What are your thoughts on the breeding restrictions on the nidoran family and the reasons for it?

For the benefit of readers who don’t know what this is about:

Female Nidoran and Nidorina can breed with male Pokémon from the Monster or Field egg groups and lay eggs which will hatch into Nidoran of either gender. This makes sense. Male Nidoran, Nidorino and Nidoking can breed with female Pokémon from the Monster or Field egg groups, who will then lay eggs which will hatch into Pokémon of the mother’s species. This also makes sense.

What makes no sense at all is that Nidoqueen are sterile.

EDIT: I was mistaken; I think I had several Bulbapedia articles open at once and looked at the wrong one at some point. Nidorina can’t breed either; only female Nidoran can. This is actually what I *thought* was the case originally, until I decided to check my facts and then misread the reference. Oh, the irony. Anyway, this makes all of my speculation below much less plausible and I have no longer have any sensible explanation. Game Freak are just silly.

Adult Nidoqueen cannot breed at all. No, not even with a Ditto. As far as I can tell, this is merely one of the stupider oversights that Game Freak haven’t quite gotten around to fixing yet for some reason. I couldn’t tell you why; someone probably made a mistake in the original coding when they did Gold and Silver (given Nidoqueen’s unusual gender status, it’s not unbelievable that they could slip up with her) and it’s been copied and pasted ever since. Strange that they didn’t fix it when they overhauled the entire game engine for Ruby and Sapphire, but perhaps they hadn’t noticed it by that point. Hmm.

Anyway, there is actually a perfectly reasonable in-universe explanation they could use if they wanted to. There’s a conjecture in anthropology, which has been floating around for a while now and has never gained a whole lot of support but never quite seems to die either, called the grandmother hypothesis. Basically, the idea is that human women are able to live well beyond reproductive age because having older women around to help care for the children presents a tangible benefit to the survival of the community. It’s a common sense explanation for the phenomena of menopause and post-menopausal longevity, but it’s very difficult to prove scientifically (you can read more about the hypothesis in P.S. Kim et al., “Increased longevity evolves from grandmothering,” Proc. R. Soc. B. 2012). If you wanted a good reason for Nidoqueen to be unable to breed, this would be a solid place to start: Nidorina are the breeding adults, while Nidoqueen are the ‘grandmothers’ who hang around to help their daughters raise their own children and protect the whole group. This makes a great deal of sense considering that very few Nidorina would ever make it that far – they evolve using Moon Stones, so in the wild you’d expect to see one, perhaps two Nidoqueen in an entire herd. They have a more complex social function than just continuing to reproduce.

Nuzlocke- The idea of playing the game where you have restrictions on what Pokemon you can catch and that when a Pokemon faints, it dies. What are your thoughts on the phenomenon? Do you think it says anything about the Pokemon “culture”? What about the comics that are often a part of these challenges? Do they offer any particularly good/bad insight into the Pokemon world?

I’ve tried that a few times (I always knew it as ‘hard mode,’ though, I only encountered the term ‘Nuzlocke’ fairly recently). I was really terrible at it. I always had fun writing little obituaries for the Pokémon who died, though, like so:

“R.I.P. Altheia, the serious Illumise. Exploded in a tragic Metronome accident, aged 28 levels.”

(That one is a true story)

Anyhow, as for your actual question. Hmm. I suppose it’s a natural extension of the way people use the words “die” or “kill” in Pokémon, and other video games, when they actually mean “faint” or “incapacitate” or whatever. It’s a very different way of looking at battles, because of course the official media always portray battles as non-fatal (although there is occasionally a suggestion that deaths could potentially result if trainers pushed their Pokémon too hard). On the other hand, one of the traditional rules of hard mode is that you have to nickname all of your Pokémon, to create an emotional attachment to them; the rules have the impact they do because you’re supposed to imagine them as your friends (I’ve even seen a couple of accounts where people have named Pokémon after their real human friends to stress the point).

What’s interesting about this is the way it turns Pokémon into a roleplaying exercise. Technically the Pokémon games are within the RPG genre, but there’s remarkably little emphasis placed on the player’s choices and personality – the ‘RP’ of ‘RPG’ doesn’t really come into it much. The more detailed view of the world presented by the anime – I think – is meant to encourage players to imagine for themselves all of that extra stuff that the games leave out, like interactions between the player and his or her Pokémon. Part of the aim of hard mode or Nuzlocke rules is to provide an added challenge, obviously (once you know what you’re doing, the single player game is trivially easy until you get to places like the Battle Subway; this rules give players the added challenge that often seems to be missing from the game), but I think the way the rules are generally expressed demonstrates that they’re also used with a view to increasing the feeling of immersion in the game world. You’re supposed to imagine an actual emotional connection with each Pokémon and desire to protect it. Although the presentation of the challenge is much darker than anything the official franchise likes to give us, it actually supports the aims of the game designers rather well. Might be something for Game Freak to think about…

You’ve discussed trading a bit in your overview of Episode 15, but I was wondering if you had any more thoughts on it? At first it seems odd, but there are actually consistencies within trading. Pokemon gain more experience because they are put in completely different situations, and a traded Pokemon won’t respect a trainer who isn’t powerful because there was no bond formed in the catching process. Along with those, are there are other things, like trade evolution, that you could talk about?

Hmm. All right.

So, the thing about trading, as you note, is that it broadens a Pokémon’s view of the world. Being with different trainers puts Pokémon in a wider variety of situations and exposes them to different styles of training. In the process they learn greater independence and versatility, gain additional perspectives on their powers, and work together with a wider group of other Pokémon. Basically, traded Pokémon get all the things Pokémon could possibly want out of having relationships with humans, only they get more of them, hence the boosted experience deal (the larger boost for Pokémon received from a person who speaks a different language is a natural extension of this, representing the effect of a Pokémon being transplanted not just to a new trainer but to an entirely different cultural context).

On the flip side, trading a Pokémon most likely means abandoning your relationship with it and handing over the reins to someone else. Taken in the context of my theories about what it means to “capture” a Pokémon – namely, that Pokémon cannot be captured unless they are at least open to the idea of being trained by humans, and that the act of capturing a Pokémon represents the formation of a sort of implied contract – this is potentially not a totally legit thing to do. Your Pokémon challenged you, tested your worth, and permitted you to become its master. Now you’re letting this other douchebag take over? What the hell, man? Of course, potentially a Pokémon might accept that you’ve made a good choice and go along with it, enjoying all the benefits I outlined above. It’s entirely possible, though, that a less powerful trainer will be found wanting – and this may be true even if the new trainer is actually higher in formal rank than the original one! After all, the original trainer is still the one the Pokémon tested and accepted.

As I suggested in the entry on Battle Aboard the St. Anne, the way you as a trainer feel about this says a lot about your relationship with your Pokémon. It’s oversimplifying things to say that being willing to trade means you don’t care about them, because there are obvious benefits. It does, however, imply a very different point of view: trainers who are prepared to trade their Pokémon around at the drop of a hat are likely to have a more condescending view of Pokémon as a whole – they may very well be concerned with doing whatever is best for their Pokémon, but are very sure that they know what that is better than the Pokémon themselves do.

Trade evolution, of course, is the other big thing. Here, Black and White have done something that annoys me a little. See, prior to Black and White, I could say quite easily that the idea of Pokémon such as Haunter and Kadabra evolving when traded works as a natural extension of the way evolution is typically presented in the anime – as a process closely tied to a Pokémon’s psychological development. Evolution is triggered by all of the beneficial effects of trading that are also responsible for the experience boost. The problem with Black and White is that they introduce Shelmet and Karrablast. The Pokédex makes it clear that these two evolve when they are “bathed in an electric-like energy” together. The implication is that their dual evolution – and, by extension, perhaps other trade evolutions – is triggered by some aspect of the trading process itself (which, in both the games and the anime, is facilitated by a needlessly complicated machine). Now, personally I think that Karrablast and Shelmet’s dual evolution, while a brilliant concept, could have been much better-handled all around, so I’m going to suggest, firstly, that they’re an exception to the general rules for trade evolutions, and secondly, that there are actually many processes and phenomena which can cause Shelmet and Karrablast to evolve, trading being only the simplest and (for the majority of trainers) the most accessible.

I don’t believe my theories about trading are by any means comprehensive, but I think they should at least stand up to casual scrutiny. If you can think of any more specific examples that might support or refute anything I’ve said (particularly from the Hoenn and Sinnoh series of the anime, or the manga, which I’m not familiar with) I’d be happy to give that some thought.

Hey, dude! I was wondering about your opinion on PETA stating Pokemon encourages animal abuse, as well as your opinion on the game they made for it that parodizes Pokemon Black 2 and White 2. They really seem to have nothing better to do, right?

This is actually going in an article I’m writing, but it’s being pushed down the schedule a little bit by the fact that my dissertation is due on Friday! Fun times! So, yeah; all will be revealed, and stuff.

There’s a “Philosoraptor” meme going around the internet that goes like this: If two trainers with a Slowpoke and a Shelder respectively are battling, and the Shelder bites the tail of the Slowpoke, who gets the resulting Slowbro? An episode of the anime seems to state that the Slowpoke retains the control and allegiance for the Slowbro even if the Slowpoke is wild, but it got me thinking about symbiotic relationships in Pokemon. Mantine & Remoraid are another interesting pair. Thoughts on this?

Interesting question.

Purely from a practical perspective, the Shellder is sort of the ‘passive’ partner in the symbiosis; it just feeds off the Slowpoke’s scraps and moves wherever the Slowpoke decides to go. Assuming the Slowpoke remains loyal to its trainer, it makes sense that the Shellder would be dragged along for the ride. This, of course, raises the question of why a Shellder belonging to a trainer ever would willingly join with a Slowpoke belonging to another trainer, or with a wild one. In the Slowbro episode of the anime, the Shellder actually belongs to Jessie, but abandons her when it joins with the wild Slowpoke who lives with Professor Westwood. The obvious explanation is that Shellder didn’t really want to be with Jessie anyway, but unfortunately that explanation doesn’t work for me because of my weird theories that Pokémon are always able to resist capture if they don’t want to be partnered with humans. I think the best answer for me is that Shellder are very fickle Pokémon (which, in fairness, does seem to fit them) who are perfectly prepared to work with humans just for the possibility of finding a Slowpoke. They may develop true loyalties before that happens, and if they do, they will refuse to join with wild Slowpoke from then on, but in the early stages of your relationship with your Shellder, you might want to keep it away from any Slowpoke you meet…

Remoraid and Mantine are sort of a different case, because they actually can and often do separate again later (in its sprites, Mantine is shown without attached Remoraid from Diamond and Pearl onward). The Remoraid assists with evolution, but an ongoing symbiosis relationship is only necessary in the wild. Of course, if a wild Remoraid did attach itself to your Mantyke (or adult Mantine, for that matter) you might find that you had a new Pokémon! They wouldn’t change allegiance the way Shellder do, though.

Something that gets me is Levitate–the fact that so many Pokémon whose flavor would lend itself to an interesting ability are stuck with Levitate on purely physiological grounds. Would you consider looking at the Pokémon that have Levitate and coming up with some alternate abilities for them? (The Lake Trio deserve better!) One of my ideas: Gastly (and only Gastly) with a super-annoying ability that makes all physical-contact moves fail. Because how do you punch smoke, really?

Mmm; it is rather overused, isn’t it? On the other hand, for most of those Pokémon, it would make no sense at all for them to be vulnerable to Ground attacks. What’s more, Levitate is one of the better abilities out there (immunity to Earthquake, Spikes and Toxic Spikes? Yes please!). I think Levitate is probably one of the better arguments for allowing Pokémon to have two of their possible abilities at once. As it stands, though… well, no, I honestly wouldn’t want to take it away from them!

Something interesting i saw on “Did you know gaming” recently. That the reason that psychic is weak to bug, ghost and dark is because they are fears, and fears affect the mind, i dont know why im telling yo this but i feel you should know! Kinda fits in with your “fighting is a type about honour” idea. Maybe a post about what you think all 17 types represent similar to how you view fighting?

I’ve always thought their reasoning for Dark and Ghost was something along those lines, yeah. I didn’t originally tie Bug in with that, but it becomes pretty clear when you look at the ability ‘Rattled.’ As for the meaning of all those types… well, there are only a few that I associate with more abstract ideas like that (definitions for Fire, Water, Grass and so forth are really quite straightforward). I sort of think that, if more types were defined in that kind of way, there’d be a lot more freedom in designing new Pokémon, because you can tie a Pokémon’s element to its personality rather than its specific powers. Still, here are a few:

Fighting – ‘honour’ is part of it, but I don’t think it covers all Fighting-types; I think that Fighting Pokémon are the ones who are most like humans in their attitude to combat. They’re the most likely to fight for a cause, the most likely to consider fighting a skill worthy of exaltation, and the most likely to spend a lot of time training. Some, like Poliwrath, are more about athletics than combat, but they still have a more human than animal view.

Ghost – I think that a lot of Ghost Pokémon aren’t actually ghosts per se. Some clearly are, but I believe most of them simply have the name because they have powers related to death, the dead, and fear of death.

Dark – Dark is tricky, because there is something of an instinct that it should represent actual physical darkness, and Umbreon (one of the only five Dark Pokémon who existed in Gold and Silver) is very strongly associated with the moon and the night, the way Espeon is connected with the day. These characteristics aren’t actually shared by most Dark-types, though. The Japanese name literally translates to “evil type” and that’s the unifying theme of it: Dark Pokémon have abilities related to treachery, malice, fear, and brutality. This is not to say that they are universally evil – but they are pragmatic, and likely to use methods we might associate with evil.

Dragon – Back in Gold and Silver, one of Clair’s gym trainers described Dragon-types as “Pokémon that are overflowing with life energy” (or words to that effect) and that’s the definition I’ve used since then. Dragon-types aren’t necessarily connected with any one cultural stereotype of what constitutes a ‘dragon’ (just look at Altaria, Kingdra, Vibrava, and Shelgon). They are what they are because they have a special connection to some sort of ‘life force’ (which, I will remind you, is a very real thing in the Pokémon universe), and this is the source of their spectacular powers, incredible vitality and long lives.

Does all that sound reasonable? I’m sorry I don’t quite have what you asked for, but for most types it really is a lot simpler than this! There are definitely ways you could shift some other types in that direction, though – associating each Psychic Pokémon with an aspect of the human mind, for instance, or broadening the associations for Fire (which, at present, normally has only connotations of speed and destruction) to include warmth, nurturing, creativity, and passion.

Hi, new reader here :) I’ve just finished reading your blog and I saw you mentioning a couple of times that you haven’t read Pokemon manga. I think you might enjoy it. It’s surprisingly well written and shows some aspects of Pokemon universe that you may find interesting (like different kinds of trainers – fighters, trainers, breeders… or more of N’s story). Also, Gary/Blue equivalent isn’t as much of a jerk as he was in games/anime. It’s possible to find it online, I highly reccomend it :)

Oh, I’m sure I would. From what I’ve heard, it’s a very different and quite interesting take on that universe. Unfortunately I just don’t have time for it right now! Maybe over summer, when I don’t have so much work to do… but thanks anyway!

You’ve touched on the moralistic complaints about the Pokemon franchise before (your post on Torchic, Combusken and Blaziken). I’m on a similar ground to you, seeing teamwork etc being more of what Pokemon is about, but you can’t ignore the fact that violence and animal abuse seem to be essential in fostering that partnership between trainer and Pokemon, can you? Teamwork it may be, but the Pokemon take 100% of the physical side of things. Would you consider doing a post on this issue?

Hmm. Yes, yes I absolutely would. I’ll just let that percolate for a couple of weeks and see what I come up with…

Do you have an About Me or anything like that? I had no idea you were from NZ until I trawled through a few of your posts just now and I’ve been a fan of yours for a while and this Brand New Information that you are from the same country (which also ups the likelihood that you attend the same university?) as me has made me about three times as interested in you as I was before (and I was already pretty interested). I’d been planning on doing an Ask just to compliment your cleverness, but now…

Mmm, well. I have always been a little bit leery of splashing my personal details around the internet; I’m sure that will seem paranoid, but there it is. I imagine I’ve said enough about myself that anyone who was sufficiently interested could probably work out who I am, but I don’t imagine I’d be worth the effort to most people.

In any case, if you study classics or ancient history at the University of Auckland, you’ve probably met me.