• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

General Discussion & Speculation Thread

Sαpphire

Johto Champion
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm probably remembering it wrong, but wasn't Darkrai portrayed as being evil? Purposefully causing nightmares for children seems pretty evil to me.

There are excuses out there like "it wants to play and/or it's protecting itself and doesn't realize what it's doing is harmful," which seems to be the narrative that the series' writers prefer. It's fifth generation Dex text states: "To protect itself, it afflicts those around it with nightmares. However, it means no harm."

However, I kind of take issue with that narrative given the presentation of the Strange House and the child in Canalave City. In the former, the girl's ghost says: "In the dark dream... I heard my dad’s voice... Forget about the Lunar Wing... Please stay here with me..." She says some more before and after, but that one makes it seem like Darkrai is impersonating her father and trying to entice her to stay in the dream... which would probably kill her. Needless to say, she died as a result of the incident. The kid in Canalave mentions that Darkrai is watching it as he suffers through his own nightmare episode, which is pretty creepy and hints at malice over self-defense.

For that reason, I could see Necrozma being explicitly antagonistic, or even "evil." They've flirted with the idea of an evil Pokemon before, and simply haven't truly committed to the idea, instead inventing an excuse for its behavioral patterns or framing the acts as being done under the orders of a trainer. Necrozma's literal concept has been shown to be eating light, and that's not exactly the most benevolent concept in the world. Sure, it can be made out to be a simple biological function, but it comes with some very dark implications (no pun intended), much like Darkrai's themes.
 
Last edited:

RedJirachi

Veteran member
It'd be weird if it was actually evil and wanted to end the world. It'd be more of an evil by human standards, that we just see it as evil because it literally takes our light away.. but it's just seeing itself as eating and it doesnt understand that every other creature needs that light. Pokemon very early on stated that pokemon are NOT evil naturally, so i'd blame that if you're very gung-ho on an evil pokemon that wants to hurt people for the sake of hurting people.

I'm hoping Necrozma ends up being a created pokemon and nothing that is natural if it's going to be actually evil by nature. Like maybe that team actually created Necrozma?

The reason why no Pokemon in the main series has been evil is probably because it'd be harder to justify catching it.
 

Thure

Well-Known Member
And I doubt they would start making pokemon evil now. Sine SuMo the devs avoided the 'Good/Evil' trope. Nowadays everything is more realistic and grey. Even Guzma and Lusamine aren't truely evil. Lusamine was poisoned and influenced by Nihilego and the lost of her husband. And Guzma was just a rowdy who was abused as child (okay you could call his dad evil because of this if you want... but than a lot of parents would be evil).

Since this is the case I doubt they would make a truely evil pokemon.
 

Orphalesion

Well-Known Member
Evil Pokemon? Dark Type in Japan is Evil Type.

And yet it has Pokemon like Absol who spend their time traveling around, selflessly warning people about impending disasters. Imho it's really less the "Evil" type and more the "Dirty Fighter" type.

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with having evil legendary Pokemon. Legendaries are frequently portrayed with a high grade of intelligence, and as humans and dolphins show, any creature with high enough intelligence has a potential for being malicious.
The way I always understood it is that Pokemon can't be evil because animals can't be evil, since they lack the capacity for conscious cruelty and maliciousness (animals mostly just follow their instincts), but with at least some legendaries that restriction is null and void.

So far I'd definitely call Giratina and Darkai evil (no matter how they tried to cover that up later) plus Darkai IS portrayed as villainous in one of the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games. Sure they say "there's no evil Pokemon" but what an author says about their fictional universe, and what actually happens in said universe can be and, frequently are, two different things.
 

Akashin

Well-Known Member
And I doubt they would start making pokemon evil now. Sine SuMo the devs avoided the 'Good/Evil' trope. Nowadays everything is more realistic and grey. Even Guzma and Lusamine aren't truely evil. Lusamine was poisoned and influenced by Nihilego and the lost of her husband. And Guzma was just a rowdy who was abused as child (okay you could call his dad evil because of this if you want... but than a lot of parents would be evil).

Since this is the case I doubt they would make a truely evil pokemon.

I'd consider Guzma a bit more on the fence. A tragic backstory is great and all for making a character more sympathetic, but a character that became evil as a result of a sympathetic childhood is still an evil character. Ganondorf started out as a guy who wanted a better life for his people in more fertile lands than the barren desert than they were stuck in, but nobody would call the end result anything but evil.

Guzma's still more of a punk than any sort of megalomaniac villain, but the point remains, and that has more to do with the fact that Team Skull as a whole are just a band of punks by nature. And with Guzma, the tragic side of his history is left to subtext and implication and not an upfront part of his story (meaning, it's there if you want to understand him more, but not crucial to the story for the most part).
 
Last edited:

Thure

Well-Known Member
I'd consider Guzma a bit more on the fence. A tragic backstory is great and all for making a character more sympathetic, but a character that became evil as a result of a sympathetic childhood is still an evil character. Ganondorf started out as a guy who wanted a better life for his people in more fertile lands than the barren desert than they were stuck in, but nobody would call the end result anything but evil.

Guzma's still more of a punk than any sort of megalomaniac villain, but the point remains, and that has more to do with the fact that Team Skull as a whole are just a band of punks by nature. And with Guzma, the tragic side of his history is left to subtext and implication and not an upfront part of his story (meaning, it's there if you want to understand him more, but not crucial to the story for the most part).

I wouldn't call Team Skull evil. Evil for me is more than to be member of a rowdy gang. It's highely depend on how you define 'evil'.
 

Orphalesion

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't call Team Skull evil. Evil for me is more than to be member of a rowdy gang. It's highely depend on how you define 'evil'.

They took over a town and forced its inhabitants form their homes. People lost their homes and livelihoods because of this. That's evil, no matter how hard their childhoods were.

What people don't get about "complex" villains is that an explanation of why somebody acts in a malicious or evil manner doesn't excuse their misdeeds.
 

lolipiece

Pictured: what browsing Serebii does to a person
Staff member
Moderator
So far I'd definitely call Giratina and Darkai evil (no matter how they tried to cover that up later) plus Darkai IS portrayed as villainous in one of the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games. Sure they say "there's no evil Pokemon" but what an author says about their fictional universe, and what actually happens in said universe can be and, frequently are, two different things.

Why Giratina? Outside of being banished from vaguely-defined "violence", has it ever been shown in to be particularly malevolent in the games?

I don't Mystery Dungeon really counts towards anything. It's not made by Game Freak, and the world of the series is far different than the mainline games.
 

Dragon Pulse

Well-Known Member
One Pokémon I'd certainly call evil is Nihilego. What it did was just evil and it has no remorse. I wouldn't call Pokémon like Yveltal evil, considering its the Pokémon's duty to cause destruction due to its own nature.
 

lolipiece

Pictured: what browsing Serebii does to a person
Staff member
Moderator
One Pokémon I'd certainly call evil is Nihilego. What it did was just evil and it has no remorse. I wouldn't call Pokémon like Yveltal evil, considering its the Pokémon's duty to cause destruction due to its own nature.

The games literally state that Nihilego probably isn't even sentient. Can't be evil if you're not intelligent enough for it.

One of the Ultra Beasts. It's unclear whether or not this Pokémon is sentient, but sometimes it can be observed behaving like a young girl.

Also, stating Yveltal isn't evil because destruction is it's nature kind of contradicts your statement that Nihilego is evil because causing people to go crazy is its nature as well.

UB-01. Code name: "Symbiont." Properly known as Nihilego. There have been sightings reported of this beast in Alola's past. Its most distinctive feature is its parasitic capability. When Nihilego latches on to a host, it does not manipulate its actions directly. Rather it awakens the host's own capabilities and boosts them to an extreme extent in order to protect itself. It injects the host with a sort of neurotoxin to achieve this effect. This neurotoxin of Nihilego's is incredibly stimulating and inspires feelings of extreme excitement and a lack of inhibition in its host. In other words, anything or anyone that a Nihilego latches on to will have its native skills forcibly activated to their fullest extent and will then act as it naturally desires to.
 

Akashin

Well-Known Member
One Pokémon I'd certainly call evil is Nihilego. What it did was just evil and it has no remorse. I wouldn't call Pokémon like Yveltal evil, considering its the Pokémon's duty to cause destruction due to its own nature.

What did Nihilego do? It's a debatably sentient being that latches onto people for self-preservation; nothing that it does of its own volition is evil. All its toxins do is stimulate excitement and wear away at inhibitions. What people do while under the effect of that is entirely their own doing, not something it's making them do. Blaming Nihilego for what people do while under the effect of its toxins would be like holding the alcohol industry accountable for that house you burned down while you were drunk. You could blame the alcohol for it happening, sure, but it was still you that did it.

Edit: Ninja'd, sort of.
 
*crashes in* hey.

Being evil is subjective.

And to be quite honest, Gen VII did a really good job with their antagonistic forces this Generation, in that they have made them extremely morally grey. I'm certainly not saying that Pokemon is superior or on par with this example, but it kind of reminds me of Death Note where morals lay skewed left right and centre, and everyone has a different interpretation of who is right and who is wrong. Here in Pokemon we have a team of misfits who do bad things but had a rough past, we have a team leader who originally had good morals but descended into insanity after the loss of her husband (with Nihilego's effect being left ambiguous as to how strong it was), and we have a Pokemon that causes people to do bad things but may or may not be entirely aware of it.

Some people may call Skull villains because their actions are still inexcusable and then say Lusamine is a good guy because Nihilego influenced her, while another person would say that Skull are just misunderstood and that Lusamine could very well have become possessive and abusive of her own accord with Nihilego only playing a small part in that. The fact that every person has their own interpretations just shows that they've made some really interesting morally conflicted antagonists here, and I like that. It's kinda like what they were trying to do with N - he is an extremely morally grey character who can be interpreted as good or evil, but then when they introduced Ghetsis as the mastermind it was clear that his actions were pure evil. Having every antagonist in Gen VII be morally conflicted is very interesting.

Edit: I found this on the official website, and I think it'll be an interesting input onto the whole "Where does Necrozma stand morally" debate:

"Necrozma is a mysterious Legendary Pokémon said to be from a different world. Necrozma uses light as an energy source to stay active. It also absorbs light energy from its opponents and turns that energy into powerful lasers using the prisms in its two arms. The lasers can blast through anything. It has a dangerous nature, and rages about in search of light, but also appears to be in pain when it does so."
 
Last edited:

lemoncatpower

Cynical Optimist
*crashes in* hey.

Being evil is subjective.

And to be quite honest, Gen VII did a really good job with their antagonistic forces this Generation, in that they have made them extremely morally grey. I'm certainly not saying that Pokemon is superior or on par with this example, but it kind of reminds me of Death Note where morals lay skewed left right and centre, and everyone has a different interpretation of who is right and who is wrong. Here in Pokemon we have a team of misfits who do bad things but had a rough past, we have a team leader who originally had good morals but descended into insanity after the loss of her husband (with Nihilego's effect being left ambiguous as to how strong it was), and we have a Pokemon that causes people to do bad things but may or may not be entirely aware of it.

Some people may call Skull villains because their actions are still inexcusable and then say Lusamine is a good guy because Nihilego influenced her, while another person would say that Skull are just misunderstood and that Lusamine could very well have become possessive and abusive of her own accord with Nihilego only playing a small part in that. The fact that every person has their own interpretations just shows that they've made some really interesting morally conflicted antagonists here, and I like that. It's kinda like what they were trying to do with N - he is an extremely morally grey character who can be interpreted as good or evil, but then when they introduced Ghetsis as the mastermind it was clear that his actions were pure evil. Having every antagonist in Gen VII be morally conflicted is very interesting.

Edit: I found this on the official website, and I think it'll be an interesting input onto the whole "Where does Necrozma stand morally" debate:

"Necrozma is a mysterious Legendary Pokémon said to be from a different world. Necrozma uses light as an energy source to stay active. It also absorbs light energy from its opponents and turns that energy into powerful lasers using the prisms in its two arms. The lasers can blast through anything. It has a dangerous nature, and rages about in search of light, but also appears to be in pain when it does so."

lol the bold point was something I was gonna type 1000 times for people here :p
edit: the first bolded stuff because I didnt realize you had more bolded stuff than what I bolded on yours lol
 
Right so since I don't know Japanese my input is normally mostly useless when it comes to the Japanese site, but I decided out of boredom and curiosity to just google-translate some of the sentences on the site. I found this one, and while the translation is certainly inaccurate (it's clear to see with the grammar), the sentence is definitely saying something new at the end of the sentence. Here's the original:

冒険の舞台は、温暖で自然豊かな一大リゾート地・アローラ地方。『ウルトラサン・ウルトラムーン』では、このアローラ地方の上空に、怪しげな暗雲が広がろうとしている。雲の中からは、強い光も差し込んでいるようだが……。

Here's the poor translation:

The stage of adventure is the Arora region, one of the warmest and naturally rich resort areas. In "Ultra Sun Ultra Moon", dubious dark clouds are spreading over this Arora region. It seems that a strong light is also plugged in from the clouds, but ....

"Plugged in from the clouds" is definitely not what that is saying, but I think it's talking about something new, especially with the "...." at the end which is also present in the Japanese one.
 

Sαpphire

Johto Champion
Right so since I don't know Japanese my input is normally mostly useless when it comes to the Japanese site, but I decided out of boredom and curiosity to just google-translate some of the sentences on the site. I found this one, and while the translation is certainly inaccurate (it's clear to see with the grammar), the sentence is definitely saying something new at the end of the sentence. Here's the original:

冒険の舞台は、温暖で自然豊かな一大リゾート地・アローラ地方。『ウルトラサン・ウルトラムーン』では、このアローラ地方の上空に、怪しげな暗雲が広がろうとしている。雲の中からは、強い光も差し込んでいるようだが……。

Here's the poor translation:

The stage of adventure is the Arora region, one of the warmest and naturally rich resort areas. In "Ultra Sun Ultra Moon", dubious dark clouds are spreading over this Arora region. It seems that a strong light is also plugged in from the clouds, but ....

"Plugged in from the clouds" is definitely not what that is saying, but I think it's talking about something new, especially with the "...." at the end which is also present in the Japanese one.

It probably means something much closer to "included." It seems like the "plugged in" part focuses on the word し込み, shi-komi, which means something like "included" in this context, but becomes sashikomi, or insert (plugged in in this case), when 差 is included in front of it. In this line, it's included before the word, for reasons that aren't as clear to me, but that makes the translation program think that it means "plugged in."

So yeah, it essentially means "It seems like there's a strong light in the clouds, but..." which basically hints at Necrozma being present within the clouds since its whole big thing is light.
 

Aleh

«Last Hope»
Gonna throw around a couple of thoughts I have: I think Necrozma isn't really evil but there might be a reason why he stole the light. We even see it collapsed on the ground in a cutscene and light coming out of it and there seems to be more behind this. Then, the mysterious light with eyes in the box art. They already added new Pokémon in these games, so what if that's a new legendary as well? Could hold the key to why Necrozma did what it did.

Another thing, I see some similarities between the Megalopolis part with the tower and Ten Carat Hill (big circular area, kinda similar layout and camera shifts too), which incidentally Necrozma is found roaming in Sun and Moon, so maybe that's where he started stealing the light in another dimension that then ended up becoming the Megalopolis. What other purpose would this area have otherwise? Again, this is just a very random theory on my part.

I also don't think Lusamine will have the same exact role this time, like maybe she didn't come into contact with Nihilego and its toxins but another UB here and didn't become insane or something.
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
The games literally state that Nihilego probably isn't even sentient. Can't be evil if you're not intelligent enough for it.

I thought the game merely questioned its sentience.

The way I interpreted it, it's not fully "expressive" on its own, but when it latches on a host, it can take on a new personality.

Also, raise its happiness and the happiness checker will say that it "trusts you" or "loves you". I know that this is default for any Pokemon, but kindness and compassion are common Pokemon themes.
 

Bguy7

The Dragon Lord
I thought the game merely questioned its sentience.

The way I interpreted it, it's not fully "expressive" on its own, but when it latches on a host, it can take on a new personality.

Technically yes, but the fact that the question exists in the first place means there is good evidence to doubt it has sentience. Not conclusive evidence, but enough to make it a real possibility.

Also, raise its happiness and the happiness checker will say that it "trusts you" or "loves you". I know that this is default for any Pokemon, but kindness and compassion are common Pokemon themes.

To be fair, if there were a Pokémon that is stated to know nothing but rage and hatred 100% of the time, the friendship checker would still say that same thing. A game mechanic like that really can't be taken as an indication of anything.
 
Top