legendaries, gender or no gender?

Moltres Rider

Banned
    • 992
    Posts
    14
    Years
    would you prefer all legendaries to have a gender like Latios and Latias but still were unbreedable... Latias and Latios are the only legendary Pokemon with genders, but they cannot breed due to no egg type.... do you thing all legendaries should have been like that? why or why not? if they all were like that, would they be specific genders like Latias and Latios, or would they be random with certain percentage ratios... discuss these questions I just rose up and tell what your opinion is... have legendaries be like Latias and Latios, or leave them with no gender the way they are.
     
    Last edited:
    There should really be a trope on TVTropes named "Genderlessness is perfection"

    Because I've just noticed that multiple popular games do that and more.


    That's besides the point though? Me? I would personally prefer if they did. Whether it's set or random isn't important. Why? Simply put... I find the notion that genderlessness is somehow superior to having a gender to be worthy of an exasperated groan at best. It's just not true or even cool.
     
    Honestly, I would have liked it if legendaries had genders because some of them sound more feminine or masculine in the anime (Mew for instance for the feminine side).
     
    I don't mean to be wishy-washy but I don't really mind, although as PlatinumDude mentioned some legendaries seem more feminine or masculine than others and a gender could be a nice change.
     
    I think "genderless-ness" should depend more on the type of poke. For example, bird trio and Musqueteer quartet are animals, should have a gender. The Regi-trio are golems, therefore no gender.

    Mewtwo could be genderless, Mew should have a gender. Deoxys can also be genderless. I prefer pokemon who are animal in nature to have a gender. Regardless of legendary status.
     
    As long as they can't breed, it doesn't matter to me, though it would seem odd if Latios and Latias suddenly were made genderless... I'm of the camp that says Pokemon like Mewtwo and the Regis shouldn't have genders. As for the others, it really doesn't matter.
     
    Speaking outside of game mechanic like breeding, legendary should be genderless because they are akin to gods in pokemon world, god-like legendary at least. While deoxys is a mutated virus and mewtwo is produce of human experiment which might make it sterile.
    Although they might have masculine or feminine personality in that matter. Like Darkrai having masculine personality and Jirachi have feminine one.
     
    To me, a male or female gender implies that there is a possibility to breed, amongst other things. I don't believe that they should breed.

    To PlatinumDude, who said that some Legendary Pokémon are feminine and masculine, yet still genderless, I think that's suppose to be that way. They are genderless so that they can't breed/use attract, but they need to make both masculine and feminine legendaries so that it appeals to all of the fan base.
     
    To the person that started the thread, actually Heatran has a variable gender, Cresselia is always female, and the Kami Trio are all male. (I might be missing some but I think that's it.)
    kamionero said:
    I think "genderless-ness" should depend more on the type of poke. For example, bird trio and Musqueteer quartet are animals, should have a gender. The Regi-trio are golems, therefore no gender.

    Mewtwo could be genderless, Mew should have a gender. Deoxys can also be genderless. I prefer pokemon who are animal in nature to have a gender. Regardless of legendary status.
    Click to expand...
    Wow, I agree with this totally.
    I don't really see why legendary Pokémon can't have genders, but that's just me.
    To name a few I think would be better off genderless, though:

    Genesect
    Arceus
    Dialga
    Palkia
    Giratina
    Deoxys

    i.e. anything manmade or artificially tempered with; anything at least somewhat godlike or symbolic; and any Pokémon that wouldn't have a gender either way, like the legendary golems.

    PelipperMail said:
    To me, a male or female gender implies that there is a possibility to breed, amongst other things. I don't believe that they should breed.

    To PlatinumDude, who said that some Legendary Pokémon are feminine and masculine, yet still genderless, I think that's suppose to be that way. They are genderless so that they can't breed/use attract, but they need to make both masculine and feminine legendaries so that it appeals to all of the fan base.
    Click to expand...
    I don't think it necessarily needs to imply that they can breed, I mean plenty of genderless Pokémon we have can breed. The difference being legendary Pokémon can't even breed with Ditto, but you can't tell if they can breed with Ditto until you try it since all genderless Pokémon are the same, that is to say there is no outward indication whether or not a Pokémon can breed with Ditto.
    So, for instance Jirachi's genderlessness could imply to you (if you were relatively new to breeding), "hey man, I bet I can breed this Pokémon with a Ditto and make Jirachi eggs!" and the only way you could possibly tell that's not the case (without looking it up online lol) is by putting it in the Daycare and walking around for a very long time until you realise, "yeah Jirachi eggs aren't happening."

    As for thinking Mew is feminine, it just happens to be pink and feline and cute and make high-pitched noises. In animals that doesn't exactly equal gender.
     
    Ineffable~ said:

    As for thinking Mew is feminine, it just happens to be pink and feline and cute and make high-pitched noises. In animals that doesn't exactly equal gender.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, that's like male sea horses being pregnant. Animals don't care, it's their mentality and instinct.

    I think adding a gender would make a few legendaries unique and add to the fact that there could possibly be more than one of a legendary, say the Bird Trio.

    But yes, keep them unable to breed. Otherwise, everyone would have a team of six (insert favorite legendary) in a single game, not trading and that stuff.
     
    PkMnTrainer Yellow said:
    Simply put... I find the notion that genderlessness is somehow superior to having a gender to be worthy of an exasperated groan at best. It's just not true or even cool.
    Click to expand...
    It's as much better as not requiring to reproduce nor expend time and effort on courtship and, as humans at least do, non-reproductive sex. Perfection needs nothing — the less things needed, the closer to perfection. That's the logic about it, in accordance with which I would say it is in fact true, but still an ultimately negligible difference.
     
    Last edited:
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top