(Image by purplekecleon)
In any sort of media, we like to label things as good or evil. Pokémon is no different. Besides the characters, we could imagine the titular creatures being good or evil. But then, could Pokémon actually be good or evil, similar to human characters? Read more if you are ready.
Morality of Pokémon as Shown to Us
In other media, especially the main anime, Pokémon are capable of deciding their own morality. In other words, they have rational thought, for the most part. There are certain manga that does this too, such as the Pocket Monsters one with Clefairy (then again, that’s a gag comic). Because of the fact that they can be good or bad, they are unpredictable compared to an animal.
The fact that Pokémon could be good or bad might be because of how cute or identifiable Pokémon are, thanks to their distinguishable features that allow us to recognise their emotions better. We like to see Pokémon as being good, because they are, after all, marketed as our companions thanks to the games.
There are times when we see Pokémon behaving similar to animals, in which they do anything for survival. This is most evident in the Pokémon Special manga, especially in early times. It’s no surprise that the brainchild of Pokémon thought that that manga best suits his vision of the titular monsters. Because of this, that manga felt more realistic in terms of what we expect in the world.
Like An Animal
Perhaps Pokémon could be similar to an animal, in which they don’t have any sense of morality that drive them to be good or evil. Similar to animals, Pokémon have special abilities humans do not have, such as swimming, hearing from long distances and strength. Animals also need those abilities to aid them in their survival, since they are governed by instinct, meaning they don’t have a rational thought. The PokéDex never outright said if that is the case, but it could be interpreted this way, since it explains each of the Pokémon’s behaviour and quirks.
Because of that instinctual drive, they are not necessarily good or evil. Whatever someone perceived to be an evil action, such as eating other Pokémon, is important to them for their survival. Similarly, what is seen as good, such as protecting the young, is also for survival. Basically, any action they do in the wild could be justified. When it comes to training them, a guide to get them to do what you want to do could be to use what drives them, such as rewarding them with food or affection if they did something good, and punishing or admonishing them if they don’t do well.
Whatever I had just said could easily be applied to Pokémon that are animal-like, because the similarities could be seen more easily, due to the frame of reference to the real world. What about those that display more intelligence? They could be similar in a sense that they don’t necessarily have any moral reference to conclude whether they’re good or not, even with great problem-solving skills in hand. After all, intelligence is neither good nor bad, so the way a person use it will determine whether you’re good or bad.
Stereotyping
If you are not familiar with what stereotypes are, it is essentially an over-generalised belief on a certain people, or in this case, Pokémon. Some Pokémon are identified as good solely for the good looks, while some are identified as evil merely because they don’t look approachable.
Those cute Pokémon that look happy usually make them approachable, so it is easy to view them as good. They even make for good mascots, actually. After all, why would Pikachu be a mascot in the first place? Due to this, it is difficult to imagine Pikachu as an evil entity. Conversely, Pokémon that look lame or sinister is normally viewed as evil because they have a look you can’t trust. And then, there are others that are difficult to decide because they could go either way.
Typing could be a source of stereotypes. Dark-types and Ghost-types are normally perceived as evil, because they are generally untrustworthy or harmful to people, while Fighting-types and Fairy-types would usually be considered good because they are more approachable or protective. Some types could be viewed as evil because they are generally harmful, such as Fire and Poison (you thought Magcargo burning anything it touches is fun?), but types that are generally beneficial for people could be seen as good, such as Water and Flying.
Stereotypes could extend to the trainers that use them. There are stereotypes that are largely neutral, such as artists using Smeargle and Hikers using Rock-types, but there are evil trainers that use certain Pokémon that we consider them evil because of that. Some examples include Crobat’s family and Arbok, due to its usage by certain Teams.
Of course, stereotyping has a fallacy associated it. Mainly, the logic of whether something is good or bad based on characteristics doesn’t apply to every Pokémon. Trevenant is considered good despite its looks. Absol is considered good, despite being a Dark-type. Primeape is a Fighting-type that isn’t exactly honourable. Labelling a Pokémon based on what they are is usually biased and could be misleading since they might not necessarily be what they seem.
Trainer’s Morality
As we all know, a trainer is someone who trains Pokémon. Trainers are humans, so they have a sense of morality. When they train the Pokémon, their training regimes could affect the Pokémon. In fact, the way Pokémon behaves could very well reflect on what kind of a person the trainer is. If the trainer is disciplined, so are the Pokémon. Kind trainers beget kind Pokémon. Cruel trainers beget cruel Pokémon. It’s like how children inherits the parent’s habits.
This might very well affect Pokémon normally perceived to be good to be evil, or vice-versa. It won’t be as easy to convince certain Pokémon to adapt to the trainer’s habits if it is normally against their grain. It might also change their habits too. It’s possible that young Pokémon are more easily changed than older Pokémon, like how children could easily change their behaviour compared to when they are older.
Assuming that Pokémon isn’t completely governed by instinct, if Pokémon are released in the wild, their morality or habits could probably spread in the wild. As soon as that Pokémon pass on their ways to the younger generation, the spreading begins. It’s possible that a kind Pokémon could result in a route full of kind Pokémon in several years. The morality could be spread between the wild Pokémon and the trained Pokémon too, so releasing them isn’t necessarily needed. If an area has friendly Pokémon, then it’s most likely a result of releasing enough Pokémon that are taught virtues.
A Wonderful Place to Be?
So, if the titular creatures are able to possess a sense of morality, would it be a wonderful place to be? If you think of it idealistically, we would like to think of Pokémon as always being good. If you think of it pessimistically, we would believe that they are always out there harming you. If you think of it realistically, we would think of Pokémon as neutral and normally harmful, due to their need for survival. The latter is the most popular of “What Ifs” in Pokémon, because the possibilities are endless.
In conclusion, since Pokémon is fictional and open-ended, it could very well depend on the imagination of the person, so basically Pokémon would be, for all intents and purposes, be neutral, but has the possibility to become good and evil.
Like pretty much any Pokémon fan, it would be cool to be in the Pokémon world, though sometimes I do fear that if they could be evil, the results could be very lethal. Of course, it’s a lot better if they are good, as long as quality of life becomes better as a result. I hope you enjoyed reading this article as I have writing it.
Thanks for reading.
