that 'so-and-so don't fight for no reason whatsoever' doesn't really matter for your argument, as far as I can see, at any rate...)
All of that "requirements" for a Pokemon to be a legendary are fanbased... Really, why was Lucario given its own movie, and featured in the Rise of Darkrai opening montage with every other legendary? Lucario is not a legendary, yet it has been presented as one since day one.
Movie =/= legendary Pokemon though - clearly Lucario was used as it was the 'Pokemon of the generation!' and was decided to be the promotion Pokemon, much like many others. (Because Munchlax got into a movie, does it make it a legendary then? Pikachu's been in every single one with lots of significance! Is it legendary? No.) So... we have concluded that Lucario is not a legendary. And this proves... what? Again there's a lack of relevance of this to anything else in this debate really, and going by this to then claim any Pokemon can be a legendary like Slowpoke is just plain silly and a waste of time to go over.
In the Japanese version there are three distinct classes of legendary that are not divided in the translation. These are Pokemon of "legend", "mirage", and "myth". Arcanine is a legendary because it falls under the scope of legend, whereas Slowpoke is because it falls under "myth".
And now you've gone way off-course and altered what I defined as a legendary. I'm not talking about myth Pokemon, or Pokemon based on legends. So I'm not going to bother - you;ve completely missed the point and this again has naught to do with anything.
Growlithe appears to be loyal like a dog. The 'Dex entries suggest this. And yes, a dog will bite you if mistreated, but that doesn't mean they aren't inherently loyal. They were bred for that quality. All I'm saying is that certain Pokemon may have a specific temperament, or nature.
Again -
how could Growlithe be bred when canonically they only just learnt about breeding and don't even know that Pokemon hatched from eggs until the start of GSC/HG/SS and just before D/P/Pt? And again - you say 'oh, they
may have...', and that again is speculation and is not backed up in canon in relation to your brainwashing theory, nor anything else. So again - what's the point of saying that?
If they're using the exact notes used for the game, how is it a different canon? Come on... Granted some aspects like the character of Yellow are different, but the deep down mechanics of the universe, such as badges and Team Rocket, are clearly expressed in the manga as intended. In the manga, Team Rocket cloned Mewtwo and the project was headed by Blaine. In FrLg, a painting is found in the Mansion of Blaine with Fuji (Lavender Town philanthropist and anime scientist). Either this is the biggest easter egg ever, or it's shared canon.
There you go - it's different because
there are differences, and furthermore was
written by different people, even if they used information from the games and games notes and whatnot. Heck, Blaine working for TR is a HUGE difference and very clearly separates it from game canon where he is merely a gym leader. A picture does not prove anything as you are speculating over what it could mean - again bring in your speculation and interpretations. (Not to mention it probably is just a reference or easter egg which usually happens anyway - in D/P/Pt real-world references are made in dex entries (but that's happened since GSC if not the 1st gen), battlers have been known to call others 'noob', and there are often references to other canons or games within games - such as a trainer in XD who talks about how there is apparently someone with the same Pokemon as himself - and someone with those Pokemon is James from the anime. Yet these are clearly very different canons, and Pokemon XD =/= anime).
They are most definitely not the same canon - they differ and are done by different people. Again, using the same basic of info does not make it the same as it is interpreted and subjected to subjective speculation from different people entirely.
I really have no idea. All I've read and heard about the game was the grey morality of stealing and brainwashing, and it was always placed on the main character. Take it up with the pissed fans.
...the pissed fans? What pissed fans? Or do you mean the people here who are annoyed at how wrongly you interpreted Colosseum/XD? Next time then if you want to use something for a debate, get your facts straight about the games. Rather, go play them, and some more of the recent games - as passing off stuff you don't know about as pseudo-canon can't be good, to be frank, if you debate on such stuff regularly. =/
You're getting a little too into this. All I'm saying is stuffing a Pokemon into a nut has got to be magical. There's no denying this... Unless you think it's technological?
Well clearly, other people have stated it could be - and it's Pokemon - which does not state anything about brainwashing and instead has other information. Your theories aren't backed up in it, and in fact how Apricorns work can be left up to a person's mind easily enough - and hence your statement that it 'has to be magical' is merely a theory, and saying it brainwashes is even more so. And we're not arguing whether it's possible or not, but rather whether it
is the case or not from canon and canon alone.
The Master Ball was specifically designed to catch powerful Pokemon that no other ball could catch. Its design must therefore be different from the others, and with the whole Beserk Gene thing, it makes sense that it rewrites the DNA when digitizing... It's a farfetched theory, but it makes sense.
Yes - it is. Exactly that - a theory. So therefore, it is not shown in canon. (If anything, canon just shows the Master Ball to be a better version of the Pokeball that will always work on a wild Pokemon - nothing more is every indicated about it). So again - no evidence... and no point to this - as you say so yourself, it's a theory, and hence it is not support in canon without choosing select details and adding speculation of your own. And I do not care for that - as I said already, any theory can be made up, but this itself is not within canon and canon alone.
I didn't say they're not canon... They're alternate canon. Or possibly new canon. See the above definitions.
And you're ignoring this because it's new and you haven't seen it for yourself? Stop passing off official games as different canon and make it out to be less important (which you are doing) because they're newer and contradict your arguments.
They came about because of people. I'm not denying, and never did, that the myths are a strong part of the canon.... I'm just saying myth can't be used to give an accurate idea of perception of any given thing. Many animals are held to be sacred or even god-like in our myths, yet treated like lowly animals in daily life. The same can be thought true of Pokemon myths, considering the humans are still humans.
You were coming off as saying that these did not count whatsoever, when they actually do as unlike certain other theories, they got mention in official games, and can also be support by many other instances from within these official games as well.
I don't actually believe Pokemon are brainwashed. I just used the term to broaden the scope of what I do believe, which is that badges have some influence over Pokemon. The games hint at, and the manga states, that the badges have a subtle influence over Pokemon. I think brainwashing is just stupid, since it goes against the entire point of the series.
They why did you argue it so much and pass it off as supported in the canon when it isn't?
I've clarified my views on canon and everything else above.
I can't say I agree with them at all - they seem flawed at best, the way you keep ignoring certain kinds of canon and all. I've clarified that time and time again.
As for the rest of what you've said, why don't you get off your high horse and "ignore me" more directly, if you get such amusement from anything I say.
If you go about claiming Yellow isn't canon, what someone says within an official game is pseudo-canon because... you don't like it, claiming the opposite of what Pokemon Colosseum and XD actually show because you go off what you've heard about it and nothing more, and claiming the manga is the same in the games despite them being made by different people and being...well, different in many ways and hence they contradict each other! - then why are you annoyed that people reply about it and show where your flaws are, or even get amused by it? To be frank, many of these points were not well thought out and were poorly researched.
Oh, and:
Canon. I recall the games and anime saying Pokemon don't fight unless humans tell them to.
And I recall multiple instances where the games (and anime) fight for many that never involve trainers. Did you already forget about those? As you said above, you then changed this to 'they dont fight for no reason' - so which one is it? Stop changing your viewpoint on a whim. As it is, I do believe the dex entries from the games and dialogue still stands. And no, the fact that the dex is a 'feature' does not make the information about the world given from it non-canon as well.
