Armin Arlert (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
schachmeister) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
victory_road2021-02-10 04:32 am
schachmeister) wrote in victory_road2021-02-10 04:32 am
Video;
[The video opens on a nice little beach towards the sunset hours. A large red Gyarados is laying with his head in the surf, enjoying some good rubs to his crest from Armin, who addresses the camera without taking his eyes off the big lug on the sand.]
I spent a lot of time reading the Pokedex when I first arrived here, but the longer I am here and the more research I do, the more I realise there are a lot of falsehoods in the Pokedex as well. Or at least, a lot of uncorroborated information. Which, unfortunately, seems to lead to some pokemon having a very undeserved reputation.
Take Gyarados, for example.
[He gestures with his arm to the Gyarados laying on the sand, who lets out a low rumble of enjoyment.]
All the Pokedex talks about is how vicious and destructive they are, and how they go on constant rampages.
Now, I won't deny that they can be dangerous and territorial in the wild, but I don't think it is right to portray them as mindless rampaging monsters either. They behave that way for a reason and each has their own personality. They can make perfectly fine pokemon, as long as they are handled by an experienced trainer.
[In fact, Armin got some theories about how their bad reputation really is the result of being handled by a few too many inexperienced trainers.]
I'm not sure how to go about submitting corrections to the Pokedex, but until I figure that out, I wanted to ask: are there any pokemon you care about that you feel have a very undeserved reputation? Or any other false information in the Pokedex that you know about?
[Armin can't research every pokemon as much as he'd like. But perhaps other people can help him correct any misconceptions he might have.]
I spent a lot of time reading the Pokedex when I first arrived here, but the longer I am here and the more research I do, the more I realise there are a lot of falsehoods in the Pokedex as well. Or at least, a lot of uncorroborated information. Which, unfortunately, seems to lead to some pokemon having a very undeserved reputation.
Take Gyarados, for example.
[He gestures with his arm to the Gyarados laying on the sand, who lets out a low rumble of enjoyment.]
All the Pokedex talks about is how vicious and destructive they are, and how they go on constant rampages.
Now, I won't deny that they can be dangerous and territorial in the wild, but I don't think it is right to portray them as mindless rampaging monsters either. They behave that way for a reason and each has their own personality. They can make perfectly fine pokemon, as long as they are handled by an experienced trainer.
[In fact, Armin got some theories about how their bad reputation really is the result of being handled by a few too many inexperienced trainers.]
I'm not sure how to go about submitting corrections to the Pokedex, but until I figure that out, I wanted to ask: are there any pokemon you care about that you feel have a very undeserved reputation? Or any other false information in the Pokedex that you know about?
[Armin can't research every pokemon as much as he'd like. But perhaps other people can help him correct any misconceptions he might have.]
no subject
[He needs to ask. It's in his oceanman handbook.]
I don't know much about how they resurrect fossils, but I wonder if it is possible for the process to go wrong somehow.
Like, if the fossil is too damaged.
Because this just does not look like anything that would've naturally evolved.
The eyes and mouth on top of its head could be a possibility if it was an ambush hunter that burrows into the soil and strikes its prey from below.
But the rest of its body structure would not work for such a life style at all.
no subject
Short version, an alien fish dictator filled my planet's ocean with fish monsters and then melted all the ice caps until it was completely uninhabitable for anything that wasn't an alien fish monster. Then four hundred years later a meteor carrying a baby landed in the ocean and that baby was me.
But I can't imagine having a damaged fossil would affect anything. Unless they don't extract or use DNA at all, and somehow manifest whatever remains of the literal fossil into a new living thing. Maybe it's not even new.
Riddle me this: does anyone have confirmation that a resurrected Pokemon's memories start with revival?
no subject
I hope you don't mind me asking but wouldn't a baby burn up in the atmosphere if it was riding a meteor?
And how would it have access to oxygen?
[so many questions.]
Anecdotally, I can say that none of my resurrected pokemon seem to remember a past life.
Though I know that is not the same thing as confirmation.
no subject
I'm sure lucky that didn't happen. I mean, just think of all the problems it would have solved if it had.
Moving on, though. I think anecdotal evidence is all we have to go on, so let's call that data collected. How many prehistoric Pokemon are we talking on your end? My frankenfish here doesn't seem to recall anything prior to being revived with head-upside-down syndrome, so there's another data point.
no subject
But also, Armin doesn't really know how to swing the conversation back around to the whole 'baby riding a meteor' thing, so he ends up just answering Dirk's other question.]
I've got three resurrected fossil pokemon myself, and I've interacted with a few others belonging to other trainers.
All were different species, if that might be of influence.