I may as well throw my hat in the ring. My favorite pokémon is Anorith, but I can’t help but be a little disappointing with Armaldo. Now, Anorith is based on the anomalocaris, which was a voracious (& compared to the other species of the time) massive and speedy marine predator. So I was hoping it would have an evolution that showed those sort of traits off a bit better. But instead we get a bulky dino-thing. What are your thoughts on this, & would you consider an article on the fossil pokémon?

I’ve always liked Anorith and Armaldo.  The anomalocaris is such a weird and alien creature that you almost don’t need to do anything with it to create a cool Pokémon, and actually I think the Cambrian explosion in general would provide a fertile vein of inspiration for future designs.  I think the reason they took the design in the direction they did was to create a vision of evolution, sort of like what they did with Eevee, by showing the adaptation of marine species to life on land (although, in fact, Armaldo can still move and hunt underwater, and retains Swift Swim as his Dream World ability).  In fact, I rather like this progression, although, now that you mention it, perhaps a sleeker, faster form would have been better.  This might be a good place to introduce a branched evolution, actually, since it’s a place where you can use the choice to tell a story – one form focused on the land, and became the ancestor of such and such a Pokémon; the other form focused on the sea, and became the ancestor of some other Pokémon – which is the kind of thing that happens all the time (well, on a geological timescale) in reality.

An article on fossil Pokémon… you know, there’s rather a lot I could say about them in a one-off, and I am a great lover of the prehistoric beasties.  Yes… yes, I think I will.

I’ve been seeing people ask you about their favorite Pokemon and your perception of them, so I guess I better jump on the bandwagon on this. My question is essentially two parts: 1. My favorite Pokemon is Forretress, has been since the Gold and Silver days, and I always found his design to be simple, yet effective at conveying what he is: a bagworm crossed with a cannon and most likely a bivalve. What is your opinion on him? 2. Why Forretress can learn Zap Cannon by level up? I want to know.

(Oh, good lord; I’ve opened a can of worms here – just for future reference, if everyone’s going to start asking me this, I will answer all of them, but if I get a lot it may take me a very long time; after all, “what do you think of such and such a Pokémon” is normally a question I spend three days writing a 1500-word entry on)

Now, Forretress.

I like Forretress.  Well, I mean, I don’t actually like Forretress as a matter of personal taste, but I think Game Freak did a good job on him – and particularly on Pineco.  They’re Bugs, but they don’t look like bugs, because they hide themselves within constructed shells, like bagworms or casemoth larvae.  In fact, Pineco looks like he should be a Grass-type, which plays with our expectations in a way that also references the inspiration for the design.  They have an amusing personality too, exploding at the slightest provocation, which makes sense given their obvious desire for isolation.  Forretress even has cannons on his body to keep people from bothering him!  Basically, they’re bagworms, but not just bagworms; the designers have played with the idea in an interesting way.  I probably don’t need to explain in much detail that Forretress is also very useful in battle for laying down Spikes and Toxic Spikes, or Rapid Spinning away your opponent’s.  He’s just very well put together all around.

As for Zap Cannon… hmm.  This isn’t something he’s always had; in Gold and Silver he didn’t learn Zap Cannon, and couldn’t use the TM either.  He only gained it in Fire Red and Leaf Green.  That means Game Freak deliberately looked at Forretress’s movepool and thought to themselves “hmm… something’s missing here… I know!  ELECTRO-BLAST!”  What’s doubly weird is that Forretress isn’t even very good at using special attacks (although Zap Cannon can be useful to him as a sort of poor man’s Thunder Wave) so they must have thought it was really important to his design objectives.  Maybe they just thought he should have an attack with “cannon” in the name?  I can respect that; moves with “cannon” in the name are awesome.  Given the context, though, I have to wonder whether Spike Cannon (which Forretress inexplicably doesn’t learn, despite having cannons that shoot spikes) wouldn’t have been more appropriate…

My fave pokemon is furret because it was my first lv 100 pokemon ever. What is your view of it and how would you make it better because I know other than speed it is terrible : (

Honestly, Furret is one of those Pokémon that just plain needs more stats.  Speed actually isn’t his only strong point; there are zillions of cool moves you can teach him, and I think they fit his flavour really well too (he’s supposed to be very agile and slippery, difficult to pin down because he can slip through tight spaces and make hard turns very quickly).  I reckon giving Furret 15, maybe even as few as 10 extra points to his base stats across the board would do it.  He won’t be top-tier, but he should be able to hold his own.  He also suffers a little from the stereotypical Normal-type blandness, though he’s far from the worst, and clearly you like him anyway, so I think I’ll just leave that.

Smeargle’s a cool pokemon. He’s kinda weak but with sketch can use everything except for chatter… but how exactly does sketch work? I mean I could see him painting a bunch of rocks to use rock slide or painting fire for a flamethrower but how does he paint hyper voice or even better… how does he paint psychic? Penny for your thoughts?

Magic.

Some things, even I can’t figure out…

Smeargle does live in the Ruins of Alph, which might suggest some connection with the Unown – if he’s somehow able to tap into their ability to alter reality by painting sequences of Unown sigils, that might explain it… but I’m afraid that’s all I’ve got.

I am the unfortunate soul who’s favorite pokemon is Ledian… I know you aren’t planning on doing reviews of all these different pokemon but what’s your basic opinion on the 5-star pokemon?

I’ve always had a soft spot for Ledian, because Ledyba was the first Pokémon I ever caught on Silver version.  I don’t think Ledian is a badly designed Pokémon; the punching theme is weird but makes sense for a six-limbed Pokémon, and the connection Ledian has with stars and starlight is cool.  Why anyone would pair a reliance on punching attacks with Ledian’s abysmal attack score is beyond me, though.  The really sad thing is that, considering her terrible stats, Ledian actually makes a very noble effort to be a usable support Pokémon.  If you need someone with Reflect and you like Ledian anyway, there are worse choices out there.  I mean… people will laugh at you, and you’ll probably lose often, but you’ll learn to suffer through adversity with a smile and teach others the true meaning of Christmas.  Or something.

They do touch that scientific classification (are Pokémon monophyletic?) question you brought up in one of your entries’ comments “Humans are definitely separate from Pokémon. The way you think about it is different than how we think about animals in relation to humans on Earth. For example, on Earth we have mammals and reptiles all these different categories. In the world of Pokémon, they are all Pokémon.”

Was there a question in there?

The problem is that not all Pokémon actually have the traits of animals.  Are Grass Pokémon plants?  If so, then either Grass-types are not Pokémon (clearly they are), “Pokémon” is a classification that includes all plants as well as all animals (clearly not), or “Pokémon” is a paraphyletic designation that has no actual meaning in an organism’s evolutionary history.

Did you know about the interview in which the GameFreak higher-ups talk about how they have ideas like making the starter selection 5 Pokémon instead of 3, with types like Bug, Poison or Steel in there, but they always end up sticking to the formula because, in the end, it’s what works best for new players?

I did not; do you have a link or a source or something I could look at?

It is certainly a legitimate point; I discuss this issue (among others) in this entry.

What is your tale on the Mystery Dungeon series? Do you feel the games are any good in general? And do they add anything to the pokemon mythos, or should they be treated as non-canon?

Y’know… that could probably be an entire series of entries on its own.  I’ve only played Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team, but I enjoyed it.  I thought it was a good game.  It has its flaws, but I think there are probably a few things the main series could stand to take from it in terms of both gameplay and storytelling.  As for your last question…  can the answer be “yes” to both?  Obviously the setting is wildly incompatible with the main games, the anime and most of the other spin-offs in a number of fairly blatant ways, and I don’t think there’s really any point in debating that, but I think that the actions and personalities of the Pokémon characters in the Mystery Dungeon series can probably be taken as exemplary of the way the designers of those games saw the various species in question, any specific abilities demonstrated by Pokémon in those games are as likely as not to be ‘canonical,’ and the roles played by the various legendary Pokémon make at least as much sense as their equivalents in the franchise’s other incarnations.  Perhaps the events of this series could be interpreted as a legend or fable told within the context of the world we know from the main series or the anime?  *shrug* I suppose ‘non-canon’ is a legitimate label to apply, but it really seems rather too dismissive a term for my taste.

I saw someone make a comment on one of your posts that sparked my interest. What exactly do you think a “type” is. In reference to pokemon AND moves (i mean like, why is flash cannon steel?)

…damnit; I was hoping no-one would ask that.

Okay.  So.  What the hell is a type, anyway?  This is… tricky.  Let’s look at a couple of Flying-types to illustrate some of the problems here.  Dodrio is a Flying Pokémon because he has birdlike physiology, even though he can’t actually fly, while Drifblim is a Flying Pokémon because he can fly, despite having nothing in common with Dodrio, physiologically speaking.  They share the properties we associate with the Flying type, though – weaknesses to cold and electrical damage, for example.  What this suggests is that types are actually just a set of categories created and defined by humans, and used to describe the sets of strengths and vulnerabilities Pokémon possess in battle.  That is, Dodrio and Drifblim are both considered Flying-types because they have those common strengths and vulnerabilities – even though they have them for completely different reasons.  What’s a little awkward about this is that the system is so perfect.  With few exceptions – namely, those Pokémon with abilities like Levitate and Thick Fat that alter their defensive capabilities with respect to specific elements – the strengths and weaknesses of all the Pokémon that are known to exist fit perfectly into the type system.  It is possible, for instance, to make complicated predictive statements like “any Pokémon that resists both Lava Plume and Dragon Rush will cease to resit one or both of them after exposed to either Gastro Acid or Worry Seed.”  With our privileged out-of-universe knowledge, we can predict with quite a high degree of confidence that a statement like this will always be true, even though there may be many Pokémon in the universe that we don’t know about yet.  What this suggests is that type is (or describes) real properties which can be objectively measured, and which are common to all Pokémon of a given type.

So which is it?

I think we can probably agree that a shared type does not necessarily imply shared ancestry – that is, there is no ‘common ancestor’ of all Dark Pokémon, for instance; Absol and Mandibuzz are more closely related to other Pokémon in the Field and Flying egg groups, respectively, than they are to each other.  Eevee, I think, has to be the clincher to this, since she demonstrates conclusively that there can be a Fire Pokémon (Flareon) who is much more closely related to a Water Pokémon (Vaporeon) than to any other Fire-type.  It follows, therefore, that any traits which members of a single type have in common are the result of convergent evolution (like bats, birds and butterflies, they have physiological traits or abilities that are outwardly similar and serve common purposes, but actually function differently at their most basic level).  This is less true for some types than for others – for instance, Bug, Dragon, Flying and Grass all map quite closely onto corresponding egg groups, so one imagines that for many of them, their shared traits actually do indicate shared ancestry, but these types are exceptions (as is proven by the outliers within those types, like Flygon, who is a Dragon Pokémon, but is a member of the Bug egg group and not the Dragon egg group).  This seems to provide more support to the idea that ‘type’ is actually a human idea used purely to describe the way a Pokémon fights.

I am rather inclined, at this point, to suggest that type is a human construct that doesn’t necessarily have any impact on the way Pokémon live their lives in the wild but is a useful way of simplifying the complex web of interactions between various powers and abilities that make one Pokémon more effective against another but less effective against a third.  That still leaves us with the question of why Dodrio and Drifblim share so many apparent tactical strengths and vulnerabilities when they seem to have nothing in common, and for that I have only the unconvincing answer of “coincidence.”  In the case of the more supernatural elements, like Psychic and Ghost, you could easily argue that two Pokémon from the same type have independently evolved to draw power from a common source, and that the nature of these sources inherently renders attacks and protections drawing upon one of them more or less effective against those that draw upon another.  This works as a general explanation to the extent that all Pokémon are in some sense magical (I think you would be hard-pressed to find one that has no access to any supernatural powers at all) however it seems awfully like simply giving up on the question, and it is besides much less convincing for the more mundane types, especially Normal, which is defined mainly by its lack of any unifying characteristics.  At present, though, I’m afraid I’m unable to give any fuller answer.