Character deaths: yes or no?

Content warning for mentions of death. This is a contentious and sensitive topic, so if you don't feel ready to discuss it, feel free to go back.

One thing that the main games have not done yet is killing off a major character, either onscreen or offscreen. Generally, whenever death is brought up, it's that of a minor, usually nameless character (e.g. Alder's starter Pokémon, the man in the house in Anistar City, the Faller that died while in a mission with Looker and Nanu, Emma's parents, one of the Eeveelution specialists, the kings of Galar, Kamado and Beni's comrades, etc.) or the ghost of someone who has already long since passed (e.g. the mother Marowak). Sure, Lysandre is implied to have died in X/Y, but that was never outright confirmed, and there's just as much evidence for him still being at large. The PLA characters are also dead in the present time, but since the game is pretty much a period piece, they don't count either.

What I'm talking about is either having a main character perish during the main campaign - or, failing that, mentioning the offscreen death of a major character from a previous Pokémon game, like a Gym Leader, Professor or facility head. Naturally, Pokémon fan games have been ahead of the curve in this aspect. Nearly every well-known fan game features at least one death, from the airport name homage to the late Professor Oak in Xenoverse (which takes place 30 years after RBY) to the brutal, gruesome plot deaths in games like Reborn, Rejuvenation and Insurgence.

My question is, do you think the canon Pokémon games should start working in character deaths in any of the forms mentioned above? If so, how do you believe should they be tackled?

I don't think they will every truly canonically kill off a major character... but if I were Professor Oak, Blaine, Mr. Fuji, Kurt, Agatha, or Pryce, I'd definitely be counting down cause those dudes ain't gettin any younger.

Going to be a no for me. Definitely prefer the lighthearted nature of the series. Death and violence are present in all sorts of media (and real life). So it's nice turning on a Pokemon game and catching a break from it.

Initially decided against it. Felt out of place and far too big of consequences for an 11 year old kid. Came up with some palatable ideas while trying to figure out the best way to do so.

1. Cycle of life. Brings this up in Pokedex entries and in Aether Paradise. Makes the victim a legendary Pokemon here. Gives itself to the land. Finds a little version of it in postgame. Evolves into a slightly different form than the original. Could even evolve based on the choices made throughout the game.

2. An ailing grandparent. Begins the game quite ill. Gives you your first Pokemon. Teaches you how to catch and care for them. Shares a story or two as a young trainer. Returns to their bed shortly after, with the illness very visible. Prepares the player for their eventual death. Imparted something to carry with you before going, though. Serves as a memory going forward.

Fairy said:

I don't think they will every truly canonically kill off a major character... but if I were Professor Oak, Blaine, Mr. Fuji, Kurt, Agatha, or Pryce, I'd definitely be counting down cause those dudes ain't gettin any younger.

Click to expand...

You know, I was going to mention Agatha in particular from this list. She just... up and disappeared after the Gen I games (and their remakes) and it was never explained why. Sure, she could have retired quietly after Red defeated her, but... as you said, she isn't getting any younger, and the discrepancy regarding Oak and Rowan's ages makes me think she's actually way older than Oak's "canonical" age of 50 in HG/SS would suggest.

I would also add Mr. Briney (who turns up as a ghost in Xenoverse, by the way), Wattson, Spenser, the aforementioned Professor Rowan, Bertha, Ramos, Oak's cousin Samson, and Opal (who canonically retires from her position) to your list. Pokémon's... weird with ages just like the real world though (just look at Mustard!), but those are the ones that strike me as the most likely to get a mention of their deaths.

The above, however, doesn't exactly rule out that a character, especially a non-villainous one, might be hinted to have died young suddenly and/or of non-natural causes, which is a point I might have overlooked. Now that one would be a huge shocker. God, I still remember all the speculation on Wally in the original R/S/E and Giovanni in HG/SS. Future games have revealed (or perhaps retconned?) them to have survived, but it does raise an interesting point about illnesses, accidents and suicide as potential causes of death...

Off-screen deaths would be okay. Like mentions of how someone passed on. Not that I'm very eager to see it implemented, but I'd be okay with it.

I'd definitely not be comfortable with it happening on screen, nor do I think they would ever do that anyway given the games' target audience.
I'd just rather not see that sort of stuff in a Pokemon game at all.

To be honest, I'd rather there be no death of any kind on screen in a Pokemon game. Mentions are fine, but I play Pokemon to get away from those sorts of things. A mention here or there is fine, though, like with Marowak in Pokemon.

Mentioning said death like Blue's Raticate or Ratata is alright, but death itself seems dark for a happy-go-game isn't it since game rarely talks about death in general

i feel like for death to be a thing, it has to contribute something of some sort to the game's overall narrative/plot. death for the sake of its own inclusion is only going to fall flat and come off as unnecessarily dark. in pokemon's case, if a character is going to die, it has to be the result of an evil team's actions, or because it'd be necessarily for the plot to move forward.

idk it's kinda hard to explain and i'm unsure how pokemon games could pull it off without it coming across as shoehorned. not that i'd be excited to see the games go that route, anyway.

I would prefer not. Pokémon is the kind of series where I tend to get attached to the creatures and human characters, so I don't want to worry about anyone dying - it will take away from the series being a stress reliever for me and make it a source of stress instead. Which may sound a little bit silly, but I've grown used to it being the way it is and take comfort in the fact that my favorites won't really ever be killed off. Even if it's done right and may work well in driving the plot forward, I still wouldn't want it to happen.

Some deaths of characters we don't really have any attachment to/don't talk to do add depth to the series, like Cubone's mother, but it's not something I think needs to carry over to any characters we interact with properly at any point.

If a character's death contributes to a plot point, or delivers an emotion that helps the story, or helps moving another character's story and motivations forward, I have nothing against it.

What I wouldn't like is like certain fan-games do: thinking that blood, death, drugs, and curse words make their story more serious and mature, when most of the time it's just campy edgyness for the sake of being edgy.

A plot is more mature when it's well developed and everything (including deaths) happens for an actual reason, because the story needs that to happen.

Death is, ironically enough, part of life and not only that, but it's also a very emotionally charged thing, so it makes perfect sense that it could be used in a story to great effect.

But, like any other thing in story telling, needs to be there to fulfill a purpose. Like, here are some examples of (non antagonist) deaths being used in children's media in the last few years (spoilers for kid movies, I guess):



All of those movies used death in artistic and strategic ways to strengthen the plot and the message of the movie, and they also did it in a way that didn't feel "forced" or "edgy" or "cringe". Nor did they do it in a way that made the movie feel dark and gloomy - all the movies I mentioned above are comedies, for example.

So yeah, it's possible to use death as a plot point in a tasteful way without hurting the tone of the series. I'm not necessarily sure they'd be able to pull it off well, or would even be interested in doing so, but I can definitely see it being a powerful enhancer of a variety of different plots.

If they do it they should do it properly. There's no point in incorporating death into the games if the death feels meaningless and just there to be there. I think it's a little bit more accessible if it already happened (like the Marowag incident in RBY) because all you need is set the proper tone. Actual character death I'm not sure if I need it, tbh.

I think implied or off-screen character death could work, but definitely not something explicit or important plot-wise, and I don't even say it because of tone (if anything the Marowak thing in RBY is proof enough that it can be done with the correct tone), just that I don't really trust Pokémon in its current state to make something good enough out of it to even think it would be interesting, they didn't even do a decent job with Anabelle's situation in SM or the fallers in PLA.

Also while we are at it...... Isn't Lysandre dead? I think that's the general consensus and seems to have been implied in the last batch of Pokémon shorts that were released, but idk I didn't play XY