Everyone interested in the new Pokemon games, Black and White, has more or less dabbled in some part of the games by now. Even in the anime blogsphere, lots of reviews and daily gaming logs have been popping up. But since I’ve already written a review of the game when I got the Japanese version, and I don’t have that much to add after playing the English version, I decided to focus this post on the specific conflict of the games’ storyline. It’s a conflict that has intrigued players because it does something unexpected – it questions the very morality of the Pokemon world…
The antagonists in Black and White are Team Plasma, led by Ghetsis and their appointed “king” N. Their goal is to liberate pokemon from the cruel treatment of human trainers. There are many events throughout the game that feature Team Plasma questioning the morality of pokemon training and how cruel it is for the pokemon to battle and be confined in pokeballs. Although it turns out that Ghetsis’ real goal is to rule the world using pokemon just for Team Plasma, N truly believes in the idea of liberating pokemon.
Many players have likened Team Plasma to a kind of PETA of the Pokemon world. But the controversy of Pokemon and its similarities to cruel animal sports like cockfighting has been around since the franchise began nearly fifteen years ago even though it’s only now being discussed “officially” within the franchise through Black and White.
So my question is, does what Team Plasma (and no doubt real life anti-Pokemon enthusiasts) say about Pokemon condoning animal cruelty, hold any merit?
I’ll start with addressing the whole pokeball thing. One of the issues brought up by Team Plasma is the cruelty of catching pokemon and confining them into pokeballs. The Pokemon anime stresses numerous times that if certain pokemon don’t want to be captured, or if their capture would be bad for the habitat they live in, as is the case with legendary pokemon, then it’s not considered good training to selfishly capture them. For the sake of gameplay, the Pokemon games can’t emphasize this issue like the anime does, but they do make it so that captured pokemon will not obey a trainer until they respect them (which can be done by earning gym badges).
As for pokeballs being cruel confinement, the anime shows that when in a pokeball, a pokemon is in a sort of “suspended animation” though they can be conscious of what’s going on around them. There’s no evidence that they’re being squished, starved, or cruelly restrained in any way like real animals in cages. The anime also shows many pokemon easily coming out of their pokeballs at will, so you can’t really call it confinement. And if a pokemon doesn’t like to go inside pokeballs – Ash’s Pikachu being a prime example – they’re not forced to. Again, for the sake of gameplay enjoyment, the Pokemon games can’t touch on this issue like the anime does, but pokemon are show to be put inside pokeballs for their own safety so they can quickly be withdrawn from battle or safely and easily travel around with their trainer. Thus, often times in the games and anime, only pokemon that are mostly used in battles stay in pokeballs while those that are pets, companions, or helpers to humans rarely do.
But the main reason why some believe the franchise advocates animal cruelty is because of the huge emphasis on pokemon battles. Anyone who really knows about pokemon battles knows that they’re nothing like the cruel bloodsports of cock, dog, or other animal fighting. First of all, pokemon want to battle. Unlike fighting animals who are raised in such a way that they know nothing but fighting, pokemon are capable of making choices. I feel that pokemon battles are much more similar to sports like wrestling and boxing than animal fighting; like wrestling and boxing, pokemon battles revolve around violence and the competitors get hurt naturally, but the competitors know that they’re in the game and enjoy it for whatever reason. In the case of Pokemon, it’s because the pokemon and trainers enjoy growing stronger and developing new strategies and attacks. Animal fighting on the other hand always revolves around money, and often illegal drugs and gambling.
As I mentioned, pokemon battling revolves around skill and strategy using the unique effects of pokemon attacks and abilities, and even if one loses, lessons are learned for both trainer and pokemon as they grow stronger. Animal fighting is the opposite of this – all that’s emphasized is to make your animal as vicious as possible to tear its opponent to shreds, and if it loses a fight, get rid of it.
Numerous times in the games and anime, if a pokemon doesn’t want to battle or doesn’t respect its trainer enough, it won’t obey him/her and never is it considered good training to force a pokemon to battle or cruelly punish it for being difficult to handle. Pokemon battles revolve around a pokemon obeying the precise commands of its trainer rather than doing things on its own, and the sole reason for this is because there’s mutual love and trust between the trainer and pokemon. No such bond exists in real world animal fighting. If a pokemon is too weak to battle, a good trainer will heal it with an item or bring it to a Pokemon Center. If a fighting cock is too weak, its abandoned without any treatment for its injuries.
In conclusion, unlike cock and dog fighting that revolve around money with no regard for the well being of the animals, pokemon battles revolve around trust and love between trainer and pokemon, with both desiring to grow stronger together, and like wrestling and boxing, they enjoy the thrill of violent competition despite the pain. Pokeballs give trainers a place to keep their pokemon safe and easily portable, but it’s not considered okay to force pokemon to go inside them, or to force them to do anything for that matter without considering their feelings.
So to Team Plasma or anyone else who believes training pokemon is a cruel practice, I have the above to say to them. I can understand how it seems cruel at first, but after examining the message of love and trust in the Pokemon world for twelve years, I can safely say that cruelty is something that the franchise certainly does not condone. And people who berate Pokemon for being violent disregard its much more uplifting and obvious theme…
…cuteness~
Agree with everything you’ve said.
Another difference between animals and Pokemon is that Pokemon have a large thinking capacity and can make their own decisions in situations.
(Also, I think that having Pokemon participate in contests/musicals is almost crueler than battles xDD)
That’s definitely a good point that pokemon are more human-like in terms of understanding human intentions and making their own choices. Looking at how the average pokemon like Pikachu or Piplup acts in the anime, their sentience seems to be on par with human children, but they can vary greatly, such as Alakazam and Metagross being smarter than supercomputers. But yeah, in terms of sentience, pokemon are depicted to be more like humans that speak a different language rather than completely animal-like.
LOL, I don’t know about Contests but Musicals certainly look like they can be humiliating to a pokemon XD Maybe not for little cute pokemon, but putting Charizard or Salamence in a dress? If the anime shows Musicals, I wonder what they’ll be like.
…I kind of need to draw that now.
And another difference, POKÉMON ARE NOT REAL CREATURES, GET OVER IT HATERS. Not directed at you, just at the stupid a-holes that think it’s about animal fighting, and try to find problems with it.
I dunno if you can say there isn’t money involved.
After all, you literally walk into a daycare, beat up pre-schoolers and take their lunch money (not much) xD
The kid’s too poor to even feel like using a potion!
LOL, again things like that are for the sake of gameplay and aren’t meant to infer anything malicious. You have to earn money somehow and winning battles is how it’s done in the games (while in the anime money is pretty much nonexistent). I do agree that it’s weird that the creators would include pre-schoolers among trainers you battle (don’t you have to be at least 10 years old to battle pokemon?) And technically you don’t “beat up pre-schoolers” but simply engage them in a pokemon battle that they challenge you to XD Of course you could be big about it and just ignore them or don’t take their money, but c’mon, it’s a game =P
It’s funny you mention this as I just had a discussion earlier with someone about this. I like that Black and White raise this issue as its something I’ve often wondered. One thing we had to ask was about money and fame and how that influenced Pokemon battles. It’s kind of weird to think “ok, I beat you, you give me money, but I made your Pokemon exhausted/fainted.”
Personally, I always nickname my Pokemon and don’t make them fight to the death. I agree with a lot of what you said too and great thoughts.
Though money for pokemon battles isn’t discussed much in the franchise, trainers who battle solely for fame, to be the best, or some other selfish reason are looked down upon if they don’t consider their pokemons’ feelings. Trainers like this have appeared in the game and anime, but they’re usually the “antagonistic” characters, and again the franchise stresses the importance of love and trust with pokemon above all else =)
Well, I kind of dislike people who use a totally fantastical form of entertainment, to try to advance their position. Pokemon cannot be compared to real life, they are nothing alike. I’m totally against animal cruelty, and this is not something that is depicted in the Pokemon franchise, because that is not how it was designed. Its main design is exactly what you said. Bonds of friendship, and overcoming obstacles together, even if that may involve fighting. So the people that say otherwise, are simply trying to “twist” that design and original vision to fit their needs.
I’m not much into pokemon, I watched the first few anime episodes, and saw the first 2 movies. I also played the first game a little. But I never thought the pokemon were mistreated, because that is not what the game/anime presented. I guess in the end people will still see what they want to see, and not what is presented to them anyways.
Now, if the latest game presents a position that the pokemon are being mistreated, well, let me know what the outcome is at the end of the game. If the designers say that is correct, then that is the case. If the game says they were wrong, then they are wrong, because that is how the game is designed. Only the person that controls the pokemon story can determine if they are mistreated or not. No one else.
I agree, especially for the Pokemon games, that they’re games meant to convey uplifting messages of love, respect, and personal growth with magical creatures, and questionable things for the sake of gameplay enjoyment like catching pokemon and battling them are in no way meant to be taken so seriously as to endorse some cruel practice in real life. It would be like saying any video game or movie with violence is trying to promote violence, and that’s of course not the case.
After beating the main storyline of Black and White, the games of course lean towards the idea that a world where pokemon and humans are separated would be bad. By the end of the game however, N still doesn’t seem like he’s convinced and goes off on his own to find the answer. I like this outcome better than if he were to completely change his ideals around in the end. Makes it more realistic and open to interpretation.
I am pretty surprised that the game developers would even talk about these issues in something as light hearted and as far away from reality as Pokemon. But I remember that the anime really wasn’t concerned with this issue at all. I mean watching Ash and Pikachu essentially dance the best friend dance every single episode… You don’t really get a sense of animal cruelty.
The immorality of the issue here would probably lie in catching the pokemon in the first place. I mean what we’re talking about is that the trainers tame Pokemon when they don’t want to be tamed. They just want to roam free in the wild, but they’re denied that chance by the trainers. What right did Ash have to tame Pikachu in the beginning of the game?
The way I see it, in the games at least, pokemon appear and they challenge the trainer to a battle rather than the other way around. After all, if they didn’t want to battle they could just hide or run away as soon as they see the trainer, but they pop out of the tall grass or wherever and attack. So I think that these pokemon want to be captured if the trainer is strong enough to do so. There are legendary pokemon in the games that do run away from battles however – but it is a game and can’t tackle all the aspects its own morality.
In the anime however, there are many examples of pokemon who clearly don’t want to be captured and taken away from the wild, and Ash and co. respect that. Usually the ones who are captured are again the ones who accept the trainer’s battle challenge and allow themselves to be captured upon defeat. As for Ash and Pikachu, it’s kind of hard to say, but I’m leaning towards the idea that Pikachu perhaps wanted to give Ash a chance, which is why he didn’t totally split as soon as Prof. Oak let him out of his pokeball. I suspect he secretly wanted to see if Ash was a worthy trainer despite not liking him at first.
This may just be me nit-picking, but I always saw it as that the trainer saw a Pokemon appear and challenges it. That’s what happens in the anime too, where you see Ash go “OMG!”, or something to that extent, and then he whips out the Pokedex. I remember in the early days, he found the Bulbasaur, and said “I want to capture it!” Or maybe my memory is foggy. Also possible.
Also this is me being very nit-picky, but in the game it’s always “A wild X appeared!”… Or so I remember. I guess it is rather ambiguous then.
When Ash caught Bulbasaur, he waited until Bulbasaur accepted his challenge to capture him. At first Bulbasaur wanted nothing to do with him, but Ash eventually convinced him after he helped save Bulbasaur and his friends from Team Rocket. So in this case, there is consideration of the pokemon’s feelings since Ash didn’t force Bulbasaur to become his pokemon when he didn’t want to.
But yeah, the games can’t touch on details like this and they still use the “Wild [X] appeared!” The general atmosphere is that the Pokemon world revolves around love and trust between pokemon and humans even if some practices seem a little questionable when looked at from a real world perspective.
Yeah ok my memory was just fuzzy on the Bulbasaur thing (wow it’s been a long time >.<)
I suppose then that the issue that I brought up isn't too well explored in the games, and given the construction of the game world, it might even fall outside the realm of possible thematic exploration. I don't doubt that the general atmosphere of Pokemon is about love, but rather that I'm surprised that animal cruelty is the first place that people's minds jumped to.
I love my Pokemon. I really do. I rarely begin new games, and when I do, I’ll trade my Pokemon off onto another of my games so I can still have them around. I get attached.
So in the game, I love N, but I do not love his ideals.
As I talked about in my recent post about the different Pokemon generations, I too keep trading my pokemon into the new games since it became possible in Generation III. So I’ve been using many pokemon that are like, 7-8 years old that have won me many battles since I was in high school XD I love them too and I used to have reoccurring nightmares that the data from my current Pokemon game would get erased, taking all my old pokemon with it. I’ll keep my fingers crossed that that never happens!
I have often questioned the morality of Pokemon. It always felt a little too close to cock fighting for my taste. Granted, the trainers do tend to love their Pokemon and seek to mutual grow with them. However, there are many other characters that seem almost to abuse their Pokemon pals.
On the whole I agree with you. Pokemon encourages friendship, cooperation, and mutual improvement in the face of adversity. Values we could all do well to practice.
I find some of these comments a bit narrow-minded. Can’t we assume that Wild X appears and attacks you because it wants a challenge, leading up to possible capture?
Trainer N adopts his viewpoint in attempt to trivialize the inherent nature of Pokemon, which I assume isn’t possible. Pokemon and humans coexist for a reason, as common stated in both the anime and games.
Additionally, the games are a poor point of discussion. If we place the Pokemon metagame in perspective, one may quite immediately discuss the ethics of scouting, baiting, suicide revenge killers, sitting ducks, etc.
It’s obvious the author has grasped and reflected upon the true nature of the franchise; Pokemon are not regular animals/things. They’re inherently competitive, with humans serving as a medium towards their development to higher levels of competitiveness.
You make a good point there. The game’s history even states that Pokeballs are for the good and safety of Pokemon and not the cruelty of them. Without Pokeballs, professors couldn’t study the habits, habitat’s, and for Prof. Elm, the breeding habits of Pokemon without capturing them first. In fact, when Prof. Oak was a kid around Ash’s age, Pokeballs didn’t exist yet. It wasn’t until Red’s time that they came to be used in the Kanto region. Also, Nintendo’s not stupid enough to think that a franchise that spans over 20 years would’ve lasted this long had it drawn from the real-life cruelty of animals.
That’s the typical argumentation of a fanboy. I like playing Pokémon and I grew up with it but it shows animal cruelty from the sunny side that’s the ugly truth. He builds a complex apology for his preference to play Pokémon but the message of Pokémon is very simple and every (not-fanboy) child understand it.
The average child would see it as a powerful magical creatures testing mettle against each other rather such and capturing for your own.
ITs basically proxy fighting and tapping the into the humanity’s love of violence or mock violence into something sugar coated.
Anyway, considering pokemon aren’t even animals at all.
As for this article.
Yumeka isn’t wrong with this concept at all, so yes, well done with your article.
ALthough, Yumeka is right in what the franchise is trying to promote, but one could easily turn it the other way that is why I consider pokemon training a morally ambiguous thing. Then again pokemon take survival of the fittest to the extreme level under the hands of young kids and they can easily kill you.
And the whole training monster concept with a human partner had been beaten to death with not just pokemon, but digimon, monster rancher, yugioh, duel masters, beyblade and etc etc.
Monsters battling and submitting under their human partner/master whatever you want to see it and the whole taking care of such creatures is a constant theme. Its just the franchises approach it differently.
It is even stated multiple times by in Game Characters such as PROF. Oak getting mad at Gary when he lost at indigo plateu for not respecting his Pokemon and How Lance lectured Silver on how he treats his pokemon wrong
Good arguments that I unfortunately never pondered on. It’s good to know that later series of the franchise have done such meta-comment in-universe.
It’s trivially obvious and true that Pokemon is about people fighting animals.
(Oh but it’s different because they’re just “fainting” and they WANT to be captured in little balls!)
The excuses are only convincing if (1) you been watching this nonsense since you were a little kid and believed everything you heard, and (2) you still want to be convinced. DON’T TAKE AWAY MY CHILDHOOD!
Sorry everybody, there is no Santa Claus, and Pokemon is about dogfighting.
WE FINALLY HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS SMART *CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP*