The Dragon's Den V.4

I object. Obviously, there's no reason for Palkia to be Water-typed because it doesn't make any sense. And the only Pokémon that are pure Steel-typed have their bodies completely made of metal. I also think Dialga's Steel type makes as much sense as Palkia's Water type.
To be honest, I don't care about Dialga much, but Palkia is completely a dragon to me.

And of course people voted before a proper discussion was held.

Yeah, bit of an oversight on my part, that voting bit. But, oh well, it hasn't backfired too much.

Personally, I think we might as well treat Dialga and Palkia as a single entity when dismissing them, or even merge Giratina and just vote the "Dragon Deity Trio" in or out, but I'm sure you all have opposition to that? Or do you?

If you have an opposition to my idea of pooling the votes on Dialga, Palkia and Giratina so that they all either stay or go out, then say so here. If you support it, also say so. I'll wait until 5 people have stated their opinion before changing anything.

However, please bear in mind that they all have as much right to be dragon as eachother...hence why I consider them "As one". Didn't they all come from the same egg? Or was that Uxie, Azelf and Mesprit?

Edit: You know how dragons are closely related to dinosaurs in most people's opinon? (I think they are if they've ever really existed)

Bulbapedia said:

Dialga, along with Palkia, may be based on the Shinto legend of Izanami and Izanagi, who are said to have created one island with a spear, erected a pillar on it, and from there created the islands of Japan. Appearance-wise, Dialga is based on Amphicoelias, a genus of Late Jurassic dinosaur thought to contain the largest ever dinosaur species, A. fragillimus. Its type is Steel Possibly due to the hardness of diamonds.

Click to expand...

Bulbapedia said:

Palkia, along with Dialga, may be based on the Shinto legend of Izanami and Izanagi, who are said to have created one island with a spear, erected a pillar on it, and from there created the islands of Japan. Appearance-wise, Palkia is likely based after a European dragon combined with a pearl. The presence of fins in their back, the fish-like head and the pearls are possibly the reason for its Water type. Like Dialga's origin possibly from the largest sauropod dinosaur, Amphicoelias, Palkia may be based on another sauropod, the bipedal Plateosaurus.

Click to expand...

That one even mentions dragons....

Bulbapedia said:

Giratina is possibly based on a basilisk. In the Altered Forme, the wings may be based on a bat's, and its body has an insect-like, six-legged feature, but its posture is similar to a sauropod. Its Origin Forme has a body similar to a serpent, while the six protrusions on its body may be based on a scorpion's stinger. However this Forme also shares physical traits with the Amphitere, a European dragon-like creature with wings but no legs

Click to expand...

Again, it mentions dragons....

Look at the edits to my post, mate. I can see similarities in their designs, typing, mythology.....although Giratina's the "bad" one as it was banished xD

If you consider Aerodactyl a dragon, then why not Dialga? Dialga is probably a dinosaur too. :|

Palkia is obviously a dragon.

Shouldn't Kingdra, Vibrava, and Lati@s be added to the vote since they're not dragons (Lati@s is debatable I guess)? By the way, Dragon-type should replaced with just dragon in the first post to prevent any confusion.

I tried to post this some time ago, but there was some major lag. Anyway, this one's for you, draggy!

tkallab said:

Even if dragons exist, which I doubt, there is no proof for this. Also, no one knows what dragons look like, because no one has ever officialy seen one. Because of this, an artist or any other person can picture a dragon in any way they want.

Click to expand...

And by that, I should expect a load of people begging for Altaria to be let back in....but they won't, because Draggy has more power than the rest of us put together....(Dragonite is the ultimate non-legendary pokémon, after all :P)

But good one for posting that! It's a very good self-quotation...

Haha! Quoting yourself is the hardest, because you still have to decide what to say by yourself! Did that make sense? Probably not.

Well, to me, Altaria was a special case. I promise you, if Game Freak didn't make him Dragon-typed, no one would think it was off. They'd see him as just another boring Normal/Flying Pokémon.
And you can't say something isn't a dragon because you've seen no other people portray a dragon in the same way, but in my opinion you can say something isn't a dragon because it's undeniably something else.

May I please join? I love dragon types!

Why not, Halcyon? It works for Swablu.

Oh, and welcome here too, Tribal Ebony! You'll be added as soon as Amore sees your post!

I can agree. However I don't think it was deserving of being the first pure flying-type. I would've been happy if that was just Arceus holding a Sky Plate.

Also, Dragoniteuser, the fact is, that dragons are all going to have been distorted by exaggerations, like most mythical creatures (I'm not saying they didn't exist, I'm saying none have been seen since the invention of the printing press, or they would've been more widely known to be real).

And we all use Bulbapedia as it's the most accurate source.

Oh, and finally, all your pictures are really modern ones. Show us the incredibly old ones, and you'll get more respect.

EDIT: Welcome Tribal Ebony! Please check the first two posts to understand just what the hell is going on, and then either read the last ten pages or so, or just vote blindly on what you believe with your heart!

Draggy, although I respect your theory about dragons existing, there is absolutely no scientific proof for this. There is no proof of the pictures of dragons being accurate either.

Oh, and I've been meaning to reply to this for a while.

tkallab said:

Can we at least leave Palkia alone? He's a dragon.

Click to expand...

dragoniteuser said:

Um... NO!
It's feet are... WHAT IS THAT ANYWAY?!?!?!
those arms sure aren't helping it one bit! And that Shoulder shield!! How on Earth is that dragonic?!

Click to expand...

Let's reflect on Garchomp, shall we? Ahum...
Those things on its head... What's up with those?
And his arms look weird too! What are those fins on its arms? And his hand is only one claw? And that star on his forehead! How are those a dragon's traits?

Actually...the fins are because he's a shark, which is an aquatic creature xD.

On his back, he has a dorsal fin (I think that's what it's called), his head is akin to that of a hammerhead shark, and his tail is like a tiger sharks' tail (trust me, I've seen the real thing).

Those fins on his arms are like the fins on sharks' sides........but the fact that he has arms, legs and feet makes him look incredibly weird. Hence how on the other page, I stated he has about as much right to be a dragon as Altaria (Which I still consider a dragon). And if you dispute Dialga and Palkia (for some reason, the general consensus is that Giratina's obviously a dragon and we must be mistaken for thinking otherwise), you should also dispute Garchomp.

However, I've had an opinion put forward, and wondered what you guys though....do you think anything dragon-typed should automatically be in this group, and we just dispute non-dragon-typed dragons? (bear in mind before answering, Draggy, that your beloved Onokusu looks nothing like any of the dragons you've shown us, and definitely nothing like any I've ever seen). And yes, I've seen a real dragon. It's called a Komodo Dragon. It has a large resemblance to a dinosaur!

Fine, you want old, you'll get old:


All theese are over 1000 years old! Is that old enough Amore?

*EDIT
OK then tell me this, the first time you've seen Garchomp, what did you think? Was it, "Oh look, a new shark, or was it, wow, a dragon"?
And when you've seen Dialga or Palkia... I'm sure that dragon wasn't the first thing that crossed your mind! It was probably WTF! LOL