• Hello all! The forum staff have introduced a new rule set. We've reduced the number of rules, made trick language easier to understand, and have hopefully simplified the rules to make understanding them easier. Please have a read over the new forum rules here.
  • Hey guys! Have you heard? We now have popup
    Yes, Popups!
    messages for your forum posts. Learn more about it here!
  • Hey everyone, if you hadn't heard, information about Sword and Shield has been leaking. Outside of the designated threads in our Current Events section, please keep all unrevealed Pokemon, names, or any other information in spoiler tags. This policy will be in effect until January 3rd. This is an exciting time for Pokémon fans, enjoy yourselves!
  • Recently, some of our fellow Pokémon fan sites have received legal requests to take down leaked Sword and Shield images. We have not received one of these requests yet, but we are taking some preemptive measures to stay on the safe side. We ask that from now until the games release (November 15th) that you do not post any new leaked images anywhere on the forums.

    For more information, see this thread

Legendary Pokemon suggestions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
429
Reaction score
13
Hey guys, I wanted to discuss something that’s been on my mind for a while. It’s not something I feel particularly strong about, but a part of the Pokemon lore that I think isn’t very explored in FB.

We’ve had Legendaries handed out in different manners over the years, either through shops or minigames, and as a result we have a select number of players who own Mew, the Pixies and Jirachi. However, no RPing ever accompanied these giveaways, and I think there’s a lot of potential for awesome Legendary “captures” in FB (instead of purchasable ones).

Outside of adventures where Legendaries are usually featured as either quest givers or antagonists, the strongest of all Pokemon are very rarely seen, mentioned or put to use in FB. What I propose is a slightly different method of capture for Legendaries, which I’ll call “befriending” for now, and would allow some lucky few players to own one of the mythical creatures.
I propose some adventures or campaigns/events culminate with good RPers being given the chance to befriend a Legendary (provided the plot revolved around it), adding it to their party as an official Pokemon but without involving the use of Pokeballs (and thus upsetting the natural equilibrium that would probably come with capturing a Kyogre). My suggestion is that some Legendaries be obtainable through forming a powerful bond, allowing the Trainer to call upon that Legendary as his own – as an example, imagine a particularly long adventure at Cascadia’s Glacier Island where an antagonist tries to poach the resident Articuno responsible for maintaining the Isle’s ecosystem. If the player roleplays exceptionally well, rescues Articuno and befriends him, he could receive something like 1x Arctic Flute that would replace the Pokeball device as the means to summon that Legendary and add it to his party.

It’d have to be handled with care, with the clear position that not everyone will own a Legendary at some point and not all Legendaries will be obtainable; the trios, Manaphy and the like yes, but never Earth-shaping beasts like Arceus, Dialga or lore-wise one-of-a-kind creatures like Mewtwo. Also, fun as they are, I’d personally drop special sales or the Azelf-like games that took place before – they get everyone excited and active, but in my opinion strongly devalue what should be the grand act of obtaining a Legendary.

I think it’d bring those select few who accomplish the rare feat to a new level within the FB in-game world – the prestige of any Trainer who owns a Legendary, and the lore repercussions, would be really fun to watch. Provided it’s handled with care and restraint, without updaters giving in to the temptation that everyone should have one just because it’s a thing, and I think it’d bring a new layer of roleplaying potential to the game. Just food for thought, tell me what you think; I have no qualms about it if you’re opposed (but I can’t promise I won’t push a little harder for it to happen :p).
 
Poison-type Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
7
I gotta say, I like how this sounds. Some legendaries are definitely more feasible to obtain than others- I could easily see someone coming to own a Moltres or Regice, maybe even Darkrai, but not so much the likes of Groudon, Zygarde, or Giratina. The RP requirement is a good idea, too, and I like the idea of the player getting an item to summon the legendary instead of just keeping them in a Poké Ball. It definitely has a lot of RP potential.

Question- would this summoning device still require a spare PC slot, since it's not a Poké Ball and thus would logically not need to bother with the PC storage system? My guess would be no, considering that if you've RP'd well enough to earn a friggin' legendary, then frankly, in my opinion, you've earned yourself a bit of a special exception in that regard.
 
According to my research
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Mewtwo's no longer one of a kind :p ....but I do like this idea. I honestly don't think that we should completely eliminate certain legends either. I say it works the same way with rarer Pokemon, these guys would be the 20/20/20/20 mode for obtainables. I also can see these Pokemon not always being summoned either. It all depends on the plot. I can also see a lot of people arguing that "only the updator should allow glimpses of these Pokemon without player input since they are so rare", but I have no problem with either.
 
E

enchantress

Guest
We originally made Legendaries as rewards for trainer battles to allow members something awesome to strive for. That said, this does disadvantage those not all that interested in the battle aspect of FB.

Additionally, how is the updater going to decide Person A gets a legendary adventure while Persons B, C, D, and E don't? In addition, what if a person sights a legendary they either don't like or isn't one of their favourites if not their absolute favourite? Sometimes a person's reaction to scenarios like this can be quite upsetting for the updater.

I can't say I'm in agreement with all aspects you've brought up, but I'm not entirely against the idea either.
 
Doll Demon
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
85
Reaction score
1
I definitely like the idea of obtaining legendaries (or, at least, the opportunity to summon them) through RP as opposed to through games which garner temporary interest but not long-term investment. That said, the idea of "owning" legendaries, to me, is a bit... odd, given the universe that FB is in. Maybe smaller, less powerful legendaries could be captured and owned, but given the power that the majority of legendaries are supposed to wield, I'm more inclined to say that they're never really "added to the party". Summoned, yes! That sounds like a wonderful idea, to allow for summoning items so that those who have proven their worth can summon a legendary in times of dire need, but I don't think people want to see Articuno chilling drinks at the FB bar or Zapdos powering someone's secret base. For that reason, I like the "summon item" idea, but want to extend it to say that the summoning item doesn't mean the legendary belongs to you - it simply means that it will assist you in dangerous times. Presumably, abuse of this power would mean that the item could no longer be used (the legendary will no longer respond or that kind of thing).

The other reason why I like the idea of "summoning but not owning" is that it prevents situations where you have a member who obtains the item but then goes inactive - if they are able to summon the legendary, but don't "own" it, then others who are active can ALSO have a chance of getting the item and being able to summon that particular legendary without having to pretend that person never had the item, and you can also open up the possibility of having group adventures where multiple people can work together to earn summon items. Granted, in THAT situation, it would create the possible awkward situation of two people trying to summon simultaneously in different locales, but I can leave it up for debate as to whether it's worth that possible scenario to let multiple people have summoning capabilities of the same legendary.
 
Fizzy Bubble Elite
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
179
Reaction score
2
Just want to throw in my 2 cents on this subject if you don't mind.

(As a denizen of Birth Island :p,) I like this idea and think it would be worth looking into. My only qualms with this is that I'd prefer this to be a VERY RARE distribution. I don't like the idea of necessarily giving every other member access to a legend. This would destroy the pleasure of owning a legend is my thought. I think the person in question should have put in a lot of effort themselves into adventuring and FB to be allowed consideration for such a summoning item. As MZ said: "select few who accomplish the rare feat".

Next to that, no more than one kind of summoning item active at a time in FB? (This is a personal request) While I agree with the idea that if the owner of the summoning item leaves, a new owner can come along and have a similar item. This way, the legend can still be made a part of FB. I feel this should be done with careful consideration. As in, this should be one of the few exceptions a similar summoning item is made into existence.
eg, The first person to obtain an Arctic Flute is going to feel pretty special.
The fifth person to obtain an Arctic Flute isn't going to find it equally special if he/she knows there are four other active members who own a similar item.
If this person were the only 'active' member to own such an item, it'd be more memorable to them.
 
Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
429
Reaction score
13
Additionally, how is the updater going to decide Person A gets a legendary adventure while Persons B, C, D, and E don't? In addition, what if a person sights a legendary they either don't like or isn't one of their favourites if not their absolute favourite? Sometimes a person's reaction to scenarios like this can be quite upsetting for the updater.
Updater discretion. If a player has been exceptional in his RP quality, or a consistent contributor to the game, or a regular friendly presence on the board they're eligible. Person A gets one while adventuring under me, Person B might get one while being updated by someone else at a later time if they're both patient and a valuable addition to FB - by no means should everyone get a legendary or it loses even more meaning than it did selling them in shops.
As for a player sighting a Legendary they don't like, too bad. Same thing happens when an updater wants to award a regular Pokemon to a player that has no interest in it; it's no more of an issue than regular zone captures have been up to this point. Besides, the player isn't forced to befriend the legendary in that adventure if he wants to wait for a new one (however long it takes for that to happen).

I like the "summon item" idea, but want to extend it to say that the summoning item doesn't mean the legendary belongs to you - it simply means that it will assist you in dangerous times. Presumably, abuse of this power would mean that the item could no longer be used (the legendary will no longer respond or that kind of thing).
Agreed. I still think the Pokemon in question should be added to the player's Profile to symbolize that the Legendary responds only to that player. If that player goes inactive (to be determined, for example 6 months without posting in FB threads), the Legendary's stats reset and it is eligible to be obtained by someone else. If that player returns, his Legendary is forfeit since he never formally "owned it" inside a Pokeball.

Next to that, no more than one kind of summoning item active at a time in FB?
Absolutely, even though canon has established that there are multiple Articuno roaming the Pokemon World I'd also prefer if each LEgendary was as unique as possible within the FB world.



This suggestion seems to have a considerable amount of positive feedback, so I was wondering if, after all details/mechanics are addressed, this could become official at some point. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Poison-type Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
7
Probably a stupid question, but would legendaries "obtained" in such a manner be usable in shops, considering you don't really "own" the legendary, strictly speaking?
 
Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
429
Reaction score
13
The aspect of "owning" would pertain to RP in-universe logic only - from a player perspective, I'd consider the Legendary part of the team (i.e. added to the member's profile normally) and, as such, usable in shops - just like current Legendaries can be used.
 
E

enchantress

Guest
To be perfectly honest while I'm intrigued by the summoning idea I'm not ready to be making an official standpoint on Legendary Pokémon at this point in time.

I certainly don't agree with updaters choosing who does and doesn't get a legendary adventure based on their personal feelings for their updatees as it's far too biased for my liking. Everyone should be entitled to a legendary adventure whether an updater believes they are eligible or not. It shouldn't matter if a member has been here ten days or ten years. If they're invested in their adventure and are RPing well there is no reason to say no. I'd rather see a relatively new active RPer rewarded with a legendary than a shop-sitting vet who returns to a zone for the specific purpose of obtaining a legendary from their bff updater mate.

I do agree that a person can keep a summoned Legendaries stats in their registration post so long as it's noted the Legendary can be summoned, it is not owned.

I also agree that summoned legendaries cannot be used in shops. They are not owned by you so cannot be trained by you.

Then again I don't agree that only one person is able to summon a specific legendary. People have different adventures with different updaters so it can happen that you may have two consecutive Groudon adventures happening at once without one updater realising another is doing the same. There is nothing wrong with this IMO. The only time it may become an issue is in a group campaign if two or more members decide to summon Groudon at the same time. But even then I think it makes the situation even more exciting. Who's to say that just because Mike has befriended Groudon in his adventure that Kate can't in hers? They've both met Groudon at different times in Groudon's life and it's befriended them both. If both are in trouble and Groudon is summoned by not one, but two people for help in a particularly life threatening event, then why wouldn't Groudon want to help them both?

Then we need to keep in mind that we already have a handful of owned Legendaries in FB so how are the stipulations for summoned Pokémon going to work when they are around?

I wouldn't mind working with this idea a little more but even if we all come to an amicable agreement I cannot guarantee it'll go through in the immediate future. Legendaries are not the be and all and end all of life in FB and are certainly not a priority but it can't hurt to get the wheels in motion to see what we can come up with.
 
UPN 事務職員
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Messages
269
Reaction score
1
Personally, I have no problem with retconning all owned legendaries into summonable legendaries. I can't speak for Treepandaone (Mew), Raves (Jirachi), Pest (Uxie), or Thrain (Mesprit), but speaking for myself I have no problem with the idea that Azelf is my partner Pokémon who adventures with me from time to time, who joins my side in times of need, but who is not "owned" by me, who isn't sitting in a PC gathering electronic dust when not by my side, etc.

From my viewpoint, it's very easy to divorce the uplevels, the Move Tutor teachings, the Happiness Points, etc, that I have given to Azelf from ownership of Azelf. With most Pokémon we tend to speak of "learning" moves, but with summonable legendaries I think of it instead as a member "unlocking" moves, unlocking the privilege to use those attacks with that particular legendary. So if you've only put five Daycare dropoffs into Azelf and zero candies, then sorry but when you summon Azelf he's only going to be at Level 10, not at Level 100 like somebody else's summon. Or if you've never taught Azelf the Move Tutor move Ice Punch, then sorry but Azelf summoned to your side isn't going to be able to use Ice Punch to get you out of a pickle -- not even when other members have unlocked Ice Punch for their own Azelf summons. Is it a little weird? Is it a little strange to think that an Azelf can't use a move he clearly knows just because you haven't jumped through a metagame hoop? Well sure, but it's not that weird, and certainly not difficult to understand. And I think it paves the way pretty cleanly towards legendaries that are able to be owned by the community rather than by a specific member.
 
UPN 事務職員
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Messages
269
Reaction score
1
Everyone is going to have different opinions on which legendaries are one of a kind and which ones aren't, but I would say that the one-of-a-kind legendaries are the ones which have to be summonable (or else, as per the status quo, exclusively owned by solitary members) whereas the legendaries who exist in multiple can be either summoned or owned, either/or. (Ownership isn't really an issue of fairness when everyone can have a shot at owning that particular legendary.) Me personally, my list and reasoning goes as follows:

One of a Kinds:
  • Mewtwo: it's a man-made Pokémon; to hell with the 5th gen movie, it's still a one-of-a-kind Pokémon
  • Raikou: it's a creation of (a specific) Ho-oh's, in specific response to the events of the burnt tower in Ecruteak City
  • Entei: same as Raikou
  • Suicune: same as Raikou
  • Regirock: it's a man-made Pokémon created by a neolithic tribe in Hoenn
  • Regice: same as Regirock
  • Registeel: same as Regirock
  • Regigigas: same as Regirock, despite being found in Sinnoh (see Regi lore for details)
  • Groudon: it's a titan; it is said to have created the continents
  • Kyogre: it's a titan; it is said to have created the seas
  • Rayquaza: it's a titan; its domain is the sky, its task maintaining a balance between Groudon and Kyogre
  • Uxie: it's a unique creation of Arceus's that he would only need to create once; it is a lesser deity; it is the God of Knowledge
  • Mesprit: same as Uxie but with Emotion
  • Azelf: same as Uxie but with Willpower
  • Dialga: it's a unique creation of Arceus's that he would only need to create once; it's a god; it is the God of Time, which doesn't make sense to have in multiple
  • Palkia: same as Dialga but with space
  • Giratina: same as Dialga but with antimatter(?)
  • Arceus: it is God, the Creator
  • Cobalion: he seems more like a specific person than a Pokémon species. ^^; Blame the Three Musketeers inspiration!
  • Terrakion: same as Cobalion
  • Virizion: same as Cobalion
  • Keldeo: same as Cobalion
  • Tornadus: a lesser deity; the God of the Wind
  • Thundurus: a lesser deity; the God of Storms
  • Landorus: a lesser deity; the God of the Harvest
  • Zekrom: a unique result born from a dragon splitting into two halves
  • Reshiram: same as Zekrom; the other half
  • Genesect: same as Mewtwo; the film depicts 5 or more, but the games make it sound like a one-time experiment
  • Xerneas: it's either a deity or else a divine creature; either the God of Life or else a divine creature with life-giving properties
  • Yveltal: same as Xerneas except death
  • Zygarde: unclear since they keep rewriting Zygarde's narrative, but it seems like the sum total of Zygarde Cells in the world can produce only one 100% forme
  • Hoopa: I get the impression from the source materials that Hoopa is a one-of-a-kind, a lesser deity with domain over portals
  • Magearna: we still don't know for certain but my current impression is that she's a one-time man-made creation like the Regis, made by a specific society at a specific point in time (500 years ago) and never again
Debatables:
  • Articuno: personally I still treat the Kanto legendary birds as one-of-a-kinds, but I understand that many fans no longer do and can begrudgingly accept that they would exist in multiple in FB
  • Zapdos: same as Articuno
  • Moltres: same as Articuno
  • Ho-oh: same as Articuno but Johto and I'm even less happy about the idea of there being more than one
  • Lugia: same as Ho-oh
  • Celebi: it's not really clear whether it's a lesser time god, whether it's a non-deity that nonetheless is one of a kind, or whether there's an entire race of Celebi
  • Latios: same as Articuno but I'm more happy with the idea of there being more than one; it's practically canon, just not mine
  • Latias: same as Latios
  • Cresselia: who knows
  • Darkrai: who knows
  • Kyurem: unclear; its origin may be different from that of either Zekrom or Reshiram or of their parent form; one version of the events states that Kyurem arrived from space, while another states that Kyurem was the husk that was left behind after Zekrom and Reshiram's original form split into the two of them; probably one a kind, certainly if the second version of the events is the one to go with
  • Meloetta: who knows
  • Victini: who kn0ws, but I am inclined to lump it in with the non-one of a kinds below
  • Diancie: is there only one princess of the Carbink of planet Earth at a time? Or are there numerous Carbink societies worldwide and each has its own Diancie?
  • Volcanion: who knows
Non-One of a Kinds:
  • Mew: I don't think Mew is a deity; I think there are probably a number of Mew in the wild; I think Mew interbreed despite officially being genderless in the games
  • Jirachi: I think Jirachi is a race of creatures, and that no Jirachi we've seen has been "the last son of Kypton," so to speak
  • Deoxys: same as Jirachi except space virus
  • Heatran: I get the feeling that Heatran is just a really rare ancient beast. Not exactly a deity, but kind of like "a lesser titan" or something.
  • Manaphy: same as Jirachi except aquatic being
  • Phione: same as Manaphy except larval form
  • Shaymin: same as Jirachi except flower hedgehog
As you can see from my lists, I do think that most legendaries are one of a kind (and thus are good candidates for communal sharing). But there are quite a few that I think are up for debate, and even a couple that I am pretty confident exist in the Pokémon world in multiple (and could justifiably be owned by more than one member if ownership is so important). What the community ends up deciding may be different from what I've had to say, but I think it's important for us to come to a consensus on who's one of a kind and who isn't. The moment we decide that, even going by the status quo of legendary ownership we could start opening up certain legendaries to being owned by more than one member. But we could also press forward with the idea of community-owned legendaries for those that the community unanimously agrees are one of a kind.
 
Märchen Meines Lebens
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
While I do agree with you on most of those Talon, there are a few one-of-a-kinds I do disagree with. Genesect was implied to be a race of superhunters that Team Plasma tried to revive to create a race of bioweapons. For the Regis, I think multiple were implied to have been created, so I'd put that down as debatable. For Zygarde, I think the 10% would be fine to be owned, but the complete form would only be able to be used in a joint adventure.

But I think most of those are pretty accurate at this point. I think what should be decided at this point are where the debatables fall, and see any other arguements for multiples.
 
Poison-type Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
7
Talon, FB no longer considers Phione to be a legendary, so that could be taken off the list altogether.
 
UPN 事務職員
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Messages
269
Reaction score
1
Genesect was implied to be a race of superhunters that Team Plasma tried to revive to create a race of bioweapons. For the Regis, I think multiple were implied to have been created, so I'd put that down as debatable. For Zygarde, I think the 10% would be fine to be owned, but the complete form would only be able to be used in a joint adventure.
Genesect I groan at because it's clearly supposed to be Mewtwo 2.0 but if it's canon even in the games that there's more than one then whatever. If it's just the film (the same darn film that introduces the female Mewtwo! >_<), then I think it's more debatable but the evidence would still be in favor of multiple Genesect. Myeh. =\ :p

Hit me up with the sources about the multiple Regis thing. (Can be from your memory and I do the digging, but links are always welcome.) I know it's a headcanon thing for some fans, but personally I've never liked it. I feel like the evidence against is more colorful and more prominent than the evidence for. The anime's only supporting point that I know of is that Frontier Brain Brandon owns the complete set but then the complete set, seemingly not under Brandon's ownership, has also made appearances in the films. The video games' only supporting point that I know of is the fact that the Regis can be obtained in Unova as well as in Hoenn. (Not counting Platinum because that's clearly 4th-wall shenanigans.) I would still insist that the Unova Regis are the one and only Hoenn Regis and they just ... um ... "magically showed up in Unova ^^;;;;;;", but we all know what's really going on here: it's more 4th-wall-breaking nonsense with Game Freak trying to find ways to give people old stuff in new generations. (See also: Groudon and Kyogre in HGSS. THERE ARE NOT TWO GROUDON IN THE WORLD!!!)

To me, having more than one Regirock is as bizarre as having more than one Magearna. It's a very specific creation, not something as generic as a clay pot or sword, what with the body shape and the braille dots ... the only way to reconcile there being 2+ of each Regi in the world would be to argue anthropologically for the neolithic tribe that created the Regis to have spanned the globe. Certainly possible, but again, where's the evidence? Seems like more "Pokémon takes place after an apocalyptic war" fanon stuff to me.

Zygarde I guess it bugs me that you'd say any number of people can own the 10% form but not the other forms when ... well, like, if only one person can have the 100% form then doesn't that have to place a cap of ten members owning the cells that make up the 10% form? ^^; Not to mention that there wouldn't be ten Cores, just two, so really it should be only two members owning the 10% form (if only one can have the 100% form). It gets complicated quickly. Just better off all-or-none'ing it with Zygarde imo. Either make the whole thing at all levels communally owned or else allocate a specific owner for each Core (two maximum) and leave it up to them to decide when if ever they're going to fuse their 50% forms to create the 100% form.

EDIT: From Bulbapedia, Regirock's Ruby dex entry:
Regirock was sealed away by people long ago. If this Pokémon’s body is damaged in battle, it is said to seek out suitable rocks on its own to repair itself.
Just the way this is worded, it makes it sound like a Regirock, the Regirock, the one and only Regirock, was sealed away by ancient peoples. If you take the other route and argue for 2+ Regirocks in the world, then for this entry to still hold true it has to mean that all Regirocks worldwide were sealed away by ancient people. Again, it's possible ...! I just don't like it. =P Regirock and Pals to me are the first Magearna: a synthetic PokéPinocchio created by pre-modern peoples.

Talon, FB no longer considers Phione to be a legendary, so that could be taken off the list altogether.
I'll leave my list alone since it's a complete list of every legendary (I think), but thanks for the info. :eek: Duly noted.
 
Märchen Meines Lebens
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
On the subject of the Regis, according to all of Regigigas' dex entries, it was the one who created Regirock, Regice, and Registeel. So I think it was more of the people sealed away the Regis since they seemed to be equivelent to the Titans. So the trio I'd argue to be multiowned while Gigas has the be summoned.

For Zygarde, I was just saying that lore wise it would be okay to own the 10% forme. There have been multiple cores that I believe can create cells to reach the other formes. It's just that the 50% forme is on par power wise with Xerneas/Yveltal, and the Complete is more powerful than the two combined. I think there would be more, considering most legendaries have multiples.
 
New Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
Just throwing in my 2 cent.
I can agree on pretty much the entire list of Talon, as well as the way he feels about that Mewtwo vs Genesect movie...

That said, I don't really have much of a problem with there being multiple Genesect. It's basically a legendary Fossil Pokémon, with some enhancements, of which Plasma did make more as can be seen in the anime as well (not only in that Mewtwo vs Genesect movie).
Multiple Mewtwo's on the other hand I DO have problems with as it has been well established to be a one of a kind by everything prior to that movie. And said movie gives ZERO explanation about where this feminine Mewtwo came from, IF it is even a different one at all. Maybe it's the same and it has changed. Who is to say, as no background whatsoever is given on that Mewtwo.

As for the Regi's. There are only 1 of each.
It's also not people who created them. Regigigas created the three Legendary Golems. People worshiped them (Sinnoh people) and at some point they got afraid of their power, sealed Regigigas away and shipped the lesser Regi's to Hoenn to seal them away there too. (see the Regi lore)
Also, after the Regi's have been caught by Pyramid King Brandon (see anime), every single instance since then when either one of the Regi's showed up somewhere be it the series or a movie, Brandon himself has been there too. Which adds all the more proof to there being only one of each Regi.

Then for the others on Talon's debatable list;
Ones I can see multiple of to various degrees of agreement: Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres, Celebi, Latios, Latias, Cresselia, Darkrai, Meloetta, Victine, Diancie
Ones I can only see one of to current knowledge, or prefer only one of: Ho-oh, Lugia, Kyruem, Volcanion
 
bark-ette
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
wouldn't it be like 200% easier to just say that all legends are one-of-a-kind for the purposes of FB and they can only be summoned, instead of creating super objective lists that people will argue about until the literal end of time
 
Märchen Meines Lebens
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Well Toy, no matter what's settled on people will argue about this to the end of time. I like these objective lists better than summoning to be completely honest. I feel like it'll at least make it so that those that are multiple can easily fit into our own character (Like say my Zapdos would be completely different to Talon's). I feel like it would be a lot more unique and fun. I think after we get a few more people to post a possible community agreed lsit could be formulated.
 
Light and Dark
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
218
Reaction score
0
I have to disagree with certain legendary Pokemon being unique. First one that comes right at the top of the list is Mewtwo. If it's such a known fact that Mewtwo is indeed man-made (which it is), then who's to say it isn't possible, though likely unethical, for more than one Mewtwo to be made? I think some of us might be too worried about the ethics of more than one Mewtwo being made (and the implications of that idea) that it's getting in the way of whether or not it's simply possible. Even if we ignore the Genesect movie, which depicted a Mewtwo being created under a suspiciously similar origin story to the first Mewtwo, I have a hard time thinking that there's only one Mewtwo out there, that absolutely nobody tried (and succeeded) to replicate Team Rocket's work.

As for other legendaries:

Articuno, Zapdos, and Moltres: It is a bit hard to pin down whether or not there are multiples of these, especially considering their involvement in the anime. Are there actually multiples of them, or is it just one Pokemon roaming around the world? My gut says there's multiples (else how could this trio just be living on their own island serving under the Orange Islands Lugia their entire lives?), but there's nothing concrete.
Raikou, Entei, and Suicune: If Ho-oh could make these Pokemon once, it could make them again, but considering Whale Island has effigies for two of these Pokemon (and apparently Volcanic Mountain has the third) that leans it toward these Pokemon being unique in FB's world, though there's nothing to say there can't be more than one.
Ho-oh and Lugia: I may be biased about this, but considering not only does the anime explicitly show a baby Lugia but also that it's possible in the games to snag a Shadow Lugia from the Orre region I just can't consider Lugia to be unique, and if Lugia isn't unique then Ho-oh probably isn't either, though there's no evidence to back that claim up.
Regirock, Regice, and Registeel: Man-made Pokemon, they can be made multiple times. Also, Pyramid King Brandon, need I say more? =P
Latios and Latias: Probably some bias here too, but the movie all about them blatantly claims there's multiples of these two.
Darkrai: Not sure how much stock people put into the Sinnoh arc, specifically a trainer named Tobias who has clearly captured a Darkrai (as well as a Latios), but this one's an oddball if only for the fact that the Darkrai movie may have taken place before Tobias captured his or they may not even be one and the same.
Kyurem: I'm more inclined to think Kyurem is unique given the lore behind it, but the idea of a White Kyurem vs. Black Kyurem epic clash is intriguing.
Cobalion, Terrakion, Virizion, and Keldeo: This is debatable to me only because I can't think of what purpose they serve that requires them to be unique.
Genesect: There's been plenty of discussion about Genesect above, so I'll just say I'm on the side of multiple Genesect existing.
Zygarde: Complete Form Zygarde probably has to be unique, but does that mean there can only be two 50% Zygardes at most? If so, 50% is one of those few cases that can't be owned but may still be considered to have more than one of. Like Lit, however, I can see multiple 10% Zygardes or Zygarde Cores being owned.
Hoopa: That movie was weird, man! Cool, but weird. Conceivably there could be more than one Hoopa, but this is the one case where I'd rather not see multiples of a Pokemon that can summon other legendaries at will!!
Magaerna: I'd have to wait until more information comes out about it to say anything concrete, but if it's man-made it's possible there can be multiples of them.

Okay, now for some general stuff I wanted to say about legendary Pokemon:
1) Fizzy Bubbles is about a new world of Pokemon that parallels a mix of the games/anime. However, that isn't to say it can't have it's own canon. What we decide about the uniqueness of legendary Pokemon could have some key differences from the games/anime if we wanted them to exist. Now, that isn't to say we shouldn't try to keep as close to what's considered "canon" as possible, but it's okay if FB has some inconsistencies to that canon.
2) Why would the games even bother to make "shiny" versions of legendary Pokemon if such Pokemon were unique and therefore the only version to exist? Now, we could just say here that, for the purposes of FB, shiny versions of legendary Pokemon that are considered unique don't exist at all, but it's something to consider when discussing uniqueness of legendary Pokemon overall.
3) Since we're discussing legendary Pokemon and whether or not there are multiples of them, I'll just link this Pokemon theory video here, I figured it was interesting to listen to, at least. (also ignore the way he badly pronounces certain Pokemon... XD)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top