Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

[BulbaBot]

Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

For the first time in over a decade, a new type is being added to Pokémon. And that new type, fairy, has caused some raised eyebrows. After all, for a lot of people today, "fairy" is Tinker Bell, or even worse, Navi. A little delicate thing, with dragonfly- or butterfly-like wings. Why is that worthy of a whole Pokémon type? And why is that type strong against dragons? But there is much more than that to fairies, and looking at how they're treated in some very significant legends, plays and fantasy novels might help better understand the new type.

Read more on Bulbanews

 

[妖精ちゃん]

Mythical creatures have always been predominantly inconsistent in their representation, some more than others.

'Fairies' are likely one of the most varied in this aspect, so much so that the word could pertain to any number of 'Mythical Creatures' such as, but not limited to wind elementals, angels, demons, ghosts, and even humans with magical powers.

The editor is not wrong in his assertion that 'Fairy' is likely to mean 'magical beings' in a very broad sense as almost anything in the past has been called a 'fairy' at some point.

 

[Bittersweet]

There was a small bout of femmephobia (fear of the feminine) from a couple of users around the internet, which I was hoping the Pokémon fandom would've gotten over.

Being super effective against Dragons does make a lot of sense in retrospect, because BIG BAD things in stories are always defeated by "good magic". Voldemort in the Harry Potter series was literally defeated by love, so a Fairy beating a Dragon makes about as much poetic sense.

Pokémon has always had traditionally "masculine" and "feminine" things, so I'm really not getting the knee-jerk reactions of "THIS IS TOO GIRLY". What the heck is wrong with girly things? ... We had no problem with the "masculine" type of Fighting... but suddenly a "Fairy" type is too gender specific.

 

[Joshawott]

And as for why it's super-effective against Dragon:
- Fairies are mythological creatures
- So are Dragons

[video=youtube;b-qLC_ptImo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-qLC_ptImo[/video]

 

[CrystaI]

Now that I had read the Bulbanews article, I'm now 100% sure Fairy type is indeed a bad idea.

Simply because, even the very first person introduced a being called "fairy" in fiction history didn't give a clear definition of what is a fairy. From historical literature viewpoint, fairies are mostly portrayed as human-like beings with magical power, where such includes beings like goblins, gnomes, demons, angels, etc. Its origin is not clear, so now how one can define clearly what Pokemon should be Fairy type?

Fairies are not about their size nor bug wings on their back, but something "otherness and magic in their heart"!!!?? That is even more ambiguous and unclear. So if it has nothing to do with the physical appearance, nor the physical strength of Pokemon, how the hell can we define Fairy type Pokemon? Magic and spirits? Isn't Psychic and Ghost type already fitted into that category? And by the way, isn't Pokemon already a kind of "magical" creature on its own?

Although it is also a mystical creature, but I accepted Dragon type much more than Fairy type. First of all because dragon has clear definition of what kind of physical appearance and what kind of power it possess that makes a creature called "dragon". Secondly because dragon is a kind of solid creature on its own, not just a vague idea. That goes the same to Bug type where it names against a kind of creature.

And being a "Type", it means it is a kind of intrinsic strength and/or power property of a Pokemon. Other than just natural elements, it also contains powers with clear definition that are in a category on their own. For example, Fire type obviously deal with heat energy, Ground type deal with geographic, pedological and seismic energy, Psychic type deals with mental energy, Fighting type deals with physical stamina, etc.
Well, since fairies are human-like beings with magical power, so I supposed Fairy type deals with magical power. But the problem is, "magic" is also a term that is not clearly defined. It can be alchemy, witchcraft/sorcery, deviltry, enchantment, thaumaturgy, necromancy, mana, etc. where all of these differs quite significantly in their purpose and origin. Some are diabolic, and some may be angelic.

Now tell me. What exactly is Fairy type? How can we define what Pokemon is Fairy type?

 

[isnorden]

Both the supporters and the detractors of Fairy type have valid points:

• Most of the negative reactions relate to the cute,feminine image of fairies presented in modern cartoons and children's fiction. Fairy creatures like those have been an egg group in the games, long before they became a full-blown type; even Roselia (a Grass/Poison type) is listed in the Fairy egg group as well as the Grass group. Why? Probably because Roselia is vaguely humanoid, feminine, and cute. *grin*
• As the article says, fairies in folklore and more serious fiction rarely match the stereotype that an average Westerner has in mind. If Gen VI adds Fairy types based on those sources. then more players will take the change seriously.
• It's true that traditional sources use the name "fairy" more loosely than they uxe "dragon" Then again, the Arceus movie mentions that peopje used to call ALL Pokémon "magical creatures"; in-universe legends can be vague, too.
• Speaking of magic...if "good magic" and mysterious origins define the Fairy type, why didn't the developers just call it Magic? Probably to avoid re-typing some Pokémon inspired by stage magic (like Abra's line) or the evil-witch image (like Mismagius).

 

[Cian]

Both the supporters and the detractors of Fairy type have valid points:

• Most of the negative reactions relate to the cute,feminine image of fairies presented in modern cartoons and children's fiction. Fairy creatures like those have been an egg group in the games, long before they became a full-blown type; even Roselia (a Grass/Poison type) is listed in the Fairy egg group as well as the Grass group. Why? Probably because Roselia is vaguely humanoid, feminine, and cute. *grin*
• As the article says, fairies in folklore and more serious fiction rarely match the stereotype that an average Westerner has in mind. If Gen VI adds Fairy types based on those sources. then more players will take the change seriously.
• It's true that traditional sources use the name "fairy" more loosely than they uxe "dragon" Then again, the Arceus movie mentions that peopje used to call ALL Pokémon "magical creatures"; in-universe legends can be vague, too.
• Speaking of magic...if "good magic" and mysterious origins define the Fairy type, why didn't the developers just call it Magic? Probably to avoid re-typing some Pokémon inspired by stage magic (like Abra's line) or the evil-witch image (like Mismagius).

I don't dislike it because it is cute, I dislike it because it is a stupid Idea

 

[Ash_Pokemaster]

• Speaking of magic...if "good magic" and mysterious origins define the Fairy type, why didn't the developers just call it Magic? Probably to avoid re-typing some Pokémon inspired by stage magic (like Abra's line) or the evil-witch image (like Mismagius).

That's probably the thing that most of all needs to be addressed. So far, 'Magic' is well represented by the Psychic-type and it's to be expected that someone wonders what's the appeal of another type related to it. More than that, its relation to Psychic, Dark and Ghost type needs to be established by contrasting the four -- that's going to be an interesting experiment as far as Dark versus Ghost goes as well. I suppose Psychic's relation with magic isn't as much tied to "magical creatures" (which aren't necessarily wielders of magic, but beings directly related to it) as it is with the "odd, strange and bizarre", and that indicates how Fairy type should move.

 

[Fig]

Now that I had read the Bulbanews article, I'm now 100% sure Fairy type is indeed a bad idea.

Simply because, even the very first person introduced a being called "fairy" in fiction history didn't give a clear definition of what is a fairy. From historical literature viewpoint, fairies are mostly portrayed as human-like beings with magical power, where such includes beings like goblins, gnomes, demons, angels, etc. Its origin is not clear, so now how one can define clearly what Pokemon should be Fairy type?

Fairies are not about their size nor bug wings on their back, but something "otherness and magic in their heart"!!!?? That is even more ambiguous and unclear. So if it has nothing to do with the physical appearance, nor the physical strength of Pokemon, how the hell can we define Fairy type Pokemon? Magic and spirits? Isn't Psychic and Ghost type already fitted into that category? And by the way, isn't Pokemon already a kind of "magical" creature on its own?

Although it is also a mystical creature, but I accepted Dragon type much more than Fairy type. First of all because dragon has clear definition of what kind of physical appearance and what kind of power it possess that makes a creature called "dragon". Secondly because dragon is a kind of solid creature on its own, not just a vague idea. That goes the same to Bug type where it names against a kind of creature.

And being a "Type", it means it is a kind of intrinsic strength and/or power property of a Pokemon. Other than just natural elements, it also contains powers with clear definition that are in a category on their own. For example, Fire type obviously deal with heat energy, Ground type deal with geographic, pedological and seismic energy, Psychic type deals with mental energy, Fighting type deals with physical stamina, etc.
Well, since fairies are human-like beings with magical power, so I supposed Fairy type deals with magical power. But the problem is, "magic" is also a term that is not clearly defined. It can be alchemy, witchcraft/sorcery, deviltry, enchantment, thaumaturgy, necromancy, mana, etc. where all of these differs quite significantly in their purpose and origin. Some are diabolic, and some may be angelic.

Now tell me. What exactly is Fairy type? How can we define what Pokemon is Fairy type?

Actually, many existing types are quite vague. Even Dragon, which covers an incredibly wide range of creature (flying or not, with wings or not (the two questions not necessarily related), firebreathing or not, serpent-like or not. About the only thing dragons have in common with one another is being gigantic and vaguely lizard-like. It's not much to base a type on.

In-games, some types are insanely vague. Are ghosts meant to simply represent gaseous creatures or creatures that can pass through walls? Or are they actually the spirits of the dead? The game never says, and hints both way. What about Dark? Does it represent actual, physical darkness, dishonorable fighting methods (Sneak Attack, Sucker Punch)? Does it represent the night? (Night Daze, Night Slash) Does it represent actual, physical darkness as a separate force? (Dark Pulse, Dark Void)? It's all these things at once.

What about the flying type? Is it "creatures that can fly"? No, some flying-types can't fly (Doduo/rio), and some creatures that can fly don't have the type (Beedrill, Venomoth, many legendary dragons (Lati@s, Giratina), Vibrava, Volcarona, etc). Is it "Winged creatures"? That would explain Doduo, but it wouldn't explain Beedrill/Venomoth...and Gyarados would also like to disagree with this theory. Birds? That would explain Beedrill/Venomoth, but not Gyarados. Charizard, Dragonite, and Salamence also don't like that theory. Pokémon that can learn the move fly? Golurk, Volcarona, Giratina, Mew, Lati@s, Flygon and Vibrava would like a few words with you about that one. The fact is, the "Flying" type is extremely ambiguous about what it actually represent.

That ambiguity is found in the moves, too: some flying attacks are about having wings (wing attack) or feathers (feather dance), some are about the wind (gust, hurricane, defog, aeroblast, air cutter), but other wind-based attacks are other types (Whirlwind). Some are about building a nest (Roost), some are about having a beak (drill peck, peck, pluck), some about simply being able to fly (sky drop, sky attack, fly), and some about agility and speed (Acrobatics).

Even other type are taken in very broad senses. Fire, for example, includes heat, magma and the sun (which it shares with grass).

Having a broad, ambiguous type is nothing new, and not a problem.

 

[Fig]

Regarding psychic and the magic type:

They're two different sort of magic. The magic of psychic is essentially modern stage magic. Illusions, tricks, levitation, hypnosis, mind-reading, etc.

Fairy magic is something completely different. Fairy magic is shapeshifting, the ability to change the world around you - for real - as you walk, the ability to make time flow differently in their world than in ours. Fairy magic is the ability to put powerful blessings or curses on the newborn.

Now as it stands there are a few psychic attack that would fit fairy magic better than stage magic: lunar dance, heal wish, maybe wonder room. Maybe they're there for balance, maybe they're there because there was no other type to put magic in before fairy was created. Maybe some of them will even become fairy, like bite went from normal to dark when dark was introduced.

That isn't "good representation". That's "putting them there because it's the existing type that make the most sense". You'd have to use an incredibly broad definition of psychic for things like lunar dance to make sense as a psychic move.

 

[Ash_Pokemaster]

That isn't "good representation". That's "putting them there because it's the existing type that make the most sense". You'd have to use an incredibly broad definition of psychic for things like lunar dance to make sense as a psychic move.

Yes, but that can be said for multiple Pokémon and multiple types around the series. It's clear that magic wielding (regardless the context) was almost fully represented by Psychic type, but it's not necessarily a bad thing that they took a broad part of it and attributed it to a new type. Furthermore, like I said magical creatures aren't necessarily direct or heavy wielders of magic. When you look at Jigglypuff or Clefairy, they're just Pokémon that look mostly Normal, yet very fitting with a world of fairy tales. I simply hope that they distinct the two (four if you count Ghost and Dark) types nicely and clearly within the game's framework.

 

[Codex_of_Wisdom]

Regarding psychic and the magic type:

They're two different sort of magic. The magic of psychic is essentially modern stage magic. Illusions, tricks, levitation, hypnosis, mind-reading, etc.

Fairy magic is something completely different. Fairy magic is shapeshifting, the ability to change the world around you - for real - as you walk, the ability to make time flow differently in their world than in ours. Fairy magic is the ability to put powerful blessings or curses on the newborn.

I would relate it in more of a Dungeons and Dragons or Dragonball Z sort of way:

Psychic is related to mental powers. They come from your inner beliefs and mental disciplines. More than just stage magic, it would include the things like telekinesis, telepathy, tele-etc.
Magic (Fairy, in this case) would be more the classic magick of wizards, unicorns, and nature powers. This would explain clefairy/jigglypuff, as they get their powers from the moon (I would assume most moon-stone evolving Pokemon will get fairy typing). As stated, Morgan Le Fay was a fairy, but more the dark side. I hope to see some dark/evilish looking fairy types.
Ghost would be death or spirit powers.
Dark is more physical, like Fighting is, just the darker side. Fighting would be more of Goku and Dark more like a DBZ villain. They don't use magic to shoot energy balls, it's their personal energy redirected.

I, personally, think fairy is a great type, as we haven't had a truly "magick" type (as, I said, I don't see psychic as magic).

 

[Fig]

That isn't "good representation". That's "putting them there because it's the existing type that make the most sense". You'd have to use an incredibly broad definition of psychic for things like lunar dance to make sense as a psychic move.

Yes, but that can be said for multiple Pokémon and multiple types around the series. It's clear that magic wielding (regardless the context) was almost fully represented by Psychic type, but it's not necessarily a bad thing that they took a broad part of it and attributed it to a new type. Furthermore, like I said magical creatures aren't necessarily direct or heavy wielders of magic. When you look at Jigglypuff or Clefairy, they're just Pokémon that look mostly Normal, yet very fitting with a world of fairy tales. I simply hope that they distinct the two (four if you count Ghost and Dark) types nicely and clearly within the game's framework.

I would actually argue that classical magic had actually very little representation in the psychic type: only a handful of move. It's just something we haven't seen much of in Pokémon to date.

 

[Dakhem Uaid]

I agree. Psychic is psionics; Fairy is magic.

 

[Garren]

Yeah, most Psychic Pokemon are based off "pseudo-scientific" principles such as telepathy, mind-reading, hypnotism, aliens, spiritual yoga energy, and astrology as opposed to the type of magic Fairy Pokemon would be associated with is is unexplainable and "non-scientific".

 

[The Thin White Duke]

I have no problem with the Fairy type, apart from the strength against Dragon types (Bleugh), but if Game Freak add any more types, I'll have a conniption. The games are on the verge of getting way to confusing...

 

[mulqxvi]

See also type-moon universe for an interpretation of fairy powers and toaru universe magicians and espers for an interpretation of magic/psychic difference.

 

[CrystaI]

Now after further discussion, it makes no sense to make Jigglypuff, Marill and Gardevoir a Fairy type. Jigglypuff still arguable because... well, using Moon Stone to evolve, but its biology has nothing to do with the moon or any magical stuff.

Now it just make me wonder. Where the hell does Nintendo and/or Game Freak get the idea of using "fairy" as a type?

 

[GliscorMan]

I have no beef with the addition of a new type. This is GameFreak trying to balance out the metagame a little bit, similar to the removal of the Stealth Rocks TM in Gen 5.

What I do have a problem with is the name. Fairy. In modern society, it conjures up images of Tinker Bell or Navi. They're different than regular Pokemon, yes. Fine. But if we're going about naming a new type, and broadening it out from "sparkly, pixie-like creatures" to "magical properties", then we've got a bit of a problem. The modern connotation of the word "Fairy" doesn't make you think of Morgan la Fey, Gandalf, or Harry Potter.

As cliché as it is, I would've almost preferred the type to be called "Magic" or "Magicka" or even just "Mana". "Supernatural" would've worked better than the Fairy-type.

Like I said. I don't have a problem with the type itself, just the representation and connotation of the name.

 

[CynthiaLover]

I was fairly meh-ish about the Fairy-type idea. I wasn't for it or against it, kinda in neutral ground. However, after reading the article, as well as hearing the recent YouTube vid from the roundtable discussion, it's a lot more favorable in my eyes now. Dragon has been a bit overpowering, pretty well dominating the airwaves, both in casual and metagame battles. Nothing against Dragon, it's one of my favorites types of creatures (having a love for all dragonic things), but it does seem like it is a bit overwhelming at times. Only Steel has any form of defense against it. So I'm now for it, especially since it gives me another reason to use Gardevoir (though now trying to decide on only four moves will be much more challenging, as if it wasn't to begin with).

The name is what sorta threw me off, at least at first. Fairy seems a bit too... sparkly? This isn't like Yu-Gi-Oh, where the original type name was "Angel", and changed to avoid religious conflicts in other countries. "Fairy" seems a bit odd, especially compared to the other, more striking-sounding type names. "Mystic", "Mana", or, dare I say it, "Light" might make more sense, or at least make it stand out more. But it's their decision, not mine, so even though the name seems a bit like something out of Disney, I'll go with it. That's probably my only gripe at this point. But like how I felt when Dark and Steel were first introduced, I'll get used to it. I mean, I've been with the series this long, so I might as well just roll with it. A couple of screwballs won't exactly make me drop the series completely and storm off, so why start now.

That's my feelings about the whole thing, anyway. At least now the metagame won't be overwhelmingly powerful with one type. Balance is the key, after all. Besides, a new type is still a fun idea, especially since it's been 14 or so years since Dark and Steel were introduced. And since Gen VI is pretty much a new dimension and chapter in the Pokemon world, what better way to start things off with a surprise.