What Monster would you most like to have as a pet?

[golentan]

I'm curious about this. We all know the fictional worlds are rife with monsters. Some of them hide in closets and leap out at awkward moments, some of them eat planets as part of a complete breakfast, some are humanoid, some are bestial, some are just plain weird.

What I'm curious is what monsters people would most like to have as a pet, and why?

The rules:
1) You cannot kill your pet, and it won't deliberately kill you. If it eats humans as part of its natural diet, though, you probably are gonna have a PR problem with the neighbors.
2) It cannot be sapient. If it's at least as smart as you it's a person.
3) It will act like it normally does but can be commanded through strongly worded injunctions. "Stay." "Sit."
4) You can move in with it or it can move in with you, whatever you find easier.

Feel free not to go with the "correct" answers, please, just the thing that springs to mind where you saw/read/heard of something and went "Wow, that would be the coolest pet ever!"

[Forum Explorer]

Dragon! Wait, damn, rule 2.

Hmmmmmmmmm. I'm going to say a slime. Most other fantasy creatures I'm interested in are intelligent, and slimes are really cool and interesting. Start wearing a raincoat everywhere and keep it in a pocket.

EDIT: Wait, Rust Monsters are a thing as well. Now that's a hard choice.

[KillingAScarab]

Elementals are too intelligent, sadly.

If I'm feeling particularly necromantic, I'm going to have to go with magically animating a skeleton.

[Maelstrom]

Griffin or a hippogriff, without a doubt. Course, living in horse country, having a Griffin may cause some issues, though it would be well fed...

[Kato]

Hm... Good question. A slime might be nice but no idea what to feed it. Maybe a Cerberus? Dogs are awesome after all.
Or a not so smart dragon.
Or can I pick one powerful enough to make me ruler of Earth? But what pet would fit that requirement?

[Giggling Ghast]

Probably a nug from Dragon Age. Pleasing to the ear, totally harmless and easy to feed — they eat grubs, worms and simple minerals. Good indoor pets since they are technically subterranean. They do breed like rats, but that wouldn't be a problem with just one. And they serve as good emergency rations in a pinch!

[Rogar Demonblud]

Tarrasque?

Slime's are good. You can feed them all the people you don't like.

If you want a dog, consider a hell/frost/yeth hound. Just remember the property insurance. Blink dogs have the advantage of letting themselves in or out, and the disadvantage of generally being considered sentient if not sapient.

Personally, I'd take a wyvern. Flight is cool, and it can have all the speedgoats it can catch--we're infested with the damn things.

[Admiral Squish]

Well, going by the intelligence limit, pokemon are off-limits...

I'd agree with the slime, but I feel like it would get everything wet if you let it wander around. You'd need like a sealed hamster ball kinda thing to keep it from ruining your floor.

Large animals are out, predators especially, as anything that requires large amounts of fresh meat would be prohibitively expensive, and I don't think a gryphon would take to kibble well. I don't have enough yard for any really large herbivores, either. Though, I suppose if I got a brontosaurus or something I could move to the country and run a 'meet a real dinosaur' ranch-type thing to pay for it. And as cool as it would be to ride a monster, cars are probably faster and safer, both for me and my new pet.

Hmm... Do dinosaurs count? They show up in all sorts of fictional worlds, but they're not really fictional themselves. A protoceratops is about the right size, and it'd be relatively easy to feed... Well, actually, I wonder if you can buy leaves in bulk...

Honestly, everything that comes to mind seems to either be off limits or too impractical. As awesome as riding a wyvern would be, what would you feed it? You can't be riding it all the time, what would it do when you weren't playing with it? For a pet, I'd want something I could play with and cuddle and love rather than an awesome, terrifying war-beast.

[Maryring]

Most pokemon are off limits with that 2nd rule, otherwise it'd probably be one of those. I mean, they're perfect as cool pets.

Hrm... maybe a Raiju?

https://en.touhouwiki.net/images/thumb/e/ea/WnHH_Raijuu.PNG/205px-WnHH_Raijuu.PNG

Small enough to be kept as a pet. Usually calm. It will get agitated during thunderstorms, but what animal doesn't? And going by the reputation of sleeping in human navels, it's probably very cuddly. :smallbiggrin:

Or maybe a phoenix. A small one. I'd have to find a proper place to keep it of coursee, but once housebroken a Phoenix would make for an awesome companion. As long as it's a small phoenix.

There's also the Baku. It eats nightmares, so having one as a pet would be a very symbiotic relationship. For me and for my neighbours.

[Flickerdart]

How do we define a monster? Is the goose that laid the golden eggs (http://fable-fairy-tales.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-goose-that-laid-golden-eggs.html) a monster?

[Dienekes]

Well my favorite monsters are dragons and Godzilla. But there's no way in Hell I could have one of them as a pet. Especially since most dragons I like are intelligent, though there are other non-intelligent ones. But the fire breathing could be a problem.

Probably a griffin. You can ride them, they can fly. They can be trained. They have legends that they find a dig up gold rocks as a hobby. And are badass.

Making sure they don't kill people could be a problem though. It's not the only thing on their diet, but they are known to tear people apart.

Maybe a hippogriff would work as it won't have the killing people problem. But it's just so much less cool.

[KillingAScarab]

Hm... you know, technically the War Mech (http://www.finalfantasyd20.com/ffd20/warmech.html) from Final Fantasy was only programmed and didn't display any intelligence. It was only in 8-Bit Theater (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2008/05/03/episode-987-compensation/) where it got a personality.

Mwahaha

[random11]

I think my major problem is that whatever I choose, I also have to take care of.

So rust monster is definitely off the list, so is any undead variation and all monsters larger than a cat.

Is there a small elemental creature like a lightning ball that can hover and respond to simple commands?
Who cares? That's what I choose :smallcool:

If I still have to take something more familiar, I'll go for the classic eyeball with wings.
Compact, flying, just freaky enough to scare people but not too dangerous

[Razade]

Arceus from Pokemon. Easy.

[Lord Raziere]

Arceus from Pokemon. Easy.

Nope. Arceus can talk. Violates the 2nd rule.

[golentan]

Me, I'd definitely go with a creature from Monster Hunter, and it's a toss up between the Mizutsune


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn-3ClDyNV0

And the Jhen Mohran

http://67.media.tumblr.com/9a2627364d76525b1a28ab42bc24472f/tumblr_mne0ljGmX51ssr51lo1_1280.jpg

Which probably means I need to move to the monster hunter world because I don't think I can provide enough fish for 17-20 meter piscivore or a big enough sandpit a 110-ish meter long sandwhale. But I trust both can forage for themselves in their natural habitats.

[gooddragon1]

A small paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm) pseudonatural (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/pseudonaturalCreature.htm) monstrous spider (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm) with 50 Hit dice (it's size doesn't increase with HD) and sorcerer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer) casting equal to HD.

Catches bugs, doesn't need to eat, can create a magnificent mansion with food for me (17 charisma), and can polymorph into a cat if I want it to. Pretty well rounded.

[DoctorFaust]

How about a giant space hamster (http://66.media.tumblr.com/e9a6b2c25f78612b1da4e6b3c54be54a/tumblr_nul79wOC1R1r3ktqpo4_1280.jpg)?

[KillingAScarab]

If you want a dog, consider a hell/frost/yeth hound. Just remember the property insurance. Blink dogs have the advantage of letting themselves in or out, and the disadvantage of generally being considered sentient if not sapient.


Is there a small elemental creature like a lightning ball that can hover and respond to simple commands?
Who cares? That's what I choose :smallcool:At least in D&D, if it can understand a language (as all of these can), it would be too intelligent for the topic criteria. Which is a shame, because I thought of both playing frisbee with yeth hounds and having a good-aligned soulspark hovering around.


How about a giant space hamster (http://66.media.tumblr.com/e9a6b2c25f78612b1da4e6b3c54be54a/tumblr_nul79wOC1R1r3ktqpo4_1280.jpg)?I would prefer the miniature version. "Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!"

[random11]

At least in D&D, if it can understand a language (as all of these can), it would be too intelligent for the topic criteria. Which is a shame, because I thought of both playing frisbee with yeth hounds and having a good-aligned soulspark hovering around.


I was thinking about simple commands like training a dog.


A small paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm) pseudonatural (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/pseudonaturalCreature.htm) monstrous spider (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm) with 50 Hit dice (it's size doesn't increase with HD) and sorcerer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer) casting equal to HD.

Catches bugs, doesn't need to eat, can create a magnificent mansion with food for me (17 charisma), and can polymorph into a cat if I want it to. Pretty well rounded.

If he takes care of your home and food, doesn't that make you HIS pet? :smallsmile:

[Razade]

Nope. Arceus can talk. Violates the 2nd rule.

Parrots can talk. Doesn't make them sapient.

[Quild]

Succubus!
Damn, rule 2.

Pegasus then.

[Lord Raziere]

Parrots can talk. Doesn't make them sapient.

Pokemon, and especially legendaries, are capable of understanding human interaction, Team Rocket's Meowth proved that its possible for a pokemon to learn how walk and talk like a human and understand everything that makes humanity, operate complex machinery, read, translate between pokemon and human language, pokemon mystery dungeon where pokemon have formed societies with currency, organizations, economy, buildings all exist without any human interference, there have been an episode where pokemon understood the workings of a court and got scammed by Team Rocket because of it....

there are so many reasons why Pokemon break rule No. 2 of this thread that you have no leg to stand on. many of them are basically humans who speak different languages. and practically almost every pokemon movie has a pokemon that speaks through telepathy or some other method.

[Cespenar]

Toothless from How to Train Your Dragon seems like a no-brainer. Its intelligence is debatable, but it's probably not sapient yet.

Though there are probably some comedic scenes which give it human-level intelligence on occasion, when it fits the joke.

[Kitten Champion]

http://t11.deviantart.net/fsX3vyNcuxbA8YjTfGztxQoZNI4=/fit-in/300x900/filters:no_upscale():origin()/pre07/1d61/th/pre/i/2011/022/8/d/totoro_journal_header_by_sphinx9-d37swi8.png

[Murk]

Pokemon, and especially legendaries, are capable of understanding human interaction, Team Rocket's Meowth proved that its possible for a pokemon to learn how walk and talk like a human and understand everything that makes humanity, operate complex machinery, read, translate between pokemon and human language, pokemon mystery dungeon where pokemon have formed societies with currency, organizations, economy, buildings all exist without any human interference, there have been an episode where pokemon understood the workings of a court and got scammed by Team Rocket because of it....

there are so many reasons why Pokemon break rule No. 2 of this thread that you have no leg to stand on. many of them are basically humans who speak different languages. and practically almost every pokemon movie has a pokemon that speaks through telepathy or some other method.

Hm. Not really convinced.

I admit: I've only played the games, so I'm only passingly familiar with the tv series and manga and all. However, there is nothing to me that shows that a caterpie is smarter than your average dog: it can learn simple commands (but only 4 at a time!) and they can't really do anything other than munch on leaves and attack. Heck, even their attacks are the most basic of basic.

Sure, some Pokémon are very intelligent - sometimes per individual, sometimes per species (didn't alakazam have an IQ of 300?) - but certain types of them really act like animals, and not even the smarter animals.

So I agree that Arceus is probably off, but if someone wanted a Metapod or a Slowpoke, eh, that looks fine to me.
Then the question of course remains why someone would want a Metapod.

[GloatingSwine]

Flying Bison.

/thread.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Because it eventually turns into a Butterfree?

[Flickerdart]

Flying Bison.

/thread.

I hope you have a stable. And a way to dispose of a bison-worth of poop.

[Peelee]

Bah! Pseudodragon is out on rule 2.

Dire tiger. Tigers are badass, and a trained one that won't attack me? Hells to the yeah!


How do we define a monster? Is the goose that laid the golden eggs (http://fable-fairy-tales.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-goose-that-laid-golden-eggs.html) a monster?

If you're gonna crash the gold market like that, then who here is really the monster?

[Flickerdart]

If you're gonna crash the gold market like that, then who here is really the monster?
Why should I sell any of the gold? I'll just use it as raw materials.

[Peelee]

Why should I sell any of the gold? I'll just use it as raw materials.

I choose to believe you mean alchemy.

[Flickerdart]

I choose to believe you mean alchemy.

Transmuting gold to lead. :smallamused:

[Lord Raziere]

Hm. Not really convinced.

I admit: I've only played the games, so I'm only passingly familiar with the tv series and manga and all. However, there is nothing to me that shows that a caterpie is smarter than your average dog: it can learn simple commands (but only 4 at a time!) and they can't really do anything other than munch on leaves and attack. Heck, even their attacks are the most basic of basic.

Sure, some Pokémon are very intelligent - sometimes per individual, sometimes per species (didn't alakazam have an IQ of 300?) - but certain types of them really act like animals, and not even the smarter animals.

So I agree that Arceus is probably off, but if someone wanted a Metapod or a Slowpoke, eh, that looks fine to me.
Then the question of course remains why someone would want a Metapod.

yet those still have emotions and react to people calling them names, or know when they've lost something like a Pokemon Contest which isn't a straight battle, can cry when they've failed, hold a conversation with other pokemon, and even a magikarp- a giant one- has been seen fighting for other people because they care, oh and the in the Mystery Dungeon games your first mission is to rescue a Caterpie who talks to you saying thanks, like literally, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is all about a human being transported into the body of a pokemon, retaining all of their intelligence and sapience, and speaking to other pokemon as if in plain english, and interacting with every pokemon from diglett to magnemite, to carry out missions for them like a mercenary or an adventurer and yes, every pokemon you can encounter in the Mystery Dungeons are potentially recruitable, but they have to ask YOU first, you can't choose to make them join.

Like really, Ash's Pikachu and Caterpie have a conversation with one another the night they meet while Ash is asleep while they look up at the stars. thats real early anime, and we all know how intelligent Pikachu is- he is frequently facepalming at ASHES antics. Oh and when James insults a Magikarp and kicks it overboard? that Magikarp evolves into a Gyarados and attacks back or mistreating it. Intelligent enough to get revenge.

Pokemon break rule 2. Period.

[KillingAScarab]

Pokemon break rule 2. Period.While I think it could be argued that the main games and Mystery Dungeon series are developed by different companies, which might have different takes on them, there are way too many Pokémon which are basically monster people, even in generation one (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Generation_One) games. Hitmonchan, Hitmonlee, the Machop/Machoke/Machamp series (which are used for manual labor), just about any of the psychic types (Jynx is also problematic for other reasons) and depending on the game Magmar/Electabuzz are at least humanoid in appearance. My preferred method of playing the series is to focus a bit more on the bug-catching activity it is based upon and ignore the "Pokémon are our friends and we work together" backstory.

[Talakeal]

Slowpoke for me then.


I would prefer the miniature version. "Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!"

I have good news for you...

[Forum Explorer]

Slowpoke for me then.



Slowpoke is just slow, not stupid.

[Ramza00]

Anne McCaffrey's Fire Lizards (miniature dragons)

Intelligence is similar to a dog, but with a form of empathy / non word based telepathy / visual imagery, has teleportation, flight, manipulatable digits.

[Razade]

Pokemon, and especially legendaries, are capable of understanding human interaction, Team Rocket's Meowth proved that its possible for a pokemon to learn how walk and talk like a human and understand everything that makes humanity, operate complex machinery, read, translate between pokemon and human language, pokemon mystery dungeon where pokemon have formed societies with currency, organizations, economy, buildings all exist without any human interference, there have been an episode where pokemon understood the workings of a court and got scammed by Team Rocket because of it....

The anime isn't canon. Only the core games are canon. Side games, the anime and the movies count only in their own canon. Only the Rotom-Dex in the main canon can talk and it can only talk because of the Pokedex. I should also point out that we have primates that have primitive bartering aspects and can learn and use sign language. Parrots can be taught or learn to speak. That does not imply sapiance.


there are so many reasons why Pokemon break rule No. 2 of this thread that you have no leg to stand on. many of them are basically humans who speak different languages. and practically almost every pokemon movie has a pokemon that speaks through telepathy or some other method.

Hitchen's Razor. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


yet those still have emotions and react to people calling them names, or know when they've lost something like a Pokemon Contest which isn't a straight battle, can cry when they've failed, hold a conversation with other pokemon, and even a magikarp- a giant one- has been seen fighting for other people because they care, oh and the in the Mystery Dungeon games your first mission is to rescue a Caterpie who talks to you saying thanks, like literally, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is all about a human being transported into the body of a pokemon, retaining all of their intelligence and sapience, and speaking to other pokemon as if in plain english, and interacting with every pokemon from diglett to magnemite, to carry out missions for them like a mercenary or an adventurer and yes, every pokemon you can encounter in the Mystery Dungeons are potentially recruitable, but they have to ask YOU first, you can't choose to make them join.

Dogs understand their name, can learn and understand tons of human words, animals have emotions even if they're not like our emotions. Animals can experience loss, animals can grasp things like unfairness. Don't believe me? Get two dogs, have them do the same thing but only give one of them a treat. You'll learn very swiftly that animals understand when they're gipped out of something.


Like really, Ash's Pikachu and Caterpie have a conversation with one another the night they meet while Ash is asleep while they look up at the stars. thats real early anime, and we all know how intelligent Pikachu is- he is frequently facepalming at ASHES antics. Oh and when James insults a Magikarp and kicks it overboard? that Magikarp evolves into a Gyarados and attacks back or mistreating it. Intelligent enough to get revenge.

Using the anime is like using the Dragon Ball Z moves in relation to the show. The anime is it's own canon and it's not the main one. The games are. Animals are intelligent enough to take revenge in our own world. Take for example the experiment with crows and the mask. Researchers wanted to see if Corvid had good memories so they had someone with a distinctive mask mess with their nests. Almost immediately the crows recognized the masked person and would attack them on sight. They tried to use the mask on other people, but the crows didn't attack them. Only the person who had worn the mask when they messed with the nests. They also learned that the crows taught their kids and other crows about the masked threat.


Pokemon break rule 2. Period.

Nope. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what sapience means. You also don't understand what the bounds of Rule 2 is.

[nyjastul69]

Putting practicality aside, I would want an owlbear. I just think they're so cool.

[Lord Raziere]

The anime isn't canon. Only the core games are canon. Side games, the anime and the movies count only in their own canon. Only the Rotom-Dex in the main canon can talk and it can only talk because of the Pokedex. I should also point out that we have primates that have primitive bartering aspects and can learn and use sign language. Parrots can be taught or learn to speak. That does not imply sapiance.



Hitchen's Razor. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.



Dogs understand their name, can learn and understand tons of human words, animals have emotions even if they're not like our emotions. Animals can experience loss, animals can grasp things like unfairness. Don't believe me? Get two dogs, have them do the same thing but only give one of them a treat. You'll learn very swiftly that animals understand when they're gipped out of something.



Using the anime is like using the Dragon Ball Z moves in relation to the show. The anime is it's own canon and it's not the main one. The games are. Animals are intelligent enough to take revenge in our own world. Take for example the experiment with crows and the mask. Researchers wanted to see if Corvid had good memories so they had someone with a distinctive mask mess with their nests. Almost immediately the crows recognized the masked person and would attack them on sight. They tried to use the mask on other people, but the crows didn't attack them. Only the person who had worn the mask when they messed with the nests. They also learned that the crows taught their kids and other crows about the masked threat.



Nope. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what sapience means. You also don't understand what the bounds of Rule 2 is.

1. Pokemon as a premise must allow for pokemon to be sapient as they must understand the abstract concept of a pokemon trainer training them to get stronger, as well as fighting types have an inherent sense of honor and fair play while dark types don't. As culturally, the Dark type is referred to as the "Evil" type in japan, and thus if there is morality, than there is sapience as you cannot have morality without sapience, furthermore there is a canonical human in Pokemon Black and White named N who can SPEAK and UNDERSTAND pokemon in an unexplained manner, who is your chief rival in the Unova region wanting them to be free

I'm confused as to why you insist so much on me being wrong. I think I'm right to be honest, your just moving the goalposts of canon. Its all Pokemon therefore all canon, therefore I'm right, your just being very narrow as to what pokemon actually is, and boy has it come a long way from mere butterfly catching. Really, stop being a stick in the mud about canon, its a tired out argument. I hereby submit to all nerds that canon is meaningless and is only a term used to say "this thing is more valid than yours for no reason". and that whatever original meaning it once had, is now gone, and now used only for to say "I don't like it therefore its not valid". I like pokemon being sapient and the evidence that your ignoring says that your wrong, therefore you are. No matter how much you ignore it.

[golentan]

You know the thing I find silly about this whole argument?

Razade: You haven't said why you'd pick Arceus. What about it makes it the Coolest Pet Ever in your mind? Cuz if you're just munchkining, you're kinda missing the point of the question.

[Forum Explorer]

Really, stop being a stick in the mud about canon, its a tired out argument. I hereby submit to all nerds that canon is meaningless and is only a term used to say "this thing is more valid than yours for no reason". and that whatever original meaning it once had, is now gone, and now used only for to say "I don't like it therefore its not valid".

Canon is very important when talking about fanfiction. Otherwise, yeah it's mostly useless. I blame Star Wars for having a weird canon system.

[Tvtyrant]

Some sort of ooze probably, then I can open my own dump and simply feed the stuff I get to the ooze. In fact, I am going to go all in and say Jubilex. I am now the world's best answer to pollution and garbage!

[Blue Ghost]

Some sort of ooze probably, then I can open my own dump and simply feed the stuff I get to the ooze. In fact, I am going to go all in and say Jubilex. I am now the world's best answer to pollution and garbage!

Even ignoring the sapience rule, I don't think keeping a demon lord as a pet is a good idea... :smalltongue:

[golentan]

'S interesting but I guess not surprising how many people are going to DnD. :smallsmile:

[Tvtyrant]

Even ignoring the sapience rule, I don't think keeping a demon lord as a pet is a good idea... :smalltongue:

Jubby just needs a bellyrub and he is a push over!

[DoctorFaust]

I would prefer the miniature version. "Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!"

Eh, maybe it would be better for food costs and such, but you can't really ride around on a miniature giant space hamster.

[The_Snark]

Jubby just needs a bellyrub and he is a push over!

He's just a big softy really.

[theNater]

I've always wanted a bit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVytNbdryR0), but it might violate rule 2.

[Some Android]

2) It cannot be sapient. If it's at least as smart as you it's a person.

Broly.:smallwink:

And just in case I'm still violating that rule Homestar Runner.

[Razade]

1. Pokemon as a premise must allow for pokemon to be sapient as they must understand the abstract concept of a pokemon trainer training them to get stronger, as well as fighting types have an inherent sense of honor and fair play while dark types don't. As culturally, the Dark type is referred to as the "Evil" type in japan, and thus if there is morality, than there is sapience as you cannot have morality without sapience, furthermore there is a canonical human in Pokemon Black and White named N who can SPEAK and UNDERSTAND pokemon in an unexplained manner, who is your chief rival in the Unova region wanting them to be free.

Pokemon does not require sapience for it to work. Do you understand that we've trained rats to deactivate landmines? Or any number of things we've trained dogs or horses or dolphins or seals or...the list goes on. You can train animals and they don't have sapience. Your assertion that Pokemon MUST be sapient for them to train and get stronger is absurd. Second, just because the term for Dark in Japanese is AKU doesn't mean evil as in B E evil, it's used to mean Wickedness.

But even if it did mean "EVIL" animals have a sense of morality and empathy. They just do. Read this (http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html), it should get you started. You have a fundamental misunderstanding on just how amazingly complex actual animals are and then try and pass it off that Pokemon must be at least like humans to display the same basic aspects of real life animals. It's absurd.

N's understanding of Pokemon (among the other small number of NPCs that have the same skill) doesn't understand them because they speak in Japanese. He understands them on an emotional level and it's explicitely noted as something strange and supernatural. You also forget that N is WRONG. Black and White show overwhelmingly that N and his ideals are WRONG and that's why he starts to travel the world, to learn the truth of his ideals.



I'm confused as to why you insist so much on me being wrong.

Because you are? You make broad sweeping general statements without backing any of it up and then declare you're right because...well more on that below.


I think I'm right to be honest, your just moving the goalposts of canon.

1. You don't say? What a surprise you think you're right.

2. This is not a case of the Moving the Goal Post fallacy. It might be an Ignoratio Elenchi but I don't think saying "You're using material that isn't considered the main material so I am not going off your assumptions" is one of those either. Either way, learn your Logical Fallacies better before trying to use them on people.



Its all Pokemon therefore all canon, therefore I'm right, your just being very narrow as to what pokemon actually is, and boy has it come a long way from mere butterfly catching. Really, stop being a stick in the mud about canon, its a tired out argument. I hereby submit to all nerds that canon is meaningless and is only a term used to say "this thing is more valid than yours for no reason". and that whatever original meaning it once had, is now gone, and now used only for to say "I don't like it therefore its not valid".

Translation. Raziere is sick and tired of people pointing out his internal headcanon is wrong because it violates something the creators of the content have set forward and thus doesn't want people pointing it out anymore. Which is amusing because it is exactly the thing you are saying other people are doing.

I am happy to acknowledge that the Movies and the manga and the Anime all have some Pokemon that are clearly of Human Intelligence. They're all based off of the games. The games are the central canon, they're the only canon that matters when discussing things and ignoring all that I'm talking about Arceus from the game canon not your make believe feel good hopes and dreams fanfiction.


I like pokemon being sapient and the evidence that your ignoring says that your wrong, therefore you are. No matter how much you ignore it.

Oh well if that's the case! I like the idea that cats don't sleep but actually teleport to a mystical dream realm! The evidence I have to support it proves you're wrong therefore you are! No matter how much you try to ignore it! I'm just going to declare you're wrong and thus claim victory. *Slowclap*.


You know the thing I find silly about this whole argument?

Razade: You haven't said why you'd pick Arceus. What about it makes it the Coolest Pet Ever in your mind? Cuz if you're just munchkining, you're kinda missing the point of the question.

Who wouldn't want to own a god?

[Admiral Squish]

Who wouldn't want to own a god?

First of, holy crap, this is getting WAY too heated for a discussion over theoretical magic pets.

Second: You want to go with game-only canon and insist Arceus is non-sapient? Okay. That means your god-pet is not intelligent or obedient enough to understand/obey any commands detailed enough to be useful. If you can't communicate with it, how could you possibly teach it to, say, create ice cream on command, or make you immortal?

[Dienekes]

First of, holy crap, this is getting WAY too heated for a discussion over theoretical magic pets.

Second: You want to go with game-only canon and insist Arceus is non-sapient? Okay. That means your god-pet is not intelligent or obedient enough to understand/obey any commands detailed enough to be useful. If you can't communicate with it, how could you possibly teach it to, say, create ice cream on command, or make you immortal?

Well since we're going by game canon only, the only things that Arceus can learn to do is any 4 (and only 4) of these:
Seismic Toss, Cosmic Power, Natural Gift, Punishment, Gravity, Earth Power, Hyper Voice, Extreme Speed, Refresh, Future Sight, Recover, Hyper Beam, Perish Song, and Judgment

Depending on level, of course. I'm pretty sure plenty of those can break the world in some way.

[Lord Raziere]

First of, holy crap, this is getting WAY too heated for a discussion over theoretical magic pets.

Second: You want to go with game-only canon and insist Arceus is non-sapient? Okay. That means your god-pet is not intelligent or obedient enough to understand/obey any commands detailed enough to be useful. If you can't communicate with it, how could you possibly teach it to, say, create ice cream on command, or make you immortal?

Furthermore imagine trying to keep God-Pet under control! It would bark at the all the people who it believes are sinners just as a start and those barks would boom throughout the world as thunder and rumbles of the earth that people would fall down upon their knees and start praying in case its the end times, and of course when it jumps up and down in excitement forgetting a threat it causes earthquakes as an answer to those prayers, then there is the fact that when it goes to the bathroom it might cause another great flood for 40 days and 40 nights and you have to build an arc just to survive the ordeal with enough people to repopulate the planet, but then of course you'd have to feed it afterwards which would cause famine and thus make nations go to war over one another because a god-pet would eat ALL the crops, ALL of them, even those. and just when you think its over, he gets fleas which scratches off and thus unleashes the next horseman known as Plague, and when you play fetch with a bone, he is more likely to come bounding back with the Grim Reaper in his jaws than the bone you threw! :smalltongue:

[KillingAScarab]

'S interesting but I guess not surprising how many people are going to DnD. :smallsmile:I mean, I could go with something from Star Wars, but how many people who recognize something other than a Tauntaun won't argue with me that my choice isn't canon anymore?


Eh, maybe it would be better for food costs and such, but you can't really ride around on a miniature giant space hamster.There are other benefits. Confusion, for one, when you shout out, "Make way evil! I am armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!"

[Peelee]

I mean, I could go with something from Star Wars, but how many people who recognize something other than a Tauntaun won't argue with me that my choice isn't canon anymore?


AND MY AXE!

err... that is to say, me.

[Razade]

First of, holy crap, this is getting WAY too heated for a discussion over theoretical magic pets.

Second: You want to go with game-only canon and insist Arceus is non-sapient? Okay. That means your god-pet is not intelligent or obedient enough to understand/obey any commands detailed enough to be useful. If you can't communicate with it, how could you possibly teach it to, say, create ice cream on command, or make you immortal?

First of all, Arceus in the games is intelligent enough to follow commands. You can use him in Trainer Battles so he has to be that intelligent. Second, you also don't understand that Sapience =/= Intelligence. Thirdly...when did I say I wanted him to make me immortal or summon ice cream at will exactly? Let's forget that there are actual Pokemon that can make you Immortal and they're very clearly not sapient either according to game canon, but that's never been something I'm arguing for?

Lastly this all just betrays that you also have a fundamental misunderstanding on how much we can train actual living animals. Dolphins aren't sapient. We've trained them to do all sorts of military grade things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dolphin). Rats aren't sapient, we've trained them to hunt down landminds (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151006-giant-rats-landmines-cambodia-science-animals/). Arceus is at least as intelligent as a dolphin since he actually seems to understand some form of command. If that means he's sapient by your standards even in game canon than no single creature you can post in this thread will pass Rule 2. Except that's not what you're really having a problem with. Is it.

[druid91]

A Slaad Tadpole retrieved from the corpse of a 6th level human wizard.

I'd have to spend 2d12 hours feeding it large quantities of fresh meat, then it would grow up into a surprisingly intelligent giant green toadman that can cast spells. But prior to that point, it would be entirely animalistic.

From there, I have the best roommate ever. A spellcasting giant green toadman.

Or in a similarly gaming the system line of logic, A Lemure.

Why a Lemure you ask? Because Lemures are not sapient, but can be promoted to sapience (And also cooler forms.)

Why am I so intent on gaming the system? Because 900% of the cool monsters in D&D are sapient. Even the ones that it doesn't make sense for them to be. Plus who wouldn't want a Pit Fiend, who can't kill you, for a roommate?

[Forum Explorer]

First of all, Arceus in the games is intelligent enough to follow commands. You can use him in Trainer Battles so he has to be that intelligent. Second, you also don't understand that Sapience =/= Intelligence. Thirdly...when did I say I wanted him to make me immortal or summon ice cream at will exactly? Let's forget that there are actual Pokemon that can make you Immortal and they're very clearly not sapient either according to game canon, but that's never been something I'm arguing for?

Lastly this all just betrays that you also have a fundamental misunderstanding on how much we can train actual living animals. Dolphins aren't sapient. We've trained them to do all sorts of military grade things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dolphin). Rats aren't sapient, we've trained them to hunt down landminds (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151006-giant-rats-landmines-cambodia-science-animals/). Arceus is at least as intelligent as a dolphin since he actually seems to understand some form of command. If that means he's sapient by your standards even in game canon than no single creature you can post in this thread will pass Rule 2. Except that's not what you're really having a problem with. Is it.

The line between sapient and non-sapient is a really blurry one. For example, a lot of people will argue that monkey, great apes, whales, and dolphins are sapient, but don't possess the same level of intelligence as we do. It is certainly part of the reason that there is a social taboo against harming those animals, at least in the current day. (Well, in most Western societies. I don't think Eastern societies care)

But regardless, the Pokedex is canon for the games, and it describes Arceus as shaping the world. As in, a deliberate, thought out, act of creation. I'm pretty sure that would cross the threshold for sapience. There are likely pokemon who don't, but there are plenty of them who do.

Though if you look at the canon of pokemon as a whole, pokemon are consistently portrayed as being as smart as humans are, regardless of the species. Even in the games it's unclear how smart all pokemon are, though it's clear that some of them are very intelligent.

[druid91]

adjective: sapient

1.
wise, or attempting to appear wise.

adjective: wise

1.
having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.

Sapient is a terrible word with terrible definitions and was made by people who couldn't comprehend the idea of non-human intelligences and so they didn't care to make it make internal sense.

[golentan]

A Slaad Tadpole retrieved from the corpse of a 6th level human wizard.

I'd have to spend 2d12 hours feeding it large quantities of fresh meat, then it would grow up into a surprisingly intelligent giant green toadman that can cast spells. But prior to that point, it would be entirely animalistic.

From there, I have the best roommate ever. A spellcasting giant green toadman.

Or in a similarly gaming the system line of logic, A Lemure.

Why a Lemure you ask? Because Lemures are not sapient, but can be promoted to sapience (And also cooler forms.)

Why am I so intent on gaming the system? Because 900% of the cool monsters in D&D are sapient. Even the ones that it doesn't make sense for them to be. Plus who wouldn't want a Pit Fiend, who can't kill you, for a roommate?

It's not that it can't kill you, it's that it can't deliberately kill you, while it's your pet, which wouldn't necessarily apply when it becomes your roommate.

As far as fiends go, killing is not always the worst thing that they could do to you and...

You know what, I'm not gonna say you can't do this thing, I'm just gonna grab some popcorn.

[KillingAScarab]

AND MY AXE!

err... that is to say, me.Very well. While they weren't the most mobile animals, a ysalamir (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ysalamir) always sounded unique enough to get my attention. Lizards with fur which also fed on trees through their claws. Plus, like Admiral Thrawn, you can just make a backpack to lug one around in and then you're force immune.

[Peelee]

Very well. While they weren't the most mobile animals, a ysalamir (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ysalamir) always sounded unique enough to get my attention. Lizards with fur which also fed on trees through their claws. Plus, like Admiral Thrawn, you can just make a backpack to lug one around in and then you're force immune.

Your choice isn't canon anymore.:smalltongue:

For reals, though, that's a cool pick.

[nyjastul69]

The line between sapient and non-sapient is a really blurry one. For example, a lot of people will argue that monkey, great apes, whales, and dolphins are sapient, but don't possess the same level of intelligence as we do. It is certainly part of the reason that there is a social taboo against harming those animals, at least in the current day. (Well, in most Western societies. I don't think Eastern societies care)

But regardless, the Pokedex is canon for the games, and it describes Arceus as shaping the world. As in, a deliberate, thought out, act of creation. I'm pretty sure that would cross the threshold for sapience. There are likely pokemon who don't, but there are plenty of them who do.

Though if you look at the canon of pokemon as a whole, pokemon are consistently portrayed as being as smart as humans are, regardless of the species. Even in the games it's unclear how smart all pokemon are, though it's clear that some of them are very intelligent.

It seems to me that sapient is a poor descriptor for any creature. Is there a good definition of sapience? Is there one we can agree on? What exactly is sapience?

ETA: I quote to reinforce agreement.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Very well. While they weren't the most mobile animals, a ysalamir (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ysalamir) always sounded unique enough to get my attention. Lizards with fur which also fed on trees through their claws. Plus, like Admiral Thrawn, you can just make a backpack to lug one around in and then you're force immune.

Which is kind of irrelevant since there's nothing around that's Force Sensitive.:smallamused:

[Peelee]

Which is kind of irrelevant since there's nothing around that's Force Sensitive.:smallamused:

Maybe he wants to hide from the vornskrs.

[golentan]

Which is kind of irrelevant since there's nothing around that's Force Sensitive.:smallamused:

One of the rules is you can move in with your monster.

It could be very relevant if they moved to the star wars universe.

[KillingAScarab]

One of the rules is you can move in with your monster.

It could be very relevant if they moved to the star wars universe.On the one hand, if I go to Myrkr (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Myrkr) I get awesome furry lizard buddies that save me from the Sith and I possibly get to meet smugglers. On the other, the metalic plant life all over the planet will kill any chance at a WiFi signal. Decisions, decisions.

[Durkoala]

I'm going to go with pegasus, because I'm a simple man who just wants a flying horse. :smalltongue:

[-D-]

Ramiel.

He'll probably cause me to splatter, but it would be visually stunning. I don't know how smart he is, other than drill to the Geofront and kill the nukes.

[hamishspence]

It seems to me that sapient is a poor descriptor for any creature. Is there a good definition of sapience? Is there one we can agree on? What exactly is sapience?

In the Little Fuzzy novel, there were a number of examples given of the sort of thing that's expected of a sapient.

"talking" as opposed to "making calls/signals" was one. Building fires was another - but much less important ("Anything that builds fires is sapient, but that doesn't mean anything that doesn't, isn't")- and the Fuzzies didn't- but still qualified.


“Wait a minute,” Jack interrupted. “Before we go any deeper, let’s agree on a definition of sapience.”
Van Riebeek laughed. “Ever try to get a definition of life from a biologist?” he asked. “Or a definition of number from a mathematician?”
“That’s about it.” Ruth looked at the Fuzzies, who were looking at their colored-ball construction as though wondering if they could add anything more without spoiling the design. “I’d say: a level of mentation qualitatively different from nonsapience in that it includes ability to symbolize ideas and store and transmit them, ability to generalize and ability to form abstract ideas. There; I didn’t say a word about talk-and-build-a-fire, did I?”


“Well, the sapient mind can generalize. To the nonsapient animal, every experience is either totally novel or identical with some remembered experience. A rabbit will flee from one dog because to the rabbit mind it is identical with another dog that has chased it. A bird will be attracted to an apple, and each apple will be a unique red thing to peck at. The sapient being will say, ‘These red objects are apples; as a class, they are edible and flavorsome.’ He sets up a class under the general label of apples. This, in turn, leads to the formation of abstract ideas—redness, flavor, et cetera—conceived of apart from any specific physical object, and to the ordering of abstractions—‘fruit’ as distinguished from apples, ‘food’ as distinguished from fruit.”

Summary:

1: The ability to communicate within members of the same species
2: The ability to symbolize, which would lead to communication, but which one comes first is a chicken and the egg debate.
3: The ability to generalize, which leads to higher order abstractions.
4: The formation of higher order abstractions to the extent of the species known universe (You cannot communicate about things which have not been experienced or thought about by the people who utilize the language).

[golentan]

In the Little Fuzzy novel, there were a number of examples given of the sort of thing that's expected of a sapient.

"talking" as opposed to "making calls/signals" was one. Building fires was another - but much less important ("Anything that builds fires is sapient, but that doesn't mean anything that doesn't, isn't")- and the Fuzzies didn't- but still qualified.

Summary:

1: The ability to communicate within members of the same species
2: The ability to symbolize, which would lead to communication, but which one comes first is a chicken and the egg debate.
3: The ability to generalize, which leads to higher order abstractions.
4: The formation of higher order abstractions to the extent of the species known universe (You cannot communicate about things which have not been experienced or thought about by the people who utilize the language).

Sidenote? Little Fuzzy was one of my first Sci Fi stories, back when I was about 4 or 5. Loved it so much... I went as Little Fuzzy complete with one of the shellcracker tools for halloween, and had my dad dress up as Pappy Jack.

Of course, everyone assumed I was an Ewok, and that my dad was in a really bad Han Solo costume. :smalltongue:

[Lizard Lord]

Not all versions of dragons are sentient, so I think I will still say dragon.


Or maybe a dragon turtle since I could then have both a pet, a mode of transportation (at least on water) and a private island.

[KillingAScarab]

Not all versions of dragons are sentient, so I think I will still say dragon.


Or maybe a dragon turtle since I could then have both a pet, a mode of transportation (at least on water) and a private island.You might need to pick your dragon turtle wisely. In D&D 3.x (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTurtle.htm) they're intelligent enough to be ruled out. Don't forget, Gamera is Friend to Children (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FriendToAllChildren).

[Razade]

The line between sapient and non-sapient is a really blurry one. For example, a lot of people will argue that monkey, great apes, whales, and dolphins are sapient, but don't possess the same level of intelligence as we do. It is certainly part of the reason that there is a social taboo against harming those animals, at least in the current day. (Well, in most Western societies. I don't think Eastern societies care)

But regardless, the Pokedex is canon for the games, and it describes Arceus as shaping the world. As in, a deliberate, thought out, act of creation. I'm pretty sure that would cross the threshold for sapience. There are likely pokemon who don't, but there are plenty of them who do.

Though if you look at the canon of pokemon as a whole, pokemon are consistently portrayed as being as smart as humans are, regardless of the species. Even in the games it's unclear how smart all pokemon are, though it's clear that some of them are very intelligent.

Animals shape their environments. Birds build nests, apes use tools etc etc. Deliberate acts of shaping the environment isn't necessarily sapience. I agree, in some media it shows some Pokemon as intelligent. Such as the movies. Movies aren't canon though. There are no human level intelligences in the core games. Not even Mewtwo.


adjective: sapient

1.
wise, or attempting to appear wise.

adjective: wise

1.
having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.

Sapient is a terrible word with terrible definitions and was made by people who couldn't comprehend the idea of non-human intelligences and so they didn't care to make it make internal sense.

More than likely the case but it isn't my specification. Bring it up with OP. It's part of their criteria. Not mine.


It seems to me that sapient is a poor descriptor for any creature. Is there a good definition of sapience? Is there one we can agree on? What exactly is sapience?

ETA: I quote to reinforce agreement.

See above, take it up with OP. They need to clarify what they mean by sapience if they want to include it in their prohibitions.



1: The ability to communicate within members of the same species
2: The ability to symbolize, which would lead to communication, but which one comes first is a chicken and the egg debate.
3: The ability to generalize, which leads to higher order abstractions.
4: The formation of higher order abstractions to the extent of the species known universe (You cannot communicate about things which have not been experienced or thought about by the people who utilize the language).

I like this list.

1. Pokemon seem to be able to communicate within their species. Something real world animals can do. Crows have language with regional dialects even.
2. Pokemon do not seem to have the ability to convey ideas through writing or symbol use.
3. Pokemon do not seem to be able to generalize.
4. Pokemon seem to fail at this stage as well.

According to this list, no canon Pokemon game has shown any Pokemon. Not even Mewtwo seems to hit all four.

[hamishspence]

"Symbolize" in this case meant verbal symbols, and possibly sign language as well (Little Fuzzy's "warning, damthing (three-horned predator)" message involved putting his hand on his forehead and extending 3 fingers to make three horns, and his "shoot it" message involved extending an arm and making a barking noise - a pantomime of the shooting he'd already seen.)

“You know, I came out here loaded with suspicion. Not that I doubted your honesty; I just thought you’d let your obvious affection for the Fuzzies lead you into giving them credit for more intelligence than they possess. Now I think you’ve consistently understated it. Short of actual sapience, I’ve never seen anything like them.”

“Why short of it?” van Riebeek asked. “Ruth, you’ve been pretty quiet this evening. What do you think?”

Ruth Ortheris looked uncomfortable. “Gerd, it’s too early to form opinions like that. I know the way they’re working together looks like cooperation on an agreed-upon purpose, but I simply can’t make speech out of that yeek-yeek-yeek.”

“Let’s keep the talk-and-build-a-fire rule out of it,” van Riebeek said. “If they’re working together on a common project, they must be communicating somehow.”

“It isn’t communication, it’s symbolization. You simply can’t think sapiently except in verbal symbols. Try it. Not something like changing the spools on a recorder or field-stripping a pistol; they’re just learned tricks. I mean ideas.”

“How about Helen Keller?” Rainsford asked. “Mean to say she only started thinking sapiently after Anna Sullivan taught her what words were?”

“No, of course not. She thought sapiently—And she only thought in sense-imagery limited to feeling.” She looked at Rainsford reproachfully; he’d knocked a breach in one of her fundamental postulates. “Of course, she had inherited the cerebroneural equipment for sapient thinking.” She let that trail off, before somebody asked her how she knew that the Fuzzies hadn’t.

“I’ll suggest, just to keep the argument going, that speech couldn’t have been invented without pre-existing sapience,” Jack said.

Ruth laughed. “Now you’re taking me back to college. That used to be one of the burning questions in first-year psych students’ bull sessions. By the time we got to be sophomores, we’d realized that it was only an egg-and-chicken argument and dropped it.”

“I’d say: a level of mentation qualitatively different from nonsapience in that it includes ability to symbolize ideas and store and transmit them, ability to generalize and ability to form abstract ideas. There; I didn’t say a word about talk-and-build-a-fire, did I?”

“Little Fuzzy symbolizes and generalizes,” Jack said. “He symbolizes a damnthing by three horns, and he symbolizes a rifle by a long thing that points and makes noises. Rifles kill animals. Harpies and damnthings are both animals. If a rifle will kill a harpy, it’ll kill a damnthing too.”

Juan Jimenez had been frowning in thought; he looked up and asked, “What’s the lowest known sapient race?”

“Yggdrasil Khooghras,” Gerd van Riebeek said promptly. “Any of you ever been on Yggdrasil?”

“I saw a man shot once on Mimir, for calling another man a son of a Khooghra,” Jack said. “The man who shot him had been on Yggdrasil and knew what he was being called.”

“I spent a couple of years among them,” Gerd said. “They do build fires; I’ll give them that. They char points on sticks to make spears. And they talk. I learned their language, all eighty-two words of it. I taught a few of the intelligentsia how to use machetes without maiming themselves, and there was one mental giant I could trust to carry some of my equipment, if I kept an eye on him, but I never let him touch my rifle or my camera.”

“Can they generalize?” Ruth asked.

“Honey, they can’t do nothin’ else but! Every word in their language is a high-order generalization. Hroosha, live-thing. Noosha, bad-thing. Dhishta, thing-to-eat. Want me to go on? There are only seventy-nine more of them.”

[Peelee]

I'd imagine Alakazam would be closer to hitting all four than Mewtwo.

[Razade]

"Symbolize" in this case meant verbal symbols, and possibly sign language as well (Little Fuzzy's "warning, damthing (three-horned predator)" message involved putting his hand on his forehead and extending 3 fingers to make three horns, and his "shoot it" message involved extending an arm and making a barking noise - a pantomime of the shooting he'd already seen.)

“You know, I came out here loaded with suspicion. Not that I doubted your honesty; I just thought you’d let your obvious affection for the Fuzzies lead you into giving them credit for more intelligence than they possess. Now I think you’ve consistently understated it. Short of actual sapience, I’ve never seen anything like them.”

“Why short of it?” van Riebeek asked. “Ruth, you’ve been pretty quiet this evening. What do you think?”

Ruth Ortheris looked uncomfortable. “Gerd, it’s too early to form opinions like that. I know the way they’re working together looks like cooperation on an agreed-upon purpose, but I simply can’t make speech out of that yeek-yeek-yeek.”

“Let’s keep the talk-and-build-a-fire rule out of it,” van Riebeek said. “If they’re working together on a common project, they must be communicating somehow.”

“It isn’t communication, it’s symbolization. You simply can’t think sapiently except in verbal symbols. Try it. Not something like changing the spools on a recorder or field-stripping a pistol; they’re just learned tricks. I mean ideas.”

“How about Helen Keller?” Rainsford asked. “Mean to say she only started thinking sapiently after Anna Sullivan taught her what words were?”

“No, of course not. She thought sapiently—And she only thought in sense-imagery limited to feeling.” She looked at Rainsford reproachfully; he’d knocked a breach in one of her fundamental postulates. “Of course, she had inherited the cerebroneural equipment for sapient thinking.” She let that trail off, before somebody asked her how she knew that the Fuzzies hadn’t.

“I’ll suggest, just to keep the argument going, that speech couldn’t have been invented without pre-existing sapience,” Jack said.

Ruth laughed. “Now you’re taking me back to college. That used to be one of the burning questions in first-year psych students’ bull sessions. By the time we got to be sophomores, we’d realized that it was only an egg-and-chicken argument and dropped it.”

“I’d say: a level of mentation qualitatively different from nonsapience in that it includes ability to symbolize ideas and store and transmit them, ability to generalize and ability to form abstract ideas. There; I didn’t say a word about talk-and-build-a-fire, did I?”

“Little Fuzzy symbolizes and generalizes,” Jack said. “He symbolizes a damnthing by three horns, and he symbolizes a rifle by a long thing that points and makes noises. Rifles kill animals. Harpies and damnthings are both animals. If a rifle will kill a harpy, it’ll kill a damnthing too.”

Juan Jimenez had been frowning in thought; he looked up and asked, “What’s the lowest known sapient race?”

“Yggdrasil Khooghras,” Gerd van Riebeek said promptly. “Any of you ever been on Yggdrasil?”

“I saw a man shot once on Mimir, for calling another man a son of a Khooghra,” Jack said. “The man who shot him had been on Yggdrasil and knew what he was being called.”

“I spent a couple of years among them,” Gerd said. “They do build fires; I’ll give them that. They char points on sticks to make spears. And they talk. I learned their language, all eighty-two words of it. I taught a few of the intelligentsia how to use machetes without maiming themselves, and there was one mental giant I could trust to carry some of my equipment, if I kept an eye on him, but I never let him touch my rifle or my camera.”

“Can they generalize?” Ruth asked.

“Honey, they can’t do nothin’ else but! Every word in their language is a high-order generalization. Hroosha, live-thing. Noosha, bad-thing. Dhishta, thing-to-eat. Want me to go on? There are only seventy-nine more of them.”

Most Pokemon do seem to fail it still.


I'd imagine Alakazam would be closer to hitting all four than Mewtwo.

They do have an IQ at 5,000 but Pokemon has demonstrated that it doesn't quite understand...science...

[Dienekes]

Animals shape their environments. Birds build nests, apes use tools etc etc. Deliberate acts of shaping the environment isn't necessarily sapience. I agree, in some media it shows some Pokemon as intelligent. Such as the movies. Movies aren't canon though. There are no human level intelligences in the core games. Not even Mewtwo.


Isn't Alakazam specifically mentioned as having an IQ in the thousands in Pokémon red and blue?

Wouldn't any measure of being able to test that basically force them to have beyond human level intelligence.

Then I'm sure there are Pokémon legendaries that are the embodiment of intelligence or something weird. I have not kept up to date on Pokémon stuff.

[Razade]

Isn't Alakazam specifically mentioned as having an IQ in the thousands in Pokémon red and blue?

Hey, wasn't I just..



They do have an IQ at 5,000 but Pokemon has demonstrated that it doesn't quite understand...science...

Yep.


Wouldn't any measure of being able to test that basically force them to have beyond human level intelligence.

Then I'm sure there are Pokémon legendaries that are the embodiment of intelligence or something weird. I have not kept up to date on Pokémon stuff.

You'd think a being with over 5,000 IQ (itself an outdated and even for the time criticized measuring tool) you wouldn't be trapped in a ball following the whims of children whose own Pokeballs haven't dropped yet. But what do I know, my IQ isn't 5,000.

If Alakazam's IQ really is 5,000 they don't behave in a way that reflects that. Just like Magcargo isn't melting everything in the known world (or evaporating it) with its body temperature of 18,000F. Water vaporizes on contact it says in the Pokedex entry. Contact with the air about three feet from its body maybe. It's body is hotter than lightning. Or boiling steel. OR A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. Tyranitar's very existance requires maps to be rewritten because it levels mountains and changes the paths of rivers. The Pokedex is prone to a little bit of hyperbole. Alakazam is also noted as having that high of IQ. As opposed to the 802 other Pokemon that don't have that high of IQ.

[Peelee]

Well, to be fair, that same writeup claimed they never forget anything the learn. In a game with a core mechanic of maxing out at 4 moves, with a new move requiring a pokemon to forget an old move.

I don't think internal consistency with the Pokedex fluff entries was all that emphasized.

If Alakazam's IQ really is 5,000 they don't behave in a way that reflects that. Just like Magcargo isn't melting everything in the known world (or evaporating it) with its body temperature of 18,000F.....It's body is hotter than lightning.

Also, apparently lightning can get up to 53,000º F. Maybe you meant the surface of the sun?

[Dienekes]

Hey, wasn't I just..



Yep.



You'd think a being with over 5,000 IQ (itself an outdated and even for the time criticized measuring tool) you wouldn't be trapped in a ball following the whims of children whose own Pokeballs haven't dropped yet. But what do I know, my IQ isn't 5,000.

If Alakazam's IQ really is 5,000 they don't behave in a way that reflects that. Just like Magcargo isn't melting everything in the known world (or evaporating it) with its body temperature of 18,000F. Water vaporizes on contact it says in the Pokedex entry. Contact with the air about three feet from its body maybe. It's body is hotter than lightning. Or boiling steel. OR A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. Tyranitar's very existance requires maps to be rewritten because it levels mountains and changes the paths of rivers. The Pokedex is prone to a little bit of hyperbole. Alakazam is also noted as having that high of IQ. As opposed to the 802 other Pokemon that don't have that high of IQ.

That's nice and all, but that still leaves Alakazam as being above human intelligence. Just lazy, or whatever reason you want to give them for not using their intelligence. You said we're only using the games, so we will use the games. And by the games there definitely are pokemon that are insanely intelligent. Perhaps no others are as intelligent as Alakazam, sure, but that door is now opened. Pokemon can have human intelligence. We don't know what's going on for every other pokemon because the lore doesn't tell us, but there is always the possibility that they are of human intelligence or higher.

Now, personally, I'd edge on the side of caution that the personification of intelligence (or pokesonification?) would also be beyond us humans (Uxie is the pokemon, apparently), and the actual God is probably up there as well. I can't prove it of course, but that seems reasonable. Then there's things like Metagross that's smarter than a supercomputer.

Yes, pokemon science is ****, absolute ****. But that's still the lore of the game. You can't just pick and choose what you want to believe to fit what you want to be true. The games say what's true, and we don't really get to say anything about it until the games tell us otherwise.

[Lord Raziere]

Then I'm sure there are Pokémon legendaries that are the embodiment of intelligence or something weird. I have not kept up to date on Pokémon stuff.

Well there is the Lake Trio called Azelf, Mesprit and Uxie, who gave humanity willpower, emotion and knowledge respectively, all three of which created by Arceus.

There is also the Tao trio, Reshiram (who represents and sides with Truth) and Zekrom (who represents and sides with ideals) and Kyurem who is an absence of those and waits to be filled with either. they split off because two people argued and one disagreed with the other.

There is also the Swords of Justice (Terrakion, Virizon, Cobalion and Keldeo)

Ho-oh, who got ticked when humanity started wars and thus flew off to go find a trainer of pure heart while never forgiving humanity for hundreds of years.

Cresselia and Darkrai who represent and control dreams and nightmares respectively.

Victini who just outright controls the concept of VICTORY. as in, makes anyone able to win. At anything. not just predator/prey stuff, anything.

very abstract conflicts and representations for lowly animals.

That and Celebi who travels through time to fix various problems? I somehow think using workable time travel that doesn't result in universe destruction and instead actually improves things despite any logical paradoxes or loops it might cause is pretty far up there on the intelligence scale. Maybe even more intelligent than us. Not even we know how that would work after all.

and Jirachi grants wishes, which I think requires a basic understanding of what a wish is and how to understand the person making the wish.

all this is very abstract intangible stuff that I wouldn't expect even the most intelligent animal to understand. no amount of tool use is going to allow you understand these things. or have pointless arguments over high-minded philosophy like truth and ideals, or be petty enough to forever do battle over those two concepts. thats stupidity only an intelligent person can come up with.

[Razade]

Well there is the Lake Trio called Azelf, Mesprit and Uxie, who gave humanity willpower, emotion and knowledge respectively, all three of which created by Arceus.

According to Mythology. Sinnoh Mythology specifically. You're also aware that something can grant the property of something without having it themselves right?


There is also the Tao trio, Reshiram (who represents and sides with Truth) and Zekrom (who represents and sides with ideals) and Kyurem who is an absence of those and waits to be filled with either. they split off because two people argued and one disagreed with the other.

Which...means what? Never in Black and White is it claimed that Reshiram or Zekrom's existence create Truth. Again, Truth isn't something only intelligence requires.


There is also the Swords of Justice (Terrakion, Virizon, Cobalion and Keldeo)

And? What? What's your point? That they exist? I know they exist, I've 100%'d every core Pokemon game that's come out. The Swords of Justice is a title. I don't even think they're ever called it in the games even. They also don't create Justice in the Universe.


Ho-oh, who got ticked when humanity started wars and thus flew off to go find a trainer of pure heart while never forgiving humanity for hundreds of years.

Tricking animals into fighting wars isn't hard. The Russians strapped bombs to dogs and trained them to crawl under tacks with sausages. Animals not liking being abused also isn't a high bar. Animals know "being hurt is bad. Find something that doesn't hurt." Animals also, as previously mentioned, hold grudges and understand the concept of forgiveness and fairness.


Cresselia and Darkrai who represent and control dreams and nightmares respectively.

And...what? A property of an animal doesn't imply sapience. Cuttlefish can control tiny cells in their bodies and camouflage themselves


Victini who just outright controls the concept of VICTORY. as in, makes anyone able to win. At anything. not just predator/prey stuff, anything.

That's not accurate. It just never loses. Which isn't TRUE. It loses all the time. It's typing is terrible! It's weak to Water, Dark, Ground, Rock and Ghost.


very abstract conflicts and representations for lowly animals.

Animals being able to do abstract concepts doesn't equal sapience. We have had horses and elephants that paint. We don't count them as Sapient. The functions of an animal are merely the functions of an Animal regardless of how abstract they may or may not be. A farting ham sandwich that makes Universes isn't spaient. It merely makes Universes. That's what it does. There doesn't need to be beyond animal (or even animal) intelligence invovled.


That and Celebi who travels through time to fix various problems? I somehow think using workable time travel that doesn't result in universe destruction and instead actually improves things despite any logical paradoxes or loops it might cause is pretty far up there on the intelligence scale. Maybe even more intelligent than us. Not even we know how that would work after all.

Except the Pokedex says it only appears in Peaceful Times. Also, again, being able to do something if it's part of your function doesn't imply intelligence. A computer isn't intelligent because it can solve complex math equations. It simply does them. Equating complex of abstract functions to intelligence is wrong.


and Jirachi grants wishes, which I think requires a basic understanding of what a wish is and how to understand the person making the wish.

So does the The Cintamani Stone. So does a Monkey Paw. People make wishes on shooting stars, they lack the ability to understand people to make the wish. Hell, the last one is what Jirachi is based off of. Granting wishes does not require the wish granter to be intelligent. Again. Complex and abstract function does not require intelligence.


all this is very abstract intangible stuff that I wouldn't expect even the most intelligent animal to understand. no amount of tool use is going to allow you understand these things. or have pointless arguments over high-minded philosophy like truth and ideals, or be petty enough to forever do battle over those two concepts. thats stupidity only an intelligent person can come up with.

What you expect and what reality is are two different things. I can't repeat this enough. How abstract or complex something is does not tell you anything about how intelligent a thing has to be to fulfill those functions. All it tells you is that they fulfill those functions. That's it. It does not take intelligence to make a Universe (and that's....probably where I should stop that bit). It does not take Intelligence to time travel. It does not take Intelligence to grant wishes or grant the idea of a concept or the ability to have a concept.

[Dienekes]

According to Mythology. Sinnoh Mythology specifically. You're also aware that something can grant the property of something without having it themselves right? You're wrong though. It's not Humanity, Emotion and Knowledge. It's Knowledge, Emotion (two things that animals have) and WILLPOWER. Another thing animals have.

Before you get yourself in a large self-congratulatory fiesta, you might want to reread the sentence that you quoted.

[The_Snark]

Arceus from Pokemon. Easy.

The anime isn't canon. Only the core games are canon.

So... what good is an Arceus doing you, in that case? I agree that Pokemon as depicted in the games appear to be basically animals; the ones that the Pokedex claims are as smart as humans (or smarter) don't act any different from the rest. The trained ones follow people around and obey commands to fight and so on, the wild ones do... whatever it is they do when they're lurking in the tall grass.

However, if you're insisting that anything outside the core games doesn't count, that means that you get the depiction of Arceus in the game, which is to say a powerful tool for Pokemon battling. You can command it to use Hyper Beams and stuff, I guess. It's not a creator god, it can't raise the dead or stop time or end scarcity or whatever you were hoping for, because it doesn't do that in the games. Maybe it can in the anime or the manga, but you've already discounted that as a source. All you've got is a Pokedex entry relating a myth about it creating the world - not even presented as fact - and if you're going to not only accept that as truth but extrapolate fantastic cosmic powers, you really shouldn't be dismissing the similar entries claiming that Alakazam has a million IQ, and so on.

[Razade]

Before you get yourself in a large self-congratulatory fiesta, you might want to reread the sentence that you quoted.

Whoops, you're right. Egg on my face there though I can only sift through terrible arguments for so long before it becomes one big gray blur.


So... what good is an Arceus doing you, in that case? I agree that Pokemon as depicted in the games appear to be basically animals; the ones that the Pokedex claims are as smart as humans (or smarter) don't act any different from the rest. The trained ones follow people around and obey commands to fight and so on, the wild ones do... whatever it is they do when they're lurking in the tall grass.

However, if you're insisting that anything outside the core games doesn't count, that means that you get the depiction of Arceus in the game, which is to say a powerful tool for Pokemon battling. You can command it to use Hyper Beams and stuff, I guess. It's not a creator god, it can't raise the dead or stop time or end scarcity or whatever you were hoping for, because it doesn't do that in the games. Maybe it can in the anime or the manga, but you've already discounted that as a source. All you've got is a Pokedex entry relating a myth about it creating the world - not even presented as fact - and if you're going to not only accept that as truth but extrapolate fantastic cosmic powers, you really shouldn't be dismissing the similar entries claiming that Alakazam has a million IQ, and so on.

It's still one of the most powerful and versatile Pokemon around? I never once claimed I wanted or hoped it'd make Universes, that's just people assuming and arguing strawmen really.

[The_Snark]

Fair enough. I think I'd prefer something that can teleport but I guess that's a matter of preference.

[Lord Raziere]

Razade, I feel as if you really moving the goalposts as to what counts as a person here.

Like really pushing them as far as you can. Why do you care so much? You've given us a bunch of reasons why you wouldn't count Pokemon as people, yet you have yet to give us clear criteria as to what you WOULD consider a pokemon that wouldn't count as a pet.

Like, I don't really value pokemon the way you do. If pokemon were real, I'd much rather go capture a Ralts and a Riolu and raise them to be my best personal friends ever whose Aura and telepathy powers understand me on a level no other being can, but then I couldn't count either as pets- I wouldn't want such an unequal relationship, those tend to only be exploitive, I like my relationships being equal, mutual respect and friendliness y'know? If I went and tried to capture Arceus, god of all pokemon it'd just be this big pain:

1. There would be no guarantee that when I caught Arceus, that he'd ever obey me. the whole badge/level obey thing is a game mechanic, and a real pokemon world wouldn't follow the mechanics to a T. Its very possible that people have tried to catch and use Arceus for their own exploitive gain before and well, we all know how well trying to exploit godlike being like that turns out in fiction.

2.. Even if I managed to control him enough to start these exploits, people would soon notice and start coming to beg me to solve everyone's problems. Suddenly everyone would expect me, as the controller of god, to become god. and there is no guarantee that I'd do a good job. There is a catch to everything. For some reason I doubt that if I actually had control Arceus, that things would be as simple as "hey solve this problem for me" every time something comes up.

and such and so on.

that and one last thing to think about: would you rather have Gardevoir as a viable pet for this thread, or as an equal being who gets treated with respect? Because I'd rather not have the former myself. Better to have pokemon be people instead than to have that stupid horribleness.

[Razade]

Razade, I feel as if you really moving the goalposts as to what counts as a person here.

I have been utterly consistent. You don't know what moving the goalposts is. Simply pointing out why your arguments are flawed isn't moving the goal posts. :smalltongue:


Like really pushing them as far as you can. Why do you care so much? You've given us a bunch of reasons why you wouldn't count Pokemon as people, yet you have yet to give us clear criteria as to what you WOULD consider a pokemon that wouldn't count as a pet.

An. Animal. I think I've been pretty clear.


Like, I don't really value pokemon the way you do. If pokemon were real, I'd much rather go capture a Ralts and a Riolu and raise them to be my best personal friends ever whose Aura and telepathy powers understand me on a level no other being can, but then I couldn't count either as pets- I wouldn't want such an unequal relationship, those tend to only be exploitive, I like my relationships being equal, mutual respect and friendliness y'know? If I went and tried to capture Arceus, god of all pokemon it'd just be this big pain:

What the hell are you talking about? Pokemon are pets in the games. Tons of people just have them outside pokeballs in their homes and talk about them like people talk about their dogs. Forming bonds of friendship isn't something you don't do with a pet. What do you think a pet is exactly? Do you think any single person owning a cat is exploiting the cat? Do you think a dog owner is somehow exploiting their animals?


1. There would be no guarantee that when I caught Arceus, that he'd ever obey me. the whole badge/level obey thing is a game mechanic, and a real pokemon world wouldn't follow the mechanics to a T. Its very possible that people have tried to catch and use Arceus for their own exploitive gain before and well, we all know how well trying to exploit godlike being like that turns out in fiction.

I'd like to earn the badges? That'd be great, I'd love to travel the world and fight trainers. That seems fine with me! Where can I do that, sign me up. Sign me up yesterday. Where do I go to get my Starter Pokemon? I pick Fennekin btw. Guess I have to start in Kalos then, that's only sorta a bummer. I'll get used to eating snails. But seriously, when can I start? I need to let everyone know I'm going on a Pokemon adventure.

Have you also missed that I don't want an Arceus to exploit it and you telling me that's the only reason I want it doesn't make it so?


2.. Even if I managed to control him enough to start these exploits, people would soon notice and start coming to beg me to solve everyone's problems. Suddenly everyone would expect me, as the controller of god, to become god. and there is no guarantee that I'd do a good job. There is a catch to everything. For some reason I doubt that if I actually had control Arceus, that things would be as simple as "hey solve this problem for me" every time something comes up.

Arceus is genderless last I checked, its a Legendary after all. Well technically Mythical but that's splitting hairs.

You making up catches also doesn't make them so no matter how wildly you invent them or how baseless they are.

Once again, I'm not saying I want Arceus for the reasons you have ascribed me. Your counter-argument is moot on merit of it countering something I haven't said.


that and one last thing to think about: would you rather have Gardevoir as a viable pet for this thread, or as an equal being who gets treated with respect? Because I'd rather not have the former myself. Better to have pokemon be people instead than to have that stupid horribleness.

The fact that you don't think an animal can't be both says a lot more about you than it does about me frankly. I've owned animals plenty of times before and guess what? I treated them with the same sort of love and respect and afforded them the same rights I'd afford any other human being I know. I had two dogs get cancer and I took the inordinate emotional and financial burden of putting them through chemo just to give them even one more day without pain and suffering and sickness. I did it because I loved them, they were everything to me and made my world that much brighter for having been in them. I don't know what you think a pet is exactly, but it certainly isn't what I think of when someone says pet. Frankly Raziere I think how I'm describing pet is better than either two options you thrust at me.

Ownership isn't slavery. It's not a blank check to just do what ever you want to a thing. Owning a dog doesn't mean it's your slave, you don't get to put cigarette butts out on it and leave it outside in subzero weather because well..it's just something you own. True, you haven't said that that is inherent in ownership but this strange dichotomy you have between the word pet and "equal being" seems to imply at least a similar division. I own a dog in the same sort of way one is responsible for their child before they can make their own decisions. Sadly dogs cannot make their own decisions in so far as our human society is concerned. We sort of bred dogs not to be able to deal with the rigors of the wilds either. Feral dogs have less enjoyable, safe and healthy lives compared to dogs living in a home. Even a non-loving home. My pets are always part of my family. My pets are given the utmost care at the ability for me to provide and pay for. My pets, no matter the circumstances, are to be respected by anyone who even hopes to come into my home. My pets, no matter the circumstances, are to be respected period. Anyone even daring to consider treating my pets differently would very swiftly find why we name storms after people. If I had a Pokemon it'd be the same.

[Lord Raziere]

Look I'm just saying:

picture a Gardevoir on a leash.

Something seems wrong about that. Your constant insistence that they are pets implies that is ok. Me, Pokemon they should be more than pets because they clearly are. They have expanded beyond that long ago. With all side games your ignoring just so you can make your argument "right", which is where you moved the goalposts by the way by saying anything but the games you like don't count because its not your canon, when really a more accurate judgement of any franchise is as a whole in its entirety rather than rabidly cutting out any part they don't like for arbitrary reasons.

I mean, its not as if any of the actual companies and corporations who make this stuff care about canon. They don't give a rats tail about it. Canon is only worth as much as the money it makes them. And given how much franchises like these love to make non-canon stuff just to make more money, that apparently isn't much. Star Wars canon? look how much Disney valued that. They just said boom, reboot, threw away everything EU made before Force Awakens. And just how many times has Marvel/DC rebooted their canon without a second thought? Or make side stories and so on that in some cases are BETTER than their "canon". Nintendo? just look at all the non-canon pokemon stuff they've made. They don't care about canon or any of that nonsense, they just make pokemon things that people like. Canon is a fan invention, and not really all that valuable of a thing.

Me, I have a more accurate view of what pokemon is, because your narrowing your view by saying that there is a "true pokemon" that is somehow "more elite" than the rest of the franchise, when really that doesn't exist, there is really no point to establishing a canon, and its stopping progress of what a story or universe can be simply because of random reasons that don't make any sense. You don't have a more accurate view of pokemon, you have narrower view of it. And I don't feel as your respecting my view of pokemon which is wider, which can be more than just what you say it is. There is so much that Pokemon can be that is more than what you say it is, and has been. Just because you have a narrower view doesn't mean your view is more accurate.

[Razade]

Look I'm just saying:

picture a Gardevoir on a leash.

Not my fetish thanks. I'd wager a "Pokemon in leashes" google search would get you exactly what you want though. Just remember to turn Google's Safe Search Filter off before you do.


Something seems wrong about that. Your constant insistence that they are pets implies that is ok.

It's only creepy because you picked one of the few (but startlingly growing number of) humanoid Pokemon. In The Biz(TM) we call that only slightly manipulative. Imagine a leash on a Zigzagoon and it becomes way less weird. Picture a Furfrou or Houndoom on a leash, it's easy. Because they're DOGS.



Me, Pokemon they should be more than pets because they clearly are. They have expanded beyond that long ago. With all side games your ignoring just so you can make your argument "right", which is where you moved the goalposts by the way by saying anything but the games you like don't count because its not your canon, when really a more accurate judgement of any franchise is as a whole in its entirety rather than rabidly cutting out any part they don't like for arbitrary reasons.

Again, you keep using the word pet as if that's some sort of pejorative and I'm not exactly sure why. Pokemon are absolutely pets in the games. I've already pointed out that people take care of them like pets. Talk about them like they're pets. There are FARMS for Miltank. There are FARMS for Skiddo and Gogoat. There are HOMELESS SKIDDO. HOMELESS. GODDAMNED. SKIDDO. You don't farm non-animals without some serious human rights violations going on. You don't cheerfully comment on how cute the homeless and soon to be feral Lumiose Skiddo population is if they're more than animals. If they're Lumiose regular Homeless People you spit on them and tell them to get a job more than likely. Well this is Pokemon and they're kids games so they probably just make them vagabond scamps like **** Van Dike in Mary Poppins and move on with your life. My point is Pokemon are shown in the games as animals. Not as people or near people.

Moving the goalposts also isn't me saying "those aren't canon". That's not a Moving the Goalposts Fallacy. It'd be Cherry Picking, if you're going to accuse me of a fallacy make sure it's the right one instead of repeating the one you've already demonstrated you don't know. It's not cherry picking though, the main Pokemon cannon are the games made by Gamefreak. Which are the core games. Gamefreak didn't make any of the Mystery Dungeon games. Chunsoft did. Gamefreak didn't make the Pokemon Rangers series. HAL Laboratory and Creatures Inc. did. The Pokemon Company (which ALSO isn't Gamefreak) only published those games. They weren't made by or had any direct input from anyone who made Pokemon Red/Green/Blue/Yellow. They aren't canon. Gamefreak has little input on the anime as well. They have even less input on the movies. They aren't canon either. They're over glorified Fanfiction. Over glorified Fanfiction with the tacit approval of the creators but Fanfiction all the same. Gamefreak has made Pokemon Blue/Red/Green/Yellow/Gold/Silver/Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald/Diamond/Pearl/Platinum/Black(2)/White(2)/X/Y and Sun/Moon. That's. The. Canon. Because that's the series the original creators have had direct creative control over.


I mean, its not as if any of the actual companies and corporations who make this stuff care about canon. They don't give a rats tail about it. Canon is only worth as much as the money it makes them. And given how much franchises like these love to make non-canon stuff just to make more money, that apparently isn't much. Star Wars canon? look how much Disney valued that. They just said boom, reboot, threw away everything EU made before Force Awakens. And just how many times has Marvel/DC rebooted their canon without a second thought? Or make side stories and so on that in some cases are BETTER than their "canon". Nintendo? just look at all the non-canon pokemon stuff they've made. They don't care about canon or any of that nonsense, they just make pokemon things that people like. Canon is a fan invention, and not really all that valuable of a thing.

You're right, they don't. They just wanna make money. They leave it to internet nerds to argue about it. The majority of the fandom however agrees that the main games are canon so whatcha gonna do. Star War canon was always just the movies, anyone who thought otherwise was fooling themselves. It goes back to me pointing out only the direct creators get to determine what's canon and that determination is who ever owns the rights to the core series. Nintendo doesn't actually own the rights to Pokemon...kinda..that's legal stuff and legal stuff isn't allowed on the forums. Needless to say, Nintendo was just a Publisher, Gamefreak is the company with nominal creative rights. I know you want to shuck off canon because you've been told one too many times your pet theories and fanfiction are against the actual story by the author and therefore hold a grudge against it anytime it's mentioned but that's just too bad.


Me, I have a more accurate view of what pokemon is, because your narrowing your view by saying that there is a "true pokemon" that is somehow "more elite" than the rest of the franchise, when really that doesn't exist, there is really no point to establishing a canon, and its stopping progress of what a story or universe can be simply because of random reasons that don't make any sense. You don't have a more accurate view of pokemon, you have narrower view of it. And I don't feel as your respecting my view of pokemon which is wider, which can be more than just what you say it is. There is so much that Pokemon can be that is more than what you say it is, and has been. Just because you have a narrower view doesn't mean your view is more accurate.

Not only do you not have the "more accurate" view on what Pokemon is, I have never once said the words "true Pokemon" or "Elite Pokemon". You can, and do not need my permission to, put words into my mouth but I am going to call you out on it every time you do it because you are engaging in Straw Manning and since you are ever so eager to (incorrectly) try and throw fallacies at me I feel justified in doing the same to you. You have continuously strawmanned me to a point I've had to go back and read my own (utterly insufferable posts. I'm not surprised you're strawmanning me. Those posts must be way more fun to read than my pedantic scrawl) arguments to make sure we're in the same universe. All that said, you don't get to simply declare victory by saying you win. You don't get to claim a "more accurate" anything simply because you want something to be the way you want it and therefore you win either.

I get it Raziere, I do. You have some romantic ideal that Pokemon are your best buddies and can sense your emotions and all sorts of things and when someone points out that your ideas just don't hold any weight outside spin offs (the very term spin-off by the way implies mere association, not full connection to the main product) you want to stomp your feet and shout how I'm looking at things in a narrow way. It makes you uncomfortable to think of your special friends as nothing more than a highly trained pet or animal doing it's function. That's fine, that's absolutely fine. But when you come at me with your Fanfiction held high I am totally in my right to disregard it as exactly what it is and what it is is what I've said a dozen times now. It's Fanfiction.

Well Raziere I don't find your fanfiction persuasive or honestly adding anything of significant merit to the Pokemon games. I actually find they take something away.

Consider for a moment strapping your best friend down in a ball, only letting them out to see the sunlight to pummel other peoples best friends down into the dirt only to return to some claustrophobic hellhole just to do it all over again. Consider pumping your best friends full of antibiotics and medicine when they get sick and beat up because instead of letting them be free to do what ever they want to do. I could barely give my dogs shots because they'd cry and whine and hide when they knew it was time for their medicine. I couldn't even think of doing it every day because some jerk in tall grass decided he loved shorts and rattatta enough to stand around long enough to waylay me. I don't like when people try to equate Pokemon to cockfighting. I don't enjoy it when people try to explain how Pokemon are more than animals doing what they do in nature (which is fight) because I don't like it when people try to make Pokemon GRIM/DARK. But your Fanfiction, if you're going to be honest and realistic, is by necessity all the terrible horrible things people try to say the games are if you peel back the skin a little.

So you can sit there and tell me your Fanfiction is more accurate than me following the main storyline created by the original Dev Studio all you'd like. Nothing I say is going to dissuade you. But I sure as hell am glad the Dev Studio disagrees with you. I wouldn't want to play your Pokemon Game.

[tantric]

froghemoth, no question - i painted this on my kitchen divider

http://drive.google.com/uc?id=0BzcTNXtg10ytd3pkeXBtOE9HVnM

[Lleban]

...So I'm thinking i want an iron golem, and not just cuz I love the Iron giant.

[Lord Raziere]

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because your pokemon sounds like the grimdark one. It means that only humans are people and that all pokemon are just mindless beasts who only want to eat or to mate, and that means your taking advantage of them by capturing them rather than them being intelligent enough to be willing to come with you. there is no official word on what actually occurs inside a pokeball, so given that Pokemon is full of advanced tech and people wouldn't design a pokeball that pokemon wouldn't be comfortable in, its safe to say that its probably pretty homey.

Because honestly, pokemon eating each other and being eaten by humans because they animals is more grimdark to me. pokemon being nothing but your stamps that you put in your PC as a collection is more grimdark to me than them being people who y'know, get sent to environments where they are cared for? Honestly, the pokemon your describe where sapience doesn't seem to have much meaning is more grimdark to me, as well as all the pokedex entries being canon where they are describe as predators, and so on and so forth.

and your using fan fiction as a pejorative. The only fan fiction that exists are ones that aren't made by a company. anything else is just being overly technical, and while I get that nerds love to be technical, it gets tiring being technical. I prefer to be practical and accepting rather than technical and rejecting of anything that isn't canon. your the one being angry over my views, I'm just trying to state my own, be honest and chill. And to be honest, you don't get to say that your view of something is more valid than mine in this conversation. Canon is subjective at best 1% of the time, nonexistent at all other times.

Really, I don't understand the impulse to say "there is only thing and always only this one consistent thing! everything else is invalid!" when life grows and develops and makes it so that there are thousands of possibilities more than the single one you argue for so vehemently. What makes it so special? Nothing, really. and there is no point to shutting all those possibilities off. When you can always keep them around, maybe use them someday for something you don't expect.

Pokemon as people is less grimdark because that means there is more understanding between humans and pokemon, there are more possibilities, and there is no stupid predators and prey, you can tell more stories that way, and have more humor. the way I see it, its your view that leads to grimdarkness, but hey its subjective, and you can call it fan-fiction all you want but the anime, the movies, the Mystery Dungeons, they are all things are pretty accepted as apart of pokemon, and if we're really being technical as you like since Ash-Greninja can be transferred into Sun/Moon, a Greninja who was caught on the day that Ash's Froakie was caught, has an OT of Ash, and is canon pokemon in the Sun/Moon games. So Ash by that measure is canon, therefore the anime is canon.

[Fri]

Economists are the real monster.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/golden-eggs

[Razade]

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because your pokemon sounds like the grimdark one. It means that only humans are people and that all pokemon are just mindless beasts who only want to eat or to mate, and that means your taking advantage of them by capturing them rather than them being intelligent enough to be willing to come with you. there is no official word on what actually occurs inside a pokeball, so given that Pokemon is full of advanced tech and people wouldn't design a pokeball that pokemon wouldn't be comfortable in, its safe to say that its probably pretty homey.

Going "I know you are but what am I" isn't the most stirring defense. Humans are the only people. I didn't say they were mindless, I said they weren't sapient which aren't the same things.


Because honestly, pokemon eating each other and being eaten by humans because they animals is more grimdark to me.

*Ahem*

Garchomp: It can fly at speeds rivaling jet planes. It dives into flocks of bird Pokémon and gulps the entire flock down whole.
Sliggoo: It has trouble drawing a line between friends and food. It will calmly try to melt and eat even those it gets along well with.
Froslass: When it finds humans or Pokémon it likes, it freezes them and takes them to its chilly den, where they become decorations.

Just saying. It's in the games. That's not my interpretation, that's straight from Pokemon Sun.



pokemon being nothing but your stamps that you put in your PC as a collection is more grimdark to me than them being people who y'know, get sent to environments where they are cared for? Honestly, the pokemon your describe where sapience doesn't seem to have much meaning is more grimdark to me, as well as all the pokedex entries being canon where they are describe as predators, and so on and so forth.

So...you're going to say that the games hold less importance to you than others but complain that I'm being too narrow? Alright. Also yet more strawmanning. I never claimed anything like what you're saying I am claiming. There's no reason to refute you when you're just going to keep making stuff up. Strawmanning yet again.



and your using fan fiction as a pejorative. The only fan fiction that exists are ones that aren't made by a company. anything else is just being overly technical, and while I get that nerds love to be technical, it gets tiring being technical. I prefer to be practical and accepting rather than technical and rejecting of anything that isn't canon. your the one being angry over my views, I'm just trying to state my own, be honest and chill. And to be honest, you don't get to say that your view of something is more valid than mine in this conversation. Canon is subjective at best 1% of the time, nonexistent at all other times.

Sure am! Better than telling people they can't love their pets though. You have a weird definition of what can or can't be fanfiction. As soon as someone becomes an LLC their work immediately becomes not fanfiction? Ok. You're also absolutely anything but practical. I'm also not angry, stop projecting man.



Really, I don't understand the impulse to say "there is only thing and always only this one consistent thing! everything else is invalid!" when life grows and develops and makes it so that there are thousands of possibilities more than the single one you argue for so vehemently. What makes it so special? Nothing, really. and there is no point to shutting all those possibilities off. When you can always keep them around, maybe use them someday for something you don't expect.

Because there being multiple things doesn't mean all of them are correct? Or good? Or valid? Or reasonable? Or valuable? Or important? Or...etc etc etc. I love nuance. Go look at some other posts where I discuss things with other people. I'm all about the nuance. I love discussing the gray areas. I haven't said the movies don't exist or the side games don't exist. I simply said I'm talking about canon Pokemon and clarified what canon Pokemon is.



Pokemon as people is less grimdark because that means there is more understanding between humans and pokemon, there are more possibilities, and there is no stupid predators and prey, you can tell more stories that way, and have more humor. the way I see it, its your view that leads to grimdarkness, but hey its subjective, and you can call it fan-fiction all you want but the anime, the movies, the Mystery Dungeons, they are all things are pretty accepted as apart of pokemon

Back to merely saying "I'm right because I'm right!", honestly it's tiring Raziere. It's tiring to have to keep pointing out you're strawmanning me, arguing wildly divergent points I never brought up and then claiming you win because you have some rationalization to make yourself feel better. You've invalidated all of it by admitting that you don't take certain parts of the games as your own personal canon. I'm sorry, but you have. If you want to point out all the bits you don't agree with because you don't like them or make them uncomfortable you give your game away. You only care about your comfort zone and not the truth of a thing. It's absurd.


if we're really being technical as you like since Ash-Greninja can be transferred into Sun/Moon, a Greninja who was caught on the day that Ash's Froakie was caught, has an OT of Ash, and is canon pokemon in the Sun/Moon games. So Ash by that measure is canon, therefore the anime is canon.

Promotional Pokemon don't count :smalltongue: It's not acknowledged in the story in any way/shape/form. It doesn't give you a unique pokedex entry. It is in no way recognized by the game as anything but a Greninja. Nice try though. I caught a Missingno in Red, does that mean Missingno is part of the canon? No, it was a glitch.

[lailahussain889]

I would like to have Flying Bison. :D :P

[Peelee]

How does Rotom Dex fit into the whole person-like thing in the game? He communicates through the Pokedex, but acts and speaks autonomously in ways the Pokedex never has.

[Kitten Champion]

The strength of Pokemon has been a certain elasticity with regards to how the player perceives and relates to the titular monsters, the brand benefits from their franchise-wide inconsistency more than they suffer from it.

So, I don't see a problem with both Raziere and Razade having equally valid interpretations in much the same way that your avatar trainer has some kind of personality if you want it to and no one can really say otherwise.

[-D-]

I would like to have Flying Bison. :D :P
You mean M. Bison?

[Alent]

Rule #2 basically invalidates the question, fantasy monsters typically starts at or above canine intelligence, with most being defined as human intelligence or better. Others have also pointed out pretty much anything domesticated is sapient, which seems like a waste of the whole exercise, so I'm going to take it to mean "Something that is socially acceptable to domesticate". IE - "Alf is not a pet". (No matter how much we commoners may need him to protect us from the housecat menace.)

First choice: Efreet.

Rationale: While a shortlived pet, this could be used to solve two personal two health issues. Not actually sure what I'd use the third wish for, so we'll go with getting my second choice of a pet under the same rules-

Second choice: Flammie from Seiken Densetsu.

Rationale: flying fluffy dragon! Seriously, who doesn't want an adorable flying fluffy dragon? :smallbiggrin:


A small paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm) pseudonatural (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/pseudonaturalCreature.htm) monstrous spider (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm) with 50 Hit dice (it's size doesn't increase with HD) and sorcerer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer) casting equal to HD.

Catches bugs, doesn't need to eat, can create a magnificent mansion with food for me (17 charisma), and can polymorph into a cat if I want it to. Pretty well rounded.

Isn't that basically just the MC from Kumo desu ga, nani ka?, before she started getting divine ranks?


You mean M. Bison?

Pretty sure Raul Julia falls outside the list of socially acceptable things to domesticate.

[Razade]

How does Rotom Dex fit into the whole person-like thing in the game? He communicates through the Pokedex, but acts and speaks autonomously in ways the Pokedex never has.

The Rotom in the Rotom-Dex can only vocalize because the dex was built specifically to house Rotom. I'd put it as sapient however. It has likes and desires and talks about people in a conceptual way.

[Forum Explorer]

Animals shape their environments. Birds build nests, apes use tools etc etc. Deliberate acts of shaping the environment isn't necessarily sapience. I agree, in some media it shows some Pokemon as intelligent. Such as the movies. Movies aren't canon though. There are no human level intelligences in the core games. Not even Mewtwo.


On one hand fair enough, on the other hand, you already chose an example of an animal I consider sapient. (Apes) Like I said it's a really blurry line.

I guess I would argue that building an entire world (or universe) would require a level of intelligence that must be greater then a humans. Afterall, humans still don't know how the world is put together and how things work the way they do. Arceus should, in order to create it anyways.

Actually, that's another point. Arceus isn't shaping his environment, he's creating it whole scale from nothing. Again, it's a task that is beyond human understanding.

[Fri]

I can't believe I'm joining the discussion, but I find the whole debate really confusing. I thought it's obvious that some pokemon are at least as smart as human and some pokemon are basically animals and you can't just lump them together into one thing. Or is it turned out to be just my headcanon, and all pokemon are actually considered same species? Like, despite being able to breed somehow (presumably, I'm too lazy to check. But you know what I mean), I really find it impossible to lump say, tauros and alakazam as the same species or group or whatever you want to call them and treat them the same. I'll definitely run a tauros ranch, but not an alakazam ranch.

[Razade]

On one hand fair enough, on the other hand, you already chose an example of an animal I consider sapient. (Apes) Like I said it's a really blurry line.

Even if apes are sapient, tool use isn't an indication of sapience unless you consider crows or octopus sapient as well.


I guess I would argue that building an entire world (or universe) would require a level of intelligence that must be greater then a humans. Afterall, humans still don't know how the world is put together and how things work the way they do. Arceus should, in order to create it anyways.

Well....no....? This is really fallacious thinking. You're assuming that creating a planet requires intelligence which is something I don't think you can even begin to demonstrate. Maybe you can. Not on these boards though. No one else that I know has proven that it requires intelligence. Our Universe and planet came about (through all current evidence) through naturalistic means. No intelligence required. So it seems that no intelligence is required at all to make a world. Also humans have a pretty good understanding on how planets come about, just saying and "work the way they do" is pretty dang vague. Humans know how plenty of things work.

Let's put it like this. You are currently breathing. Are you willing that to happen with each breath? Do you actually know how your lungs work? I hope so but you never know, there are people in the United States that can't name every state so just covering my bases. Your heart is beating, are you actively making it beat? Do you understand how all the neurons that fire to make your body do what it does in the most minute of details? No of course not. You don't need to know a thing if it's merely a function and product of you being. Arceus's function is to create a Universe. It doesn't inherently need intelligence to do it.


Actually, that's another point. Arceus isn't shaping his environment, he's creating it whole scale from nothing. Again, it's a task that is beyond human understanding.

1. Current human understanding.
2. Arceus creating the Universe does not require either intelligence or direction.
3. There is no evidence Arceus actually did it. Just myths.


I can't believe I'm joining the discussion, but I find the whole debate really confusing. I thought it's obvious that some pokemon are at least as smart as human and some pokemon are basically animals and you can't just lump them together into one thing. Or is it turned out to be just my headcanon, and all pokemon are actually considered same species? Like, despite being able to breed somehow (presumably, I'm too lazy to check. But you know what I mean), I really find it impossible to lump say, tauros and alakazam as the same species or group or whatever you want to call them and treat them the same. I'll definitely run a tauros ranch, but not an alakazam ranch.

Pokemon Breeding is confusing. Egg Groups and all that.

[KillingAScarab]

You mean M. Bison?Having a pet M. Bison must be expensive. Just think of all the money you would spend on toothpaste (http://imgur.com/R1eEdVu) alone.


I can't believe I'm joining the discussion, but I find the whole debate really confusing. I thought it's obvious that some pokemon are at least as smart as human and some pokemon are basically animals and you can't just lump them together into one thing. Or is it turned out to be just my headcanon, and all pokemon are actually considered same species? Like, despite being able to breed somehow (presumably, I'm too lazy to check. But you know what I mean), I really find it impossible to lump say, tauros and alakazam as the same species or group or whatever you want to call them and treat them the same. I'll definitely run a tauros ranch, but not an alakazam ranch.Pokémon is a series where "evolution" always has defined ends, little variation on the path towards it and may be halted by pressing "B" or having a Pokémon hold/not hold an item; then there's "mega evolution." I'm with you on seeing a difference between Tauros and Alakazam, but you might want to stop before trying to untangle what a "species" would be in those games.

[hamishspence]

Even if apes are sapient, tool use isn't an indication of sapience unless you consider crows or octopus sapient as well.


The distinction being between using a tool and making a tool, or better yet a tool for making more tools, like a saw.

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-15-of-86/

Mallin described difference between conscious and unconscious thought pretty well later in the trial:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-71-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-72-of-86/

and Ybarra provided a summary of sapience in general:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-74-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-75-of-86/

[Peelee]

Can't crows make tools? Them suckers are scary smart.

[hamishspence]

Them and chimps - sort of. For crows, it's bending a piece of wire to make it a better "pick" or "hook" - for chimps, it's taking a reed, and fraying the tip of it to make it a better termite-attractor.

[Raimun]

If I had to go with established monsters, I would say:

Colossus of Rhodes (God of War II).

Why? It could act as a giant mecha but it's still a monster because it's really a magical animated statue that can operate on its own initiative. Strong points include:

- Gigantic and really strong
- Humanoid
- Rather dextrous with articulated hands
- Magically tough (really high level magical weapons are required to wound it)
- Powered by a strong magical force (can be a wild card in extreme situations)
- Can fight (and presumably otherwise act) with some animal cunning but it doesn't seem to be truly sentient
- Has an interior. Would require some DIY-improvements, though. There's quite a lot of space but it's mostly wooden platforms.

Having one as a pet would be really nifty. I'm sure I could come up with a lot of peaceful applications for one and as we all know, magical animated constructs don't require sustenance and aren't dangerous to people, unless instructed to be so.

[Forum Explorer]

Even if apes are sapient, tool use isn't an indication of sapience unless you consider crows or octopus sapient as well.



Well....no....? This is really fallacious thinking. You're assuming that creating a planet requires intelligence which is something I don't think you can even begin to demonstrate. Maybe you can. Not on these boards though. No one else that I know has proven that it requires intelligence. Our Universe and planet came about (through all current evidence) through naturalistic means. No intelligence required. So it seems that no intelligence is required at all to make a world. Also humans have a pretty good understanding on how planets come about, just saying and "work the way they do" is pretty dang vague. Humans know how plenty of things work.

Let's put it like this. You are currently breathing. Are you willing that to happen with each breath? Do you actually know how your lungs work? I hope so but you never know, there are people in the United States that can't name every state so just covering my bases. Your heart is beating, are you actively making it beat? Do you understand how all the neurons that fire to make your body do what it does in the most minute of details? No of course not. You don't need to know a thing if it's merely a function and product of you being. Arceus's function is to create a Universe. It doesn't inherently need intelligence to do it.



1. Current human understanding.
2. Arceus creating the Universe does not require either intelligence or direction.
3. There is no evidence Arceus actually did it. Just myths.


You are seriously reaching, and at this point I think you're trolling, so I'm not bothering to reply beyond saying I think you are wrong and that Arceus is not a valid choice for this silly thought exercise in something that doesn't matter anyways.

[Razade]

The distinction being between using a tool and making a tool, or better yet a tool for making more tools, like a saw.

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-15-of-86/

Mallin described difference between conscious and unconscious thought pretty well later in the trial:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-71-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-72-of-86/

and Ybarra provided a summary of sapience in general:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-74-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/h-beam-piper/little-fuzzy-day-75-of-86/

Sure, it's a nuanced and deep introspective question on what makes man man and what makes man different from animals. One I'm probably not adequately qualified to pin down or even begin to surmise where the true and full boundaries lay. Tool production would indeed be where I start to draw lines though. Understanding just how tools are used well enough to make something that can further automate or ease that creation is another. Not sure there are any animals that have created things like saws. Most tool use in animals (even chimps) are fairly simple.


You are seriously reaching, and at this point I think you're trolling, so I'm not bothering to reply beyond saying I think you are wrong and that Arceus is not a valid choice for this silly thought exercise in something that doesn't matter anyways.

If pointing out your being fallacious when you say creating a Universe necessitates intelligence is trolling I guess I'm trolling. Otherwise, I don't particularly care if you think Arceus applies or not.

[-D-]

Pretty sure Raul Julia falls outside the list of socially acceptable things to domesticate.
Pretty sure, no one knows what you are talking about :smallwink:


Having a pet M. Bison must be expensive. Just think of all the money you would spend on toothpaste (http://imgur.com/R1eEdVu) alone.
Worse part would be when he would take over a state and cause all kinds of illegal shenanigans ("Mam, did your Bison start an illegal human trafficking ring, and then turned said human trafficking ring into a literal death ring?", "No! Bad Bison! Bad! ").

[Peelee]

Pretty sure, no one knows what you are talking about :smallwink:

You're on a giant nerd forum. I'm fairly confident that a large number of people both know and appreciate the reference. And not only because that dude acted his heart out in it.

Quick! Change ze channel!

[KillingAScarab]

You're on a giant nerd forum. I'm fairly confident that a large number of people both know and appreciate the reference. And not only because that dude acted his heart out in it.

Quick! Change ze channel!You have to consider the context of both how and when this side-branch of the thread cropped up. -D- posts here all the time. For you, it might have been the highlight of the day, but for -D- it was Tuesday (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?506415-What-Monster-would-you-most-like-to-have-as-a-pet/page4&p=21438172#post21438172).

[-D-]

You're on a giant nerd forum. I'm fairly confident that a large number of people both know and appreciate the reference. And not only because that dude acted his heart out in it.

Of course! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8u7px_GzWQ)

But to true game enthusiast, that movie never happened. It was a dream.

[Peelee]

Of course! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8u7px_GzWQ)

But to true game enthusiast, that movie never happened. It was a dream.

That was beautiful.

But I cast off your shackles of true gaming, and embrace the wonderful cheesiness that made a cinematic masterpiece!

[KillingAScarab]

Of course! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8u7px_GzWQ)

But to true game enthusiast, that movie never happened. It was a dream.Well, except there was the hilarious Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game. Proving that the monster most desired as a pet by the game developers saddled with that was an ouroboros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros).


That was beautiful.

But I cast off your shackles of true gaming, and embrace the wonderful cheesiness that made a cinematic masterpiece!I'm going to bring this back around full circle by pointing out that Street Fighter: The Movie's M. Bison most desired to have Blanka as a pet. Blanka, per the opening scene to vanilla Street Fighter IV, most desired a blue whale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqrPNEIX0fc) as a pet. Whales were largely regarded as monstrous until sometime in the 1960s (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-september-19-2016-1.3768458/how-moby-doll-changed-the-worldview-of-monster-orca-whales-1.3768461).
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/712/080/cf3.png (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sabin-train-suplex)
And now this topic has been wrenched back on track.

[Wardog]

When I saw the thread title, but before I read the rules, my immediate thought was a Medusa (http://modestmedusa.com/comic/origin-of-bears/).

But if that's out, I think I'll go for a giant ant that digs gold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-digging_ant) and chases camels (http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast218.htm).

[The Fury]

A deerfox? The one in the Hilda comics seems to suggest that they make good pets.

http://66.media.tumblr.com/8161325b391e497a3adee1a3975bdf4c/tumblr_o9jzj0s3Gc1rb1rgoo5_540.jpg

Funny, since I'm told both deer and foxes make awful pets.

[Celestia]

I want a Gardevoir. She's awesome and my favoritest Pokémon ever. I don't care that she violates the rules. She'll just mind control you into changing the rules. :smallamused:

Otherwise, I dunno. Maybe a dire tiger? Cat lady to the extreme. :smallbiggrin:

[KillingAScarab]

Funny, since I'm told both deer and foxes make awful pets.I can't say anything about deer, but one of the problems with having a domestic fox as a pet is that if it bites someone it must be euthanized (http://mypetfox.com/post/5307400847/a-final-word-on-fox-ownership).


Otherwise, I dunno. Maybe a dire tiger? Cat lady to the extreme. :smallbiggrin:There will be only one delivery person who will ignore your "Beware of Cat" sign. Then, the word will spread.

[gotourneed]

I love this pet, too funny :D https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1_MrAKVXXXXXlXXXXq6xXFXXXw/Cuadros-Canvas-Painting-Painting-By-Numbers-Despicable-Me-2-Movie-Film-Poster-font-b-Evil-b.jpg

[Peelee]

Bah! Pseudodragon is out on rule 2.

Dire tiger. Tigers are badass, and a trained one that won't attack me? Hells to the yeah!


Maybe a dire tiger? Cat lady to the extreme. :smallbiggrin:

Good pick.

[Celestia]

I can't say anything about deer, but one of the problems with having a domestic fox as a pet is that if it bites someone it must be euthanized (http://mypetfox.com/post/5307400847/a-final-word-on-fox-ownership).

There will be only one delivery person who will ignore your "Beware of Cat" sign. Then, the word will spread.
Psh! Fluffy would never harm anyone. Except the neighborhood dogs who keep mysteriously disappearing. But that's not a real loss. Also, I know nothing about it. :x

[Saint Jimmy]

What monster would I like as a pet? Simple.

SHOGGOTH.:amused:

[gordonpyette]

The oddest animal I own is an axolotl. It is a fully aquatic salamander with external gills...they kinda look like what I would call a water monster. If you have seen the movie "How to train your dragon" they look exactly like the Night Fury but without the wings and a different tail and of couse different color but the face is exactly the same.

[Phearnun]

Pegasus would be pretty sweet.

[KillingAScarab]

The oddest animal I own is an axolotl. It is a fully aquatic salamander with external gills...they kinda look like what I would call a water monster. If you have seen the movie "How to train your dragon" they look exactly like the Night Fury but without the wings and a different tail and of couse different color but the face is exactly the same.You must be a very patient person, especially when others who are not familiar with that species begin inquiring. I hear if you axolotl stupid questions, you get alotl stupid answers.

[hamishspence]

The oddest animal I own is an axolotl. It is a fully aquatic salamander with external gills...they kinda look like what I would call a water monster. If you have seen the movie "How to train your dragon" they look exactly like the Night Fury but without the wings and a different tail and of couse different color but the face is exactly the same.

Sadly, they may now be extinct in the wild - with the only surviving individuals being in aquaria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

[Frozen_Feet]

2) It cannot be sapient. If it's at least as smart as you it's a person.

This rule is a weird non-sequitur. It actually posits three different things which would disqualify a monster, but these things don't depend on each other in a way that'd allow for the rule to make sense.

To wit, the three things are:

1) being a person.
2) being sapient.
3) being smarter than me.

Each thing is successively more difficult to achieve.

For 1): neither sapience nor great intelligence are required for being a person. A god-damn iguana, which can only count "1, 2, 3, lots" can exhibit a personality unique to it and respond to a name. It feels pain and pleasure, it is cognizant of its surroundings and will get angry at you if you pester it.

2) is a harder treshold to pass. Sapience requires ability to use tools, ability to transmit learned information acroas generations, and having a theory of mind. An iguana does not pass, but some species of cetaceans, primates, corvids and parrots do. Yet, they are clearly not on the same level of humans. And speaking of humans...

If being "at least as smart as me" would be an actual requirement for personhood, over a billion of humans would fail to pass, and that's assuming my intelligence is exactly average. It's actually higher than that, but even if I was significantly dumber than normal, there'd still be a number of humans dumber than me. Like, if one person in a million was dumber, statistically we'd still have thousands of them on Earth.

When you get to badly cognitively challenged humans, like feral children, chances are they as individuals might fail to even pass as sapient, even if humans as species routinely pass that treshold. So when talking about "monsters as pets", having a psychopatic manchild locked up in your basement would actually be allowed by the rule.

And that would be far creepier than any pokemon, because even the highly intelligent pokemon are generally fine with being treated as pets.

[DaOldeWolf]

I think I will pick the blob (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01534/boy-and-his-blob_1534321c.jpg) from a boy and his blob. Many uses and cute appearance. :smallsmile: