• 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.

Instead of Fairy type...

9
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 33
  • Seen Jan 3, 2014
Since I heard about the Fairy type and its relations to other types it didn't make sense. I know it's simply for balance purposes but a fairy being immune to dragon?

So I thought about this for a little while and conjured up something that makes more sense. How about Hero type? In literature heroes commonly slay dragons, making the great advantage to dragon make sense. Heroes also face the darkness(being evil), to justify the effectiveness and resistance. Petty bugs won't do much to a hero. Some protagonists are against fighting, I guess that kinda justifies it.

The poison weakness can be related to many "poisons" that post a danger to many protagonists(think Snow White and the poison apple, a hero doesn't have to be manly and tough).

I could pick some other reasons to justify the other type matchups but you get the idea. They will just stay for balance. I don't know what would change to Hero except maybe Aegislash and his family.

I'm not suggesting a change, I know it won't happen, just had an idea and thought I'd share it. How does it sound?
 
Last edited:
5,983
Posts
15
Years
I have a feeling that a Hero type might be too OP, just as dragons are. It'd be pretty hard to have a "weak" Hero pokemon imo, it just seems contradictory and would be gimmicky meaning they couldn't do it more than a few times. I have a feeling they had the same trouble with the dragon type as well, they watered it down to Flygon and Altaria in 3rd gen, also in 6th gen with Noivern, Tyrantrum, and Dragalge, but they're still powerful pokemon to anyways and they're few additions to what's a very large group of otherwise extremely powerful pokemon. Hero might be even more selectively powerful than dragon, it sounds like a type made for legendaries. It's also anthropomorphic and I'm not really a fan of human-shape pokemon (even inanimate object pokemon feels too much at times).
 

GhastlyGastly

Crazy Pokémon Lady
128
Posts
11
Years
Since I heard about the Fairy type and its relations to other types it didn't make sense. I know it's simply for balance purposes but a fairy being immune to dragon?

So I thought about this for a little while and conjured up something that makes more sense. How about Hero type? In literature heroes commonly slay dragons, making the great advantage to dragon make sense. Heroes also face the darkness(being evil), to justify the effectiveness and resistance. Petty bugs won't do much to a hero. Some protagonists are against fighting, I guess that kinda justifies it.

The poison weakness can be related to many "poisons" that post a danger to many protagonists(think Snow White and the poison apple, a hero doesn't have to be manly and tough).

I could pick some other reasons to justify the other type matchups but you get the idea. They will just stay for balance. I don't know what would change to Hero except maybe Aegislash and his family.

I'm not suggesting a change, I know it won't happen, just had an idea and thought I'd share it. How does it sound?

There already is a "Hero" type.

And the Fairy type is justified, in my opinion. In Japanese culture, the concept of yōsei is essentially interchangeable with the Western idea of fairies, sprites, and elves. In ancient European culture (notably Norse and Slavic), fairies and elves were effectively a race of magical beings of neutral ethical alignment (neither good nor evil), but that often delighted in using their magic to create mischief and disarray for humans.

Another notable trait is that fairies/elves, in Norse mythology, were essentially demigods: superior to humans, and closer to the gods in power (in Slavic and some Norse tales, elves/fairies might even be proper gods and goddesses in their own right). Well, with few exceptions, Norse elves/fairies held dragons on a metaphorical leash: their magical, almost divine powers made them masters of dragons, and impervious to harm from them (while, at the same time, they could be harmed by poisoned water, and iron; hence the Fairy type's weakness to Steel and Poison types).

Given that many Pokémon of Generation VI are taken from Norse and Slavic mythology (Xerneas, Yveltal, and Zygarde are the three most obvious examples), it's quite reasonable to assume that a Norse/Slavic view of fairies/elves is what was intended for the Fairy type. So the Fairy type, to me, is perfectly justified.

I hope that clears up a few things :pink_smile:
 

bobandbill

one more time
16,891
Posts
16
Years
GhastlyGastly has a fair few good points there explaining it. There's a few other things too from that which can explain at least most of its other weaknesses/strengths (e.g. as also mentioned fairies are linked to nature/the natural world, weak to poison which destroys it, and steel, the typing with links to manmade objects). So IMO Fairy is just fine, and there's no real need to add more least the type system is thrown out of whack again.

(By the by, Miror B has only two r's, not three.) =(
 

Nah

15,927
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen today
Fairy might not've been the best name for the type from a Western point of view, since it often conjures up the image a of a derpy little pixie thing one-shotting a dragon. But "Mythical Creatures type" or "Magical Beings type" is a tad bit too long for a type name.

And some aspects of the type chart don't make sense. Rock should resist Electric, Ice should be super effective against Bug and Rock, and Flying types should be immune to Sky Drop. But it isn't actually that way in the games.

But GhastlyGastly said it best: Fairy types are supposed to represent powerful magical beings, not derpy pixie things. Makes more sense that way.
 

bobandbill

one more time
16,891
Posts
16
Years
Fairy might not've been the best name for the type from a Western point of view, since it often conjures up the image a of a derpy little pixie thing one-shotting a dragon. But "Mythical Creatures type" or "Magical Beings type" is a tad bit too long for a type name
Mystic type, maybe? Not too bad a sound to it. But oh well, western ideas of fairies be hanged, it's what we have and they won't change the name of the type now.
 

BadPokemon

Child of Christ
666
Posts
10
Years
Some of the fairy pokemon are derpy little pixie things... Cough Slurpuff cough. So, I guess they wanted to add a bit of irony. Fairy isn't a bad name, though. Light could have fit.
 

bobandbill

one more time
16,891
Posts
16
Years
Light could have fit.
Not really, imo, at least not for the Pokemon choices. Granbull, Mr Mime, etc fit fairies better than light type. (And if you look at GhastlyGastly's thread, there's a solid explanation as to why there shouldn't be a light type either, iirc).
 
Last edited:
9
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 33
  • Seen Jan 3, 2014
(I edited the post since I can't put URLs ATM)


...

And the Fairy type is justified, in my opinion. In Japanese culture, the concept of yōsei is essentially interchangeable with the Western idea of fairies, sprites, and elves. In ancient European culture (notably Norse and Slavic), fairies and elves were effectively a race of magical beings of neutral ethical alignment (neither good nor evil), but that often delighted in using their magic to create mischief and disarray for humans.

Another notable trait is that fairies/elves, in Norse mythology, were essentially demigods: superior to humans, and closer to the gods in power (in Slavic and some Norse tales, elves/fairies might even be proper gods and goddesses in their own right). Well, with few exceptions, Norse elves/fairies held dragons on a metaphorical leash: their magical, almost divine powers made them masters of dragons, and impervious to harm from them (while, at the same time, they could be harmed by poisoned water, and iron; hence the Fairy type's weakness to Steel and Poison types).

Given that many Pokémon of Generation VI are taken from Norse and Slavic mythology (Xerneas, Yveltal, and Zygarde are the three most obvious examples), it's quite reasonable to assume that a Norse/Slavic view of fairies/elves is what was intended for the Fairy type. So the Fairy type, to me, is perfectly justified.

I hope that clears up a few things :pink_smile:

OK, that makes sense. And I am from western culture as everyone now probably knows and my image of fairies are the frilly little butterfly-looking thing that throws dust around, so my image of it was swayed. Since all of that is true in a culture I was ignorant about I understand the reasoning behind fairy's relations to other types, and I learned a lot, thanks.

So IMO Fairy is just fine, and there's no real need to add more least the type system is thrown out of whack again.

I wasn't implying a change, like I said in my original post, I was just throwing an idea out there to see if it made sense to others. I don't(or I guess I should say didn't) hate the fact that there were Fairy types, it just didn't makes sense to me based on what I knew about them, but it has been contested so whatever.

(By the by, Miror B has only two r's, not three.) =(

I changed my signature right after posting this so it didn't show for that post. I am aware, thanks anyway.
 
Last edited:

Elaitenstile

I am legend
1,908
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 24
  • Seen Feb 27, 2015
In my honest opinion, there's not a need for a name change in general. You'll all think how a puny Fairy beats a mighty dragon, but you're thinking big. Let's think small. Fairy type, as far as I know, is based on powerful magical creatures, or magic to be exact. Kids won't be impressed if they went around naming Xerneas a 'Magic' type, as there is enough magic in Pokémon already, so they went with Fairy I guess.
 

Chr. Draco

Spatial Rift
1,070
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 33
  • Seen Jan 11, 2024
Maybe fairy type was the fittest name at that moment considering all the explanation that have been stated above.
 

Fitzsy

authentic cool guy
70
Posts
10
Years
Besides, why does frilly and cute have to be a bad thing? I love having an entire Type full of Pokémon like Cleffa and Flabébé, especially one so viable! It adds variety to things in my opinion. The "strongest Pokémon" (in general, not necessarily in the metagame) category it seems has traditionally been dominated by the likes of Garchomp and Scizor, the cool and badass Pokémon, but now we're seeing Azumarill and Sylveon in those ranks and it's pretty killer to me!
 

Bestintheworld

Capo de tutti capo
206
Posts
10
Years
What kind of pokemon would be hero types and what would the weakness, etc. be? Doesn't really fit in with the monsters and other types are natural forces(grass, fire, water, electricity, poison,),elements(rock, steel, ice,ground,) ability force(physic, dark, fighting,normal, fairy) than dragon is like a beast or animal type sorta like bug. To me hero doesn't fit the typing mold.
 
3,869
Posts
10
Years
  • Seen Feb 5, 2023
Nah, I'd rather have a fairy type. Imo I think that fairy type is a bit too op in Gen 6 battling. I don't think that GameFreak should have made the fairy type immune to dragon, instead they should've made is 0.5 effective. I think that would've balanced it out, making Fairy type completely immune to thedragon was too far imo. Dragons did dominate in Gen 5 but it's not like they were the gods of pokemon or anything.
 
Back
Top