• Hey everyone! The Writer's Workshop is hosting an exciting event, Trainers of Fanfiction! It's a community event focused around your characters! Click here to check out the event and sign up!

Ideals and Truth

You look good at Pokemon but how's you chem?
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
637
Reaction score
18
What do those words mean in B/W?

I mean, I can't tell what they're suppose to mean in the context they're using them in. Cause, there are like at least three different definitions of what ideal means and truth is philosophically a complicated subject itself.

There are several ways to interpret this but most of them end up with things that aren't really the opposites of each other and that's what the game makes them out to be.

The only interpretation that does make them opposites is if truth is what's real and ideal is what's unreal. Though, I'd argue that's not a very good opposite since you can't really put something that's not real on the same level and vein as something that is.

I don't know though, maybe I'm interpreting this wrong. If anybody has a better interpretation I'd like to hear it.
 
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
451
Reaction score
5
It's likely just pretty-sounding nonsense. Though it might be helpful to look at the original Japanese words used.
 
You look good at Pokemon but how's you chem?
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
637
Reaction score
18
It's likely just pretty-sounding nonsense. Though it might be helpful to look at the original Japanese words used.
Yeah, I've been trying to find the original text but with little success.
 
Move along, move along
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
2,021
Reaction score
1
I thought it was easier to understand when I looked at it in the context of Zekrom & Reshiram. (I haven't played BW in a while, so forgive me if I'm getting some things mixed up.)

Basically, you have this yin/Zekrom/ideal side, and you have this yang/Reshiram/truth side. Zekrom is considered "ideal" because it represents the future and the "perfection" that the future could bring with increasing technological advances. (Hence why its tail has a futuristic feel to it and it's part Electric-type.) Reshiram, on the other hand, is considered "truth" because it represents the past and leaving things in their "natural" order. (I supposed it's a little harder to pin a "historic" feel to Reshiram, but compared to Zekrom one can argue it does have that type of feel to it. Also, fire is usually more associated with nature than electricity is.) This is further reinforced by Opelucid City; in White, Opelucid City has a historical feel to it because it "values old things" despite changing technologies (note that this is game where the player character/"winning hero" captures Zekrom), while in Black, it's looks very "modern" (in Black the player character captures Reshiram). This is also reinforced with White Forest/Black City and, later in B2W2, Route 4.

I think Game Freak purposefully left these terms vague so that N's original goal of separating Pokémon and people could work in either version. In Black, N's goal is to reach his "ideal" world where Pokémon and people are separated, while in White his goal is to have a "true" world where Pokémon and people are separated. At one point in BW, N mentions that he wants a future where Pokémon become perfect; in N's "ideal world" this would mean moving towards a future of separation, while in his "true world" this would mean returning to a past of separation (which would obviously still be in the future because you can't turn back time sorry Dialga and Celebi). And of course, this vagueness works in the opposite direction as well for the player character--it's ideal and "true" for Pokémon and people to be together.

So yeah, basically it seems that "ideals" represent "perfection through continuing advances", while "truth" represents "keeping things in their 'true'/natural order". At least based on my interpretation. :p
 
You look good at Pokemon but how's you chem?
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
637
Reaction score
18
I thought it was easier to understand when I looked at it in the context of Zekrom & Reshiram. (I haven't played BW in a while, so forgive me if I'm getting some things mixed up.)

Basically, you have this yin/Zekrom/ideal side, and you have this yang/Reshiram/truth side. Zekrom is considered "ideal" because it represents the future and the "perfection" that the future could bring with increasing technological advances. (Hence why its tail has a futuristic feel to it and it's part Electric-type.) Reshiram, on the other hand, is considered "truth" because it represents the past and leaving things in their "natural" order. (I supposed it's a little harder to pin a "historic" feel to Reshiram, but compared to Zekrom one can argue it does have that type of feel to it. Also, fire is usually more associated with nature than electricity is.) This is further reinforced by Opelucid City; in White, Opelucid City has a historical feel to it because it "values old things" despite changing technologies (note that this is game where the player character/"winning hero" captures Zekrom), while in Black, it's looks very "modern" (in Black the player character captures Reshiram). This is also reinforced with White Forest/Black City and, later in B2W2, Route 4.

I think Game Freak purposefully left these terms vague so that N's original goal of separating Pokémon and people could work in either version. In Black, N's goal is to reach his "ideal" world where Pokémon and people are separated, while in White his goal is to have a "true" world where Pokémon and people are separated. At one point in BW, N mentions that he wants a future where Pokémon become perfect; in N's "ideal world" this would mean moving towards a future of separation, while in his "true world" this would mean returning to a past of separation (which would obviously still be in the future because you can't turn back time sorry Dialga and Celebi). And of course, this vagueness works in the opposite direction as well for the player character--it's ideal and "true" for Pokémon and people to be together.

So yeah, basically it seems that "ideals" represent "perfection through continuing advances", while "truth" represents "keeping things in their 'true'/natural order". At least based on my interpretation. :p
Okay, I can see that. I think it's a silly premise and one they shouldn't have gone with but I can could see how that could have been what they were going with.

I really wish they hadn't been so vague though. I don't really see how being less vague wouldn't have allowed N to have the same goal in either version. Could you explain that a bit more?
 
Move along, move along
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
2,021
Reaction score
1
I really wish they hadn't been so vague though. I don't really see how being less vague wouldn't have allowed N to have the same goal in either version. Could you explain that a bit more?
Well I was just saying that the terms had to be vague enough so that N's goal could work regardless of the version--similar to how in Diamond & Pearl, Cyrus's plan of destroying the world and becoming its god could be achieved with either Dialga or Palkia (either by manipulating past events or by destroying & reconstructing space). I definitely agree with you that the concepts of "ideals" and "truth" were a bit too vague in BW, but I also understand why Game Freak didn't want those concepts to be too specific, either. But I do agree, there could have explained these concepts better in the story. (Slash maybe they were in the original Japanese versions and they were left out of the translated versions for whatever reason.)
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
558
Reaction score
0
What do those words mean in B/W?

I mean, I can't tell what they're suppose to mean in the context they're using them in. Cause, there are like at least three different definitions of what ideal means and truth is philosophically a complicated subject itself.

There are several ways to interpret this but most of them end up with things that aren't really the opposites of each other and that's what the game makes them out to be.
That is the idea! Truth and Ideals are only opposites in Black and White because they oppose each other. Similarly, Reshiram and Zekrom were the same dragon. It is their fighting that defined them as opposites.

There is a point in one of the games where a character says something along the lines of "There is no reason Truth and Ideals can't be the same." For the life of me I can't remember the character or the specific wording. I'm not even sure if it's in Black and White or Black2 and White2. I'm thinking Drayden in B2W2, but I'm not sure.

I find it's easiest to think of it as allegory for just about any political debate in a bi-partisan system with a good chunk of Taoism thrown in.
 
Last edited:
You look good at Pokemon but how's you chem?
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
637
Reaction score
18
I really wish they hadn't been so vague though. I don't really see how being less vague wouldn't have allowed N to have the same goal in either version. Could you explain that a bit more?
Well I was just saying that the terms had to be vague enough so that N's goal could work regardless of the version--similar to how in Diamond & Pearl, Cyrus's plan of destroying the world and becoming its god could be achieved with either Dialga or Palkia (either by manipulating past events or by destroying & reconstructing space). I definitely agree with you that the concepts of "ideals" and "truth" were a bit too vague in BW, but I also understand why Game Freak didn't want those concepts to be too specific, either. But I do agree, there could have explained these concepts better in the story. (Slash maybe they were in the original Japanese versions and they were left out of the translated versions for whatever reason.)
That makes no sense.

Look, if you can make both motivation work then you can change the dialogue to make it specific to whatever you want. It's not like they're the same game, you can change the dialogue between them. I mean, they did change the dialogue in R/S to reflect each villains goals precisely, why not here? (Also, I think D/P was too vague as well. They should have made the dialogue more precise there too but I give them a pass because time and space are kind of tied together.)

Look, I can make dialogue that works for both, watch:

N: The truth is that Pokemon are miserable with people. I seek to change that. I want to live in a world where Pokemon are the way they are meant to be. Free from Pokeballs and the pain their trainers bring them.

N: Pokemon are never allowed to become ideal because they are trapped with horrible people. I seek to change that. I want to live in a world where Pokemon are perfect. Free from pokeballs and untainted by trainers.

What do those words mean in B/W?

I mean, I can't tell what they're suppose to mean in the context they're using them in. Cause, there are like at least three different definitions of what ideal means and truth is philosophically a complicated subject itself.

There are several ways to interpret this but most of them end up with things that aren't really the opposites of each other and that's what the game makes them out to be.
That is the idea! Truth and Ideals are only opposites in Black and White because they oppose each other. Similarly, Reshiram and Zekrom were the same dragon. It is their fighting that defined them as opposites.

There is a point in one of the games where a character says something along the lines of "There is no reason Truth and Ideals can't be the same." For the life of me I can't remember the character or the specific wording. I'm not even sure if it's in Black and White or Black2 and White2. I'm thinking Drayden in B2W2, but I'm not sure.

I find it's easiest to think of it as allegory for just about any political debate in a bi-partisan system with a good chunk of Taoism thrown in.
But they don't oppose each other. Least no where I see they do. They're supposedly opposed because the characters say they are, but we are never giving a situation or context in which they actually are.

For all the speeches about Pokemon, nobody ever says they believe what they do because it's true and then we have an opposing side saying they're right because it's their ideal. It's almost always a person looking for both truth and ideals, or a person saying truth instead of ideal (or vice versa) but never really exposit on why the one is better they just said it instead of the other thing because they're in a particular version so they had to use that term.
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
558
Reaction score
0
But they don't oppose each other. Least no where I see they do. They're supposedly opposed because the characters say they are, but we are never giving a situation or context in which they actually are. For all the speeches about Pokemon, nobody ever says they believe what they do because it's true and then we have an opposing side saying they're right because it's their ideal. It's almost always a person looking for both truth and ideals, or a person saying truth instead of ideal (or vice versa) but never really exposit on why the one is better they just said it instead of the other thing because they're in a particular version so they had to use that term.
Let me rephrase myself. Truth and Ideals are only considered opposites in Black and White because Reshiram The dragon that fights for truth and Zekrom the dragon that fights for ideals oppose each other. When N seeks out Zekrom to fight for his ideals he becomes the Hero of ideals. When N seeks out Reshiram to defend his truth he becomes the hero of truth. The point of this is to show that N's and the main character's goals are only superficially opposites. They are both fighting for what is best for Pokemon, and neither argument is wrong. Pokemon become stronger through interacting with Humans, and humans abuse Pokemon.
 
You look good at Pokemon but how's you chem?
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
637
Reaction score
18
But they don't oppose each other. Least no where I see they do. They're supposedly opposed because the characters say they are, but we are never giving a situation or context in which they actually are. For all the speeches about Pokemon, nobody ever says they believe what they do because it's true and then we have an opposing side saying they're right because it's their ideal. It's almost always a person looking for both truth and ideals, or a person saying truth instead of ideal (or vice versa) but never really exposit on why the one is better they just said it instead of the other thing because they're in a particular version so they had to use that term.
Let me rephrase myself. Truth and Ideals are only considered opposites in Black and White because Reshiram The dragon that fights for truth and Zekrom the dragon that fights for ideals oppose each other. When N seeks out Zekrom to fight for his ideals he becomes the Hero of ideals. When N seeks out Reshiram to defend his truth he becomes the hero of truth. The point of this is to show that N's and the main character's goals are only superficially opposites. They are both fighting for what is best for Pokemon, and neither argument is wrong. Pokemon become stronger through interacting with Humans, and humans abuse Pokemon.
The reason why Reshiram and Zekrom are opposed to each other is because two brothers were in conflict over whether truth or ideals should be sought.

It wasn't because these two just happen to be in conflict and they just happened to represent different ideas. It was because two guys were in conflict with each other for no adequately explained reason.

And you know, N and the main character aren't in conflict because one believes in truth and the other ideals. They're in conflict because N wants to separate people from Pokemon and the main character does not.
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
558
Reaction score
0
But they don't oppose each other. Least no where I see they do. They're supposedly opposed because the characters say they are, but we are never giving a situation or context in which they actually are. For all the speeches about Pokemon, nobody ever says they believe what they do because it's true and then we have an opposing side saying they're right because it's their ideal. It's almost always a person looking for both truth and ideals, or a person saying truth instead of ideal (or vice versa) but never really exposit on why the one is better they just said it instead of the other thing because they're in a particular version so they had to use that term.
Let me rephrase myself. Truth and Ideals are only considered opposites in Black and White because Reshiram The dragon that fights for truth and Zekrom the dragon that fights for ideals oppose each other. When N seeks out Zekrom to fight for his ideals he becomes the Hero of ideals. When N seeks out Reshiram to defend his truth he becomes the hero of truth. The point of this is to show that N's and the main character's goals are only superficially opposites. They are both fighting for what is best for Pokemon, and neither argument is wrong. Pokemon become stronger through interacting with Humans, and humans abuse Pokemon.
The reason why Reshiram and Zekrom are opposed to each other is because two brothers were in conflict over whether truth or ideals should be sought.

It wasn't because these two just happen to be in conflict and they just happened to represent different ideas
. It was because two guys were in conflict with each other for no adequately explained reason.
First, you are contradicting yourself in the bold.

We have no idea what the truth and ideal each twin was fighting for were, so we have no idea what their fight was over. Therefore, the twins were in conflict because they represented different ideas.

The twins' "[not] adequately explained reason" for fighting = the twins' unknown Truth and Ideal = the different ideas each twin represented.

And you know, N and the main character aren't in conflict because one believes in truth and the other ideals. They're in conflict because N wants to separate people from Pokemon and the main character does not.
Oh for Arceus' sake. It's the same thing

Pokemon and Humans should live divided = N's Reason for fighting, Truth or Ideal, and idea he represents.

Pokemon and Humans should live together = the main characters reason for fighting, Truth or Ideal, and idea he represents.
 
You look good at Pokemon but how's you chem?
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
637
Reaction score
18
First, you are contradicting yourself in the bold.

We have no idea what the truth and ideal each twin was fighting for were, so we have no idea what their fight was over. Therefore, the twins were in conflict because they represented different ideas.

The twins' "[not] adequately explained reason" for fighting = the twins' unknown Truth and Ideal = the different ideas each twin represented.
How am I contradicting myself? We know enough to know they were fighting over truth and ideals but we don't enough of the specifics to know why those two things were in conflict with each other. Why couldn't they each have their own perspectives? The game never tells us and it's not easy to figure out.

Oh for Arceus' sake. It's the same thing

Pokemon and Humans should live divided = N's Reason for fighting, Truth or Ideal, and idea he represents.

Pokemon and Humans should live together = the main characters reason for fighting, Truth or Ideal, and idea he represents.
Ah, I thought you'd bring this up.

Except N never explains why Truth or Ideals propel him to want to make separate worlds so it could be his reasons for doing this, but it's never made clear.

The main character is a blank slate and is never giving any motivations. In fact, N says he's neutral on the subject so there's that.
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
558
Reaction score
0
How am I contradicting myself?
Forget that part I confused you and you confused me.

We know enough to know they were fighting over truth and ideals but we don't enough of the specifics to know why those two things were in conflict with each other. Why couldn't they each have their own perspectives? The game never tells us and it's not easy to figure out.
That's what I've been trying to say. Each brother has his own unknown perspective that is the truth or ideal he fought for.

You seem to be confused though. Truth and Ideals are not special concepts exclusive to Unova's legends. There are as many ideals as thoughts people can have and as many truths as things people can see.

Oh for Arceus' sake. It's the same thing

Pokemon and Humans should live divided = N's Reason for fighting, Truth or Ideal, and idea he represents.

Pokemon and Humans should live together = the main characters reason for fighting, Truth or Ideal, and idea he represents.
Ah, I thought you'd bring this up.

Except N never explains why Truth or Ideals propel him to want to make separate worlds so it could be his reasons for doing this, but it's never made clear.
Again, truth and ideals are not special concepts exclusive to Unova's legends. There are as many ideals as thoughts people can have and as many truths as things people can see. It is easy to see a character's ideal or truth in a character as developed as N.

N is not fighting for everyone's ideals or every true thing in the world. He's not going to make everyone wear shorts because some youngster thinks they are the ideal leg-wear. He's not going to hunt and kill Mewtwo because it is not the true Mew. He is fighting for his ideals or the specific true things he cares about.

Ideal- a conception of something in its perfection.
N's Ideal is that Pokemon and Humans living separately will allow Pokemon to live without being abused.

Truth- the true or actual state of a matter
N's Truth is that Pokemon and Humans need to live seperately for Pokemon to live without being abused by Humans.

Those are the Ideal and Truth that propel N to separate Humans and Pokemon. He came to those conclusions because he was raised around abused Pokemon.

The main character is a blank slate and is never giving any motivations. In fact, N says he's neutral on the subject so there's that.
A blank slate can have defined beliefs and goals. That is what drives the plot. If Hilbert and Hilda did not believe humans and Pokemon should live together the game would not happen because they would not except the Pokedex or starter Pokemon. The conversations with the supporting protagonists about their goals and interactions with Pokemon also show that Hilda and Hilbert believe humans and Pokemon should live together. Hilbert and Hilda also actively fight Team Plasma showing they disagree with Team Plasma's desire to separate humans and Pokemon.

Saying he's neutral and then trying to use the most powerful Pokemon in the region to force everyone to release their pokemon makes it clear N is not as neutral as he claims. I took that to mean N understands that if he loses he is willing to accept that he was wrong.
 
You look good at Pokemon but how's you chem?
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
637
Reaction score
18
That's what I've been trying to say. Each brother has his own unknown perspective that is the truth or ideal he fought for.

You seem to be confused though. Truth and Ideals are not special concepts exclusive to Unova's legends. There are as many ideals as thoughts people can have and as many truths as things people can see.
And what I'm saying, what I originally was trying to say is, that I need to know why these two things were in conflict in the first place.

I know they were at one point but I need to know the reason why otherwise these two were at odds with each other for no good reason, making this whole battle between the two ideas utterly pointless.

I know that ideals and truth shape people's decision in real life and perhaps in many games. But it usually both that influences our choices not one or the other.

Again, truth and ideals are not special concepts exclusive to Unova's legends. There are as many ideals as thoughts people can have and as many truths as things people can see. It is easy to see a character's ideal or truth in a character as developed as N.

N is not fighting for everyone's ideals or every true thing in the world. He's not going to make everyone wear shorts because some youngster thinks they are the ideal leg-wear. He's not going to hunt and kill Mewtwo because it is not the true Mew. He is fighting for his ideals or the specific true things he cares about.

Ideal- a conception of something in its perfection.
N's Ideal is that Pokemon and Humans living separately will allow Pokemon to live without being abused.

Truth- the true or actual state of a matter
N's Truth is that Pokemon and Humans need to live seperately for Pokemon to live without being abused by Humans.

Those are the Ideal and Truth that propel N to separate Humans and Pokemon. He came to those conclusions because he was raised around abused Pokemon.
Okay, let's back up a bit because we're starting to go around in a circle with this.

I'm asking, what does truth and ideals have to do with anything that going on? Sure, these things are used to perpetrate their motivation, I get that, but there are so many are other things that are behind this as well that are what is really propelling this.

Emotions, logic, authoritative orders, rewards, and morality.

What makes ideals and truth more motivational then any of this other stuff?

A blank slate can have defined beliefs and goals. That is what drives the plot. If Hilbert and Hilda did not believe humans and Pokemon should live together the game would not happen because they would not except the Pokedex or starter Pokemon. The conversations with the supporting protagonists about their goals and interactions with Pokemon also show that Hilda and Hilbert believe humans and Pokemon should live together. Hilbert and Hilda also actively fight Team Plasma showing they disagree with Team Plasma's desire to separate humans and Pokemon.

Saying he's neutral and then trying to use the most powerful Pokemon in the region to force everyone to release their pokemon makes it clear N is not as neutral as he claims. I took that to mean N understands that if he loses he is willing to accept that he was wrong.
Yes, the main character believes that Pokemon and humans should be together. Does that mean their motivation were based on ideals or truth?
 
Nah, not possible.
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
273
This whole concept of truth/ideals made me think for a very long time. If you recall, towards the ending of B/W, N was pondering the two concepts- but wondering how both could be used to change the world. These two concepts don't replace "emotion, logic, authoritative orders, rewards, and morality" as coolcatkim22 put it, but instead, they encompass all of these motives into one. Truth and ideals really are forces that drive change in real life, especially in politics. I'd want to say the two dragons are almost a metaphor for what I see in political conflict every day... of course, I'm getting too controversial, right?

Both are needed to change the world for the better: staying true to the ways things work now, and the desire to change what you have into something even greater. You need both, a balance, which is why the "yin-yang" concept works well for the two dragons.
 
You look good at Pokemon but how's you chem?
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
637
Reaction score
18
This whole concept of truth/ideals made me think for a very long time. If you recall, towards the ending of B/W, N was pondering the two concepts- but wondering how both could be used to change the world. These two concepts don't replace "emotion, logic, authoritative orders, rewards, and morality" as coolcatkim22 put it, but instead, they encompass all of these motives into one. Truth and ideals really are forces that drive change in real life, especially in politics. I'd want to say the two dragons are almost a metaphor for what I see in political conflict every day... of course, I'm getting too controversial, right?

Both are needed to change the world for the better: staying true to the ways things work now, and the desire to change what you have into something even greater. You need both, a balance, which is why the "yin-yang" concept works well for the two dragons.
I never said they replaced these things. I'm saying that these things were more important to the opposing sides then any ideal they have had or any truth there was to be found.

These concepts don't encompass any of these things, unless you're using a different definition of encompass. Like, my idea of something encompassing something else is more of a category thing, like emotions encompassing love, hate, and sorrow.

I agree they force change, but doesn't everything? And they don't affect politics, least on a huge scale. The thing that seems to affect politics the most is the struggle between people wanting change and people not wanting change. Which, I can see is a theme in the games but it has nothing to do with ideals and truth, that's a totally different thing altogether.

You almost made this work with your last statement, except two thing.

First you had to twist the word truth to a different meaning. You used the word true in the meaning of the expression 'be true', like 'remain true', or just 'remain'. Basically, 'don't change it'. Now, this might have been what they intended but seeing as they no where use in that particular way, I can't clarify that. In fact they've used the word in ways that are contradictory to the way you're using it there, so that doesn't really work.

Secondly, we're not talking about changing what you want into something greater, it's changing what you want into your ideals. That's a whole other ball of wax. This one I'll be a little more lenient on because ideals can cause people to change things into something greater but that's why I also have problems with this.

Ideals aren't about trying to get something to be better then the last, its about trying to get something to be perfect. Somebody who seeks perfection will never be happy with better so they will always pursue something greater, but then there are those who seek something greater but necessarily perfect. You're trying to characterize the ideal people as those in the latter camp, and that's a big difference when it comes to motivation and whether its ideals that's needed to change the world or it's just people who want something better.
 
Top