In Defense of Trainers
Enclosed is a lengthy post (an essay, really) about one of the long-standing issues in Pokémon fandom - the uncomfortable implications of the relationship between a team and their trainer. This is actually something I've been meaning to write for a while (based on my own thoughts, which were brought to a head by a months-old comment chain in one of zarla's posts), but never got around to it until today.
Ever since people started thinking deeply about the world of Pokémon, there's been this sort of worrying undercurrent to the relationship between the Pokémon and the trainers. Now, it's nothing that really comes up in the stories - in 99% of cases, the relationship between trainer and Pokémon is a positive one. But the animé made it pretty clear that Pokémon are people - sentient beings - and that trainer-team relationship was a hierarchical one. Pokémon were caught, and expected to follow orders and fight battles pretty much indefinitely. So, even with all the talk of "treating your Pokémon with trust and love", wasn't training basically sugarcoated slavery?
Well, a lot of people think so. And for a long time - a long time - I thought so too. I had an OC, years and years ago, in a Pokécommunity play-by-post RP, who basically caught Pokémon for a trial period, trained with them for a week, and then let them go unless they wanted to stay. And even when I eventually got back into Pokémon thanks to Diamond and Pearl having wifi support, I felt that way, and originally intended my trainer OC to have similar sentiments. But once I'd gotten back into the fandom, all this talk about training being slavery somehow didn't ring true to me anymore. And the weird part was, I wasn't sure why, until a conversation on Zarla's LJ really kicked it into focus for me. The thing I realized is this: everything that the Pokémon do as part of a team, working under a trainer, they do voluntarily.
Now, I know how that sounds. It sounds like blaming the victim. It sounds like the same kind of argument that people who are apologists for slave-owners or rapists or whatever tend to make in the real world. But let's turn around and look at it from the point of view of the wild Pokémon themselves. If their relationship with humans was that antagonistic, they wouldn't limit themselves to the wilderness outside town and city limits. And in a world where level four or five Pokémon could be a threat to the wellbeing of a human... well, if the wild Pokémon took it into their minds to liberate their enslaved brethren, or even wipe humans off the map entirely, they could do it. It wouldn't even be very hard. But they don't. Nor do they keep their low-level, defenseless young off the Routes and in the wilderness, where they'd be safe from humans. They aren't staying their hand out of ignorance, either... with the releasing of Pokémon being something that occurs pretty consistently, knowledge of how trainers behave would have filtered back to the wild communities years ago.
So, that brings us to the question: if the Pokémon are doing this willingly... why? And for the answer, I'd like to direct your attention to the Sinnoh Myths. We know that at least some of these refer to real things: the stories about the Lake Trio, the creation myth, etc. But I'm concerned with two myths that don't really get as much attention.
So, as I said at the beginning of this TL;DR juggernaut, Pokémon who are caught are caught willingly - are caught because no matter how much shit some humans give their teams, in the end, we need them to survive in the world, just as much as Arbok need to hunt those Ratatta to keep from starving. Wild Pokémon will defend themselves, sure, and they'll disobey their trainers sometimes - especially a trainer they don't trust or respect. But the relationship, in general, is not as one-sided as many people think. It's one of mutual cooperation, and while we as trainers should respect the Pokémon's help, and treat them with trust and love in return, it also means that we don't need to feel guilty about "owning" Pokémon in the first place.
Ever since people started thinking deeply about the world of Pokémon, there's been this sort of worrying undercurrent to the relationship between the Pokémon and the trainers. Now, it's nothing that really comes up in the stories - in 99% of cases, the relationship between trainer and Pokémon is a positive one. But the animé made it pretty clear that Pokémon are people - sentient beings - and that trainer-team relationship was a hierarchical one. Pokémon were caught, and expected to follow orders and fight battles pretty much indefinitely. So, even with all the talk of "treating your Pokémon with trust and love", wasn't training basically sugarcoated slavery?
Well, a lot of people think so. And for a long time - a long time - I thought so too. I had an OC, years and years ago, in a Pokécommunity play-by-post RP, who basically caught Pokémon for a trial period, trained with them for a week, and then let them go unless they wanted to stay. And even when I eventually got back into Pokémon thanks to Diamond and Pearl having wifi support, I felt that way, and originally intended my trainer OC to have similar sentiments. But once I'd gotten back into the fandom, all this talk about training being slavery somehow didn't ring true to me anymore. And the weird part was, I wasn't sure why, until a conversation on Zarla's LJ really kicked it into focus for me. The thing I realized is this: everything that the Pokémon do as part of a team, working under a trainer, they do voluntarily.
Now, I know how that sounds. It sounds like blaming the victim. It sounds like the same kind of argument that people who are apologists for slave-owners or rapists or whatever tend to make in the real world. But let's turn around and look at it from the point of view of the wild Pokémon themselves. If their relationship with humans was that antagonistic, they wouldn't limit themselves to the wilderness outside town and city limits. And in a world where level four or five Pokémon could be a threat to the wellbeing of a human... well, if the wild Pokémon took it into their minds to liberate their enslaved brethren, or even wipe humans off the map entirely, they could do it. It wouldn't even be very hard. But they don't. Nor do they keep their low-level, defenseless young off the Routes and in the wilderness, where they'd be safe from humans. They aren't staying their hand out of ignorance, either... with the releasing of Pokémon being something that occurs pretty consistently, knowledge of how trainers behave would have filtered back to the wild communities years ago.
So, that brings us to the question: if the Pokémon are doing this willingly... why? And for the answer, I'd like to direct your attention to the Sinnoh Myths. We know that at least some of these refer to real things: the stories about the Lake Trio, the creation myth, etc. But I'm concerned with two myths that don't really get as much attention.
- Sinnoh Region's Mythology. This speaks of a bygone era when Pokémon and humans cooperated as equals (a theme often repeated in these myths). The implication is clear - even now, Pokémon are ready to show up and help humans, who for all their technology and progress would still be thoroughly topped by the dangers of the natural world without the Pokémons' help. But in that case, if Pokémon are on the side of humans, then why do they attack people in the tall grass instead of helping them right away? Indeed, why has the default interaction between wild Pokémon and humans been antagonistic ever since Ash faced down a flock of Spearows, and Oak confided to Red that "it's unsafe! Wild Pokémon live in tall grass"? Which leads me to the second relevant legend...
- Veilstone's Myth. While the specific events in this story may not be accurate, the meaning is clear here as well - at some point, Pokémon and humans came to distrust each other, and now the ones in the wild will strike in what they believe to be self-defense. Ever wonder why you can't catch fainted Pokémon? Maybe the fact that you didn't faint them is taken as proof that you don't seriously mean them harm - you're just trying to get them to stop attacking, not killing them for sport. And once they get past that, once they get past the need to defend themselves from people who don't care, they really do mean the best for the only sentient beings on Earth who can't shoot beams out of our mouths or cause earthquakes or whatever, especially now that they have to take precautions and strike first against humans who venture out into the wild. Indeed, any Pokémon who weren't, in theory, willing to work with humans and accompany them on their travels would just stay off the Routes - there's huge swaths of unincorporated wilderness for them to live in, places where humans barely ever go.
So, as I said at the beginning of this TL;DR juggernaut, Pokémon who are caught are caught willingly - are caught because no matter how much shit some humans give their teams, in the end, we need them to survive in the world, just as much as Arbok need to hunt those Ratatta to keep from starving. Wild Pokémon will defend themselves, sure, and they'll disobey their trainers sometimes - especially a trainer they don't trust or respect. But the relationship, in general, is not as one-sided as many people think. It's one of mutual cooperation, and while we as trainers should respect the Pokémon's help, and treat them with trust and love in return, it also means that we don't need to feel guilty about "owning" Pokémon in the first place.