The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

[Mitchman]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Good god, fairy is not gonna be a light type. Fairy is perfectly fine as its own entity, and light is a much more vague and practically unexistent typing compared to it.

 

[Stratelier]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Fairy would fit into the "structure" classification pretty easily. "Light" would fit the "skill" class, but "Love" . . . not so much.

 

[Mitchman]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Yeah I said it earlier that love is a type best not introduced as it does little in terms of what can be introduced that hasn't been done. Uh, lovely kiss return and attract can be retyped, but then what else can be done? Not much. Also in the region thread I realized, there's 2-3 forest areas. While 2 forests makes some sense, 3? Well, if there are 3 forests like it looks like, then we have a region that can be a good home for the faries, considering how they love to live in the woods. Oh, and a massive forest in the northeast mountain under the clouds makes sense for a Fairy type Xerneas to appear in. All this does not suggest a renaming to light type, if fairy does exists which I do believe it does, considering how forests usually are nice and shadowy.

 

[MicManGuy]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

...Evil isn't a feeling or an emotion...

Kindness isn't a feeling or an emotion either. We're going in semantic circles. And we've passed over the most important part: yin and yang (charity would be yin I think).

I guess because it's a semantic stumbling block for understanding between us, let's forget the "love type" entirely.
Instead, think "good type." Now imagine that it's translated into english as "light type" for America. Does that make sense?

 

[SUP3RN0VA]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

...Evil isn't a feeling or an emotion...

Kindness isn't a feeling or an emotion either. We're going in semantic circles. And we've passed over important part: yin and yang (charity would be yin I think)

I guess because it's a semantic stumbling block for understanding between us, let's forget the "love type" entirely.
Instead, think "good type." Now imagine that it's translated into english as "light type" for America. Does that make sense?

Light type would make much more sense than the Kindness type or the Love type. If GameFreak does have a 'Good' type, which is the counter part for the current Evil type, I hope the English version would be changed to the Light type to counter our Dark type.

 

[MicManGuy]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

... let's forget the "love type" entirely.
Instead, think "good type." Now imagine that it's translated into english as "light type" for America. Does that make sense?

Light type would make much more sense than the Kindness type or the Love type. If GameFreak does have a 'Good' type, which is the counter part for the current Evil type, I hope the English version would be changed to the Light type to counter our Dark type.

Lol. I think we understand eachother now. Because of the way I was raised (not sure if mentioning religion is taboo here), I was taught to think of "Good," "Light," "Holiness," "Kindness," "Charity," and "Love" as all being different words for meaning the same thing. (or rather, being mutually inclusive with eachother)

 

[Team Gaara]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

But what is a "good-type"? Evil-type is not necessarily being evil, but fighting "evilly" or unfairly. What is "good", supposed to be? The only way I understand Light as a type would be a more literal interpretation (Bakugan's Haos element, for sake of example) rather than a counterpart to Evil.

 

[MicManGuy]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

But what is a "good-type"? Evil-type is not necessarily being evil, but fighting "evilly" or unfairly. What is "good", supposed to be? The only way I understand Light as a type would be a more literal interpretation (Bakugan's Haos element, for sake of example) rather than a counterpart to Evil.

Pretty much any support move. Helping Hand, Encore, Heal Pulse, etc. But it also could incorporate "holy" types of attacks to contrast the evil ones.

For example:
Light Pulse - The user releases a pure aura imbued with noble justice. It may also make the target flinch.

 

[Team Gaara]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

But what is a "good-type"? Evil-type is not necessarily being evil, but fighting "evilly" or unfairly. What is "good", supposed to be? The only way I understand Light as a type would be a more literal interpretation (Bakugan's Haos element, for sake of example) rather than a counterpart to Evil.

Pretty much any support move. Helping Hand, Encore, Heal Pulse, etc. But it also could incorporate "holy" types of attacks to contrast the evil ones.

For example:
Light Pulse - The user releases a pure aura imbued with unblemished justice. It may also make the target flinch.

But why couldn't those moves just be normal?

 

[MicManGuy]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

But why couldn't those moves just be normal?

They already are. Unless you're part of the "no new types" crowd, you'd assume (like with most of the "new type" theories) that there would be retyping to fit old pokémon and moves into the new type's theme. I guess they could leave everything the way it is, but why? There's lots of fairies that should be retyped if there's a new "fairy type."

 

[SUP3RN0VA]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I'm one of those hoping against a new type. Not that I would be disappointed if there was a new type or anything, I'm just satisfied with the current types we have now. I'm also not looking forward to the potential retconning of certain Pokemon and possibly some moves as well. If there is a new Pokemon type, I hope it will be one that none of the current Pokemon could resemble enough to be changed to said type. I like how things are now, and although I will be accepting with whatever GameFreak decides to implement, my hopes lie in that no current Pokemon will be changing their types.

 

[Team Gaara]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

But why couldn't those moves just be normal?

They already are. Unless you're part of the "no new types" crowd, you'd assume (like with most of the "new type" theories) that there would be retyping to fit old pokémon and moves into the new type's theme. I guess they could leave everything the way it is, but why? There's lots of fairies that should be retyped if there's a new "fairy type."

That's what I'm saying. The Light-type as a "good" type, from what I'm understanding, seems to be no different than assisting normal moves or moves that counter Dark attacks. So why make such a type more complex than just plain normal? As I said before, I could see Light types as literal light Pokemon, but not as a "good" type. Any Pokemon could fit that bill, and many already do.

I will admit that I am in that "no new types" crowd, but for reasons like this. I don't see how many of them could be properly implemented; (Light, Sound, Love) I just don't think they could go as far compared to Ghost, Flying, or Psychic. Fairy, I think could have a shot because it is based around a mythical creature like Dragons, though I am still hesitant about that one, as well.

Not trying to shoot anybody down, but I personally feel that there is a limit to what can be considered a Pokemon type. I could be proven wrong later, but for now...

 

[Jukain]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I think there's no way to avoid some old pokes getting retyped if a new type is made, simply because said type would need a substantial population to stand against the others. They couldn't do it solely with new pokes unless there's an unusually large number of them. We have to have new pokes for other types, too. I do realize that there are some things that the old pokes just wouldn't match. This was the reason only one poke was retyped when Steel and Dark came out. Back then, since there were less pokes, it was negligible, though. Unfortunately, Magnemite/ton is the only example we have for this. They just added another type to it's already existing type, and nothing at all was affected. I know that it would take some time to remember "this poke is now this type", but I find it to be no less than remembering the types of all the new pokes we're going to have put on us. It'll just make playing older games more confusing. I've dealt with it before, on things like the Physical/Special split not existing, and certain pokes now being unable to be hit by Ground due to Levitate back in the third gen. If you can't adapt, then you don't survive.

 

[MicManGuy]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

That's what I'm saying. The Light-type as a "good" type, from what I'm understanding, seems to be no different than assisting normal moves or moves that counter Dark attacks. So why make such a type more complex than just plain normal? As I said before, I could see Light types as literal light Pokemon, but not as a "good" type. Any Pokemon could fit that bill, and many already do.

I will admit that I am in that "no new types" crowd, but for reasons like this. I don't see how many of them could be properly implemented; (Light, Sound, Love) I just don't think they could go as far compared to Ghost, Flying, or Psychic. Fairy, I think could have a shot because it is based around a mythical creature like Dragons, though I am still hesitant about that one, as well.

Not trying to shoot anybody down, but I personally feel that there is a limit to what can be considered a Pokemon type. I could be proven wrong later, but for now...

I see what you mean. But I look at normal type differently, though. I see normal type as "has no type." Kinda' like "it's just like any animal."

Now about going far enough to differentiate itself as a type, I kinda see what you mean. Kinda'. But there's plenty of weak overlap already. Take fighting type, for example. Any pokémon fights. And so so SO many non fighting pokémon learn fighting moves. Not only that, but we have both Mega Punch (normal) and Dynamic Punch (fighting). What's the difference? It's largely arbitrary. It's just the aesthetic. Martial arts takes discipline. Hauling off and throwing a Ham-handed punch doesn't.

 

[Team Gaara]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I see what you mean. But I look at normal type differently, though. I see normal type as "has no type." Kinda' like "it's just like any animal."

Now about going far enough to differentiate itself as a type, I kinda see what you mean. Kinda'. But there's plenty of weak overlap already. Take fighting type, for example. Any pokémon fights. And so so SO many non fighting pokémon learn fighting moves. Not only that, but we have both Mega Punch (normal) and Dynamic Punch (fighting). What's the difference? It's largely arbitrary. It's just the aesthetic. Martial arts takes discipline. Hauling off and throwing a Ham-handed punch doesn't.

Well, I see normal more as, it lack traits of any other type. But I guess that's pretty similar.

For Fighting, I see what you mean. But I guess it has to do with the way of the fighting. You can attack with fire, electricity, ice, or wind and it would be a battle. But Fighting-type is more of a concentrated physical fighting, if you will. Which, yes, any Pokemon could potentially do. And I see Mega Punch as just, what you said, a really strong punch. Any Pokemon could do that. Whereas, as you also said, DynamicPunch taking some huge amount of physical effort, fighting skill, and strength (which is probably why it's a move tutored move) is a Fighting-type move. It's also supposed to be the counter to fighting "Evilly" as fighting fairly (which is why Fighting is SE against Dark). That's how I differentiate them. Does that make sense (or was this exactly what you told me)?

 

[Jukain]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I haven't considered how things would be affected if what we suspect gets retyped. The Normal type seem to have three things going for it: ordinary things that have no other power or aspect associated to them, powers that can't be classed into any of the other types, and stuff that seems to be an amalgam of multiple types at once. When people think of the new type, they usually think it's only going to separate out the parts of Normal that have to do with things that have no classification, and/or the ones having to do with multiple types. I see it as more than that. Some aspects of Psychic also appear to not be associated to ESP exclusively. Not to mention it's kinda hard to separate what is and isn't mystical in the Normal type. There might be other things in other types that don't really match their core concept. I haven't fully worked it out, but I don't think anyone else has either. Should Normal be purged of it's more outlandish properties? It would change both what moves and what pokemon are in it. I've always considered Normal to be the "typeless". Note this could still contain both physical and special aspects, but it would be difficult to sort out what should be classed as it's own power. Primarily, this would weed out the multi-typed abilities and pokes that could be said be of multiple types, too. This is anything but Normal to me.

 

[Aves]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

That's what I'm saying. The Light-type as a "good" type, from what I'm understanding, seems to be no different than assisting normal moves or moves that counter Dark attacks. So why make such a type more complex than just plain normal? As I said before, I could see Light types as literal light Pokemon, but not as a "good" type. Any Pokemon could fit that bill, and many already do.

The options of literal and figurative light aren't mutually exclusive, though. Many types already have the potential to incorporate more than one concept within them, and often, we see this difference in the conceptual split between that type's physical and special moves. Dark type's physical moves indicate the "fighting dirty" concept, and its special moves indicate the use of darkness as an elemental power. It isn't shoehorned into one or the other, and if you use a reductive analysis to try to cram any type into something simpler than what it really is in application, you're going to just confuse yourself in this new type discussion. After all, literal darkness and/or black coloring in nature has absolutely no relation to either fighting dirty or moral evil. There is, however, a connoted association between the two, a basic archetype which crosses cultures and is effective in communicating its theme to the game's broad demographic. The reason why light is so popular as a suggestion for the new type is because it has this same relationship between its component themes.

Some types have considerable overlaps between their themes, but we're still able to make distinctions between the two. Light's physical moves (e.g., "holy smite"), might share some of the same intention with fighting moves (being honorable), but stress different sources of power: in fighting's case, martial training, and in light's case, spirituality. This would be why light type attacks would probably be super effective against ghost, whereas fighting is not effective. Throughout the mythologies, religious, spiritual and mystical traditions of the world, there are a host of "good spirits," semi-divine figures, and deities to inspire pokémon concepts much in the way that ghost and dark often reference "bad spirits" and the like. American culture tends to impose an overly Judeo-Christian lens on the concept, but Japanese culture itself is rich in this area (compare the source material that gets grouped in association with "hama" in Megaten). People love this stuff, it's very evocative, which gets an emotional response out of people, consequently it's a good choice for a type and would be highly popular.

Then you have light's special type moves. These would be probably more blatantly literal light, but not just literal light. These moves would have the same symbolic aspect that infuses its physical moves. Literal, physical light sources can have a variety of origins (fire and electricity already cover two of them). Compare the similar treatment of the absence of light by the dark and ghost types. The "light" we're talking about here has traditionally been associated with celestial light sources because of the ancient belief that the heavens are an eternal and transcendent world. Light moves with a solar, lunar or astral motif would draw inspiration from this theme. The more modern association of outer space with more sci-fi themes fits more into the psychic camp.

Light type pokémon would probably have white coloring, would glow, and have spiritual motifs as the indicators that made them distinct from normal, fighting and psychic types. They would be the "special" foil to the dark type the way that fighting is the physical foil (the dark type, in turn, is the physical foil to the psychic type, following in the central tradition of asymmetrical foiling in the type chart). Considering the context is pokémon, the execution of this would probably be fairly subtle but also recognizable enough to be potent thematically.

I believe in a vacuum the light type is the most plausible and effective candidate for a new type. However, I believe the fairy type is more supported by our current evidence (although there is not a lot of it). Frankly I hope that it is fairy type, because if a light type's indicators came from Sylveon's design I would be a little disappointed (not that I mind femininity as a theme but pink is just hideous). Considering the Yu-Gi-Oh treatment of its fairy subtype (which is only called that in English), an argument could be made for a Japanese understanding of the type concept which incorporates both western fairy ideas and the Japanese spin on it (see: the astral motifs of Sylveon's moves/abilities in the video content).

 

[Silktree]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I'd like to discuss the possibility of more than one new type. Even though I don't trust the rumors (I believe that MageLeif deliberately faked some of his information to avoid TPCi's suspicion), I admit that I would be surprised if Sylveon's type weren't Fairy. But that doesn't mean that Fairy is the only addition on Game Freak's agenda. Let's go over the star references:

1. Sylveon's move in the movie trailer.
2. Kalos' star shape, which is even noted by the official website.
3. The stars in the background of one of the gyms as seen in the first trailer.
4. The space observatory in the desert west of Lumiose City.

Then you have the indirect reference in the form of the contrast between Kalos' forests (Xerneas) and skies (Yveltal), which is again noted by the official website. Fairy will join Grass and even Bug as a forest-related type, but Flying is the only type related to the sky. If fairies are the mythical representation of forests, shouldn't there be a similar type for the sky? Would it really be logical if only Xerneas were associated with a new type? I also doubt that Yveltal is supposed to be evil; I find it more plausible that its name is derived from weltall (which is pronounced as vell-tawl), meaning the cosmos.

Astral-type Pokémon need not look like typical aliens, just as most of us agree that Fairy-type Pokémon shouldn't all look like Tinkerbell. The theme of the Astral type should be the ability to draw powers from the stars. Space travel isn't a requirement, but astral projection (which is not at all the same thing as teleportation) should make up for that. Yveltal could easily have a deep connection to outer space despite (presumably) being confined to Earth's atmosphere. What this could mean for Xerneas and Yveltal's theme is a topic for another time.

Note that the official website puts question marks under the Mewtwo Forme's type. This isn't technically suspicious since none of the Forme's details have been revealed, but we shouldn't take it for granted that it doesn't have a new secondary type. The Forme diverges from pure Psychic-type skills considering how adept it is at flying at supersonic speed. Of course, you could argue that the secondary type might simply be Flying, but that would be unfitting in a way as its movement seems comparable to meteors. Needless to say, we've still seen very little of it, but I definitely see Astral as a potential secondary type.

Considering the Yu-Gi-Oh treatment of its fairy subtype (which is only called that in English), an argument could be made for a Japanese understanding of the type concept which incorporates both western fairy ideas and the Japanese spin on it (see: the astral motifs of Sylveon's moves/abilities in the video content).

As I understand it, the Fairy type in Yu-Gi-Oh is called Angel in Japanese, and that's actually what it is; the English name is inappropriate. There is also a Fairy archetype (a categorization akin to an egg group) which is called that way even in Japanese, and yet most of the monsters in that category are not angels, making the Angel type and Fairy archetype virtually exclusive despite sharing the same name in English. So I don't understand your argument.

I actually hope that Game Freak do not go too far with their spin on the Fairy type so that the concept doesn't become incoherent. The move Sylveon used in the trailer led me to suspect that its type was Astral, but now I hope that the move is not representative of Sylveon's type. I think that Fairy and Astral should exist separately, and the latter should include but not be limited to angelic creatures. As for Sylveon, its type is probably Fairy, but I could see why it would have access to an Astral-type move if there were no other Eeveelution. In fact, I think that all the Eeveelutions should be given moves to represent the remaining types, regardless of whether or not Sylveon is supposed to be the last Eeveelution.

 

[Stratelier]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Would it really be logical if only Xerneas were associated with a new type?

Was it really logical that Umbreon was a new type in G2 when Espeon was not?

 

[BigBadButterfree]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

You know, I've always thought... If Normal is supposed to be the "typeless-doesn't-fit-anywhere-else" type, not super effective against anything, then it shouldn't be weak to anything, either. It'd then be the exact definition of "normal" or "neutral." Idk why, I've just always thought that.