Wow. Damn.
Yeah... no.
But I don't think I can convince you otherwise, so I'm not going to bother with it. However, no one really should think legendaries, or any Pokémon for that are some abstract physical representations concepts with no real-life, cultural or mythological equivalent, nor should they think their basis is one very specific idea, rather than an amalgamation of different, possibly related, possibly unrelated ideas.
Care to explain instead of just bluntly dismissing me like that?
Looking at the different Zygarde formes and the children of Loki the only traits they share are being a canine, a serpent and a humanoid creature. Like I'm genuinely curious how you can see Fenrir in Zygarde 10% at all. Sure, I can be wrong, but the argumentation for the theory is very thin. And when it comes to pokémon inspiration a lot of it is guessing so I hardly think either you or I have the right to claim that we are definitely right.
Of course I know that Pokemon can be based on several things. The XYZ trio reminds me more of Hindu deities where creation, maintenance and destruction are extremely important aspects, which is why I have kind of settled for the Norse world map creatures being their visual inspiration while thematically being more similar to Hindu deities. I feel they kind of did the same with the Therian formes as well, with them visually resembling three of the four Chinese constellation creatures while still thematically just being Raijin, Fujin and Inari. However I don't see the same level of accuracy when it comes to the visuals of the Zygarde formes corresponding to Loki and his children.
Last edited: