Replacing Normal with Fairy

[WingedDragon]

How good of an idea would it be if Pokemon Company replace Normal with Fairy. If you look at it most Normal types are Fairies. Those that are "Normal" could be replace with the next closest thing.

What are peoples thoughts on this?

 

[ShiningLust]

I think its a bad idea to make them strong against dragon its really stupid cuz think about fairies stronger thin dragon that makes me upset cuz u think they would make more since if it was a dark or even ghost that make since BUT dragons that's stupid cuz on top of dragons are hell to raise they also got really weak to ice and dragons so idk this is how I feel. lol

 

[CloysterOyster]

I think it would be a bad idea. Normal has been around for, like, 15 years, so why the sudden change? Not all Normal types are fairy-esque in nature, like Arceus and Regigigas for example. Most Normal types are birds or other mammals anyways. Having 18 types is fine however.

 

[Sydian]

Most Pokemon are Normal type. Then Fairy, which was made to balance out Dragon, would be all over the place and then we'd need something new to balance that. Doubt it will happen. Besides, a lot of Normal types aren't very Fairy-like imo. Bibarel a Fairy? Linoone? Smeargle? Ursaring? Yeah, no.

 

[Kanzler]

There isn't a next closest thing for boring-regular-animal type pokemon. And I kind of like that. It's good that they're making all the "mystical" pokemon fairy and keeping the normal pokemon, well, normal.

 

[Hikamaru]

I mostly second Sydian's post. While we do have cute-looking Normal-types in the Fairy egg group like Clefairy, Audino, Togekiss and Jigglypuff, the reason not all Normal-types can be a Fairy-type is because we have several Normal-type Pokemon based on mammals, birds and rodents. It's something we're way too familiar with. At least 18 types means we now have an even-numbered amount of types.

 

[FSNW5yiFrXVXqv]

they can't replace normals. Especially when half of them don't actually look like fairies. Most flying types and "HM slaves" (zig, sentret, stoutland). The only normal types i could actually think of fairies are the "pink" ones, and some other non-pink exceptions. Happiny line, Toge-line, CleFAIRY line (lol, duh), maybe skitty and Audino. Other than those, it's pretty obvious that normals should stay normals. They're one of the most versatile types -- they simply can't take all that away.

edit: god, i type too slow. Tl;dr look at Sydian's post

Nonetheless, I think this just makes Psychic, Dark and Ghost types/moves quite left out -- even more than bug pokemon. Those types were the bomb in Gen 1&2 and i feel like they've just been fading away ever since.

..and that is what i'm worried about. Typings area already having difficulty going around the spotlight, and Nintendo adds yet another one. Come a time, we'd probably just have a few types of pokemon to really bother with... and the rest will only be but forgotten relics.

I'd want Nintendo to loop back Fairy types into typings that weren't much useful in the past decade. Dragons should and must remain as rare creatures -- keeping them to a limited amount, their stats still overpower mostly everything, anyway. In return, Fairy types should be weak enough as to ONLY overpower dragons. Which in that case, also makes them susceptible to MUCH weaker types. That would at least create a reasonable rock-paper-scissor-ish circle.

The weaker ones have to be strong against something at some point to maintain balance, and I think this could also be the perfect time to show it. If not, then the other things i've mentioned should still be taken into consideration or else it would be a big crisis on Pokemon. At this point, the Strongest are already decided, and the weak only get weaker as stronger typings come to join into the fray... they have to do something, and fast.

Spoiler:

 .-> some weaker types --> Fairy -.
 |                                |
 '- stronger types <--- Dragon  <-'

Making Fairy much more of a glasscannon type of pokemon. Catch my drift?

Fairy type could either go really good, or really bad. I'm hoping well that it's the former.

 

[Aslan]

Normal-types and fairies aren't that alike in my opinion. Most normal-type creatures represent real-life creatures and don't have a supernatural quality. Fairies are mythical and magical, which makes them sort of opposite. There are also a huge amount of normal-types, so replacing them all with Fairy would cause chaos. Like others have said, Fairy was brought out to balance an extremely powerful type, not cause the need of another type to balance it out as well. While it's an interesting idea, I personally don't think that it would work. :p

 

[WishCookie]

I can say that maybe 35% (if not less) of all normal types are in the egg group Fairy. Does Slaking look like a Fairy to you? Does Zigzagoon look like a Fairy to you? Other people here above me have already said everything I wanted to say. :P

 

[Plumpyfoof]

I think its a bad idea to make them strong against dragon its really stupid cuz think about fairies stronger thin dragon that makes me upset cuz u think they would make more since if it was a dark or even ghost that make since BUT dragons that's stupid cuz on top of dragons are hell to raise they also got really weak to ice and dragons so idk this is how I feel. lol

I can't make heads or tails of what you just said. Grammar is important please stop neglecting it.


I don't like the idea of making normal into fairy type. What would be the point when you could just add the extra weaknesses and resistances?
On top of that think about normal types like Bidoof and Rattata, not very fairy like if you ask me.
And then tackle would be a fairy type move, so would Hidden Power.

 

[Therizinosaurus]

plus normal types are a sort of basic, default, types and their thing is that there is no special attributes about them, (e.g. they cant spit fire, lightning, etc, they just punch you), wheras fairy types are magic. you cant switch that, especially with pokemon like slacking

 

[Sabrewulf238]

There are many normal types who I wouldn't call fairies. It wouldn't work.

I think there's a fairly clear divide between normal types who look closest to regular animals (Regional rodents, Ursaring, Stantler etc) and normal types who look like they're magical. (Chansey, Audino, Clefairy)

The latter usually don't seem to be based on anything in particular, they just look like magic, mystical creatures.

 

[Guest123_x1]

I don't think it'd really be a good idea to replace the Normal type with Fairy altogether, since there are so many non-fairy-like Pokémon that are Normal type (including those that are Normal/Flying), examples including Pidgey, Rattata, Sentret, Hoothoot, among various others.

 

[Curtis542]

Fairy can't replace Normal, it's been around since the beginning. Frankly, I don't even think they should have made the Fairy type. It seems stupid to me.

 

[Rai]

I don't think Normal should be replaced with Fairy. Normal has been around since the first generation and is a good match up for a lot of pokemon, like Rattata or Sentret.

Plus, Normal has the benefit of being impervious to Ghost types, which can be very useful. Perhaps some other Normal types like Clefairy or Chansey could be Fairy, but I think the majority of Normal types should stay the way they are.

 

[JesterLegacy]

Nope, normal types are normal types, and fairies are fairies. Sure, there are some normal types which looks like fairies and will be changed to fairy, but the existence of normal types just cannot be erased. Normal types match some Pokemons and they have their own traits. Furthermore, if all normal types are replaced with fairy types, then dragon types will get owned......Also, Slaking as a fairy type? I just can't see that as right......

 

[ISNorden]

I've always seen Normal types as what the name implioes: a neutral default type, usually based on something in the real world (but not always). As long as there are Pokémon which don't obviously fit into another category (through their abilities, their origin, or whatever)--there will be Normals. Even the fairy-like Pokémon from older generations are getting Fairy added as a second type--not an outright replacement. So please don't complain about a change that isn't going to happen. (Admittedly, I was surprised that the whole Ralts line didn't get Fairy added to its type, and that the Happiny line didn't either: those healing abilities and mood-altering eggs sound magical to me!)

 

[Skull Kid]

I would cry if I saw Snorlax being a fairy.

That aside, fairy type to me doesn't seem all that bad but it really shouldn't replace normal. Normal has one weakness and one resistance, making them easy to play with no matter what type of trainer you are.

Players that are new to the pokemon series and haven't learned the type weakness chart yet will have a tough time at the beginning of the game. Normal types are always on the first few routes to ease in the player. If fairy were there instead, it would have a lot more weaknesses than a normal type, making it more confusing for the player.

Normal type should stay, fairy can be its own seperate category.

 

[Shrew]

Whenever I hear people complaining about fairies, I point out that fairies, in a sense, have always existed. In generation 1, it was obvious that "normal" types like Clefairy, Jigglypuff, and Chansey were distinct from normal types like Tauros, Snorlax, and Dodrio. Introducing the fairy type to make the distinction official, to raise some of their usage, and to bring balance to the game seems fine.

So that's why I wouldn't want the entire normal type to be replaced.