(Untitled)

Apr 01, 2009 03:50

So anyone who has even vague knowledge of world mythology/religion knows that the creator of the world/universe isn't necessarily all-powerful or even runs anything ( Read more... )

legendaries, arceus

Leave a comment

Comments 80

maids April 1 2009, 11:04:44 UTC
Why, that's an interesting theory XD. I agree that Arceus is not the true creator of the universe. Great theory ^_^

Reply

blackjackrocket April 1 2009, 11:11:07 UTC
No, my point is that even if it *was* the true creator of the universe, that doesn't make it the "alpha and omega", so to speak.

Although that's also a distinct possibility considering how much Westwood gets stoned the dex lies.

Reply


bleachedmud April 1 2009, 12:06:53 UTC
Western folks have the idea that "god" can only be one thing, so naturally everyone here's like "ZOMG ARCEUS=OLD MAN WITH WHITE BEARD SITTING IN CLOUDS".
But if Arceus had god-like power, it would only be one of many gods.

As you said, the Creator does not need to be omnipotent. The Creator's job can be to Create, and that's all. That is all we know about Arceus, so it's easy to say there could be other gods.

There are endless other tasks which are controlled by other forces, be them future pokémon "gods", or just laws of the universe. I haven't heard anything about destruction yet - I hope they don't use this, though ^^; to have an opposition to Arceus would be very ... boring and overused.
It would have been better if they gave Arceus the power to also destroy, ala Shiva.

But here's to a Loki Pokémon.
(A Loki Pokey?)

Reply

blackjackrocket April 1 2009, 12:12:17 UTC
Heck, we KNOW there's other gods.

Well, Giratina is called "renegade", so it seems to be a morally neutral version of an opposing force. Maybe Loki when he was a good guy or something. Even though it's really closer to the neutral underworld gods, but most of them weren't renegades. I suppose Hades might have been but he was more of a brat, and there was the one that Inanna had to face but they (can't remember the name right now) were also more of a brat...

Reply


roll_soul April 1 2009, 12:48:34 UTC
Yeah, I think the general opinion of Arceus seems to come from a western perspective of "OMG ONE GOD AND ONE GOD ONLY". Of course, anyone who does any sort of exploring or reading can find out about the polytheistic beliefs in other places, and I'm sure that's filtered into Pokemon. Not everyone will ever get that, but that's just the way it is :\

...You know, I think I need sleep when I start imagining the various more godly Legendaries as the Olympians. >_>;

Reply

blackjackrocket April 1 2009, 12:56:41 UTC
Ooh, that should make for an interesting discussion.

Also I'm wondering why people use "Western" to describe it when the "west" is where Greece, Italy, Ireland, and Norway are, not to mention all the various and varied beliefs of the northern and southern American continents.

Reply

roll_soul April 1 2009, 13:03:29 UTC
You know? That it would.

I actually thought of that when I was commenting, but couldn't really think of a better term at the time. I guess the best way would probably just be to specify which belief system is being talked about when?

Reply

arremmmdee April 1 2009, 15:09:09 UTC
"Western" is the Americas, "East" mostly refers to Asia. Europe is more or less the "Old World" and so everything is relative to it.

Reply


srs bsns :| duo_aurion April 1 2009, 12:51:30 UTC
I don't think Arceus can/should be topped because I think 493 Pokemon is too many. The 4th gen was drastically uninspired, IMO, and I shudder to imagine 5th gen.

An example: even if Arceus is a god, it is the most ridiculous looking god in existence. It's a llama with a hula hoop.

Reply

Re: srs bsns :| blackjackrocket April 1 2009, 12:57:57 UTC
A llama with a hula hoop AND A THOUSAND ARMS that we just never see

Every gen is pretty much equally uninspired. Even the first one. If, say, Growlithe had come out today, people would be saying how horribly unoriginal it was.

Reply

Re: srs bsns :| eevee April 1 2009, 13:02:30 UTC
Truth. First gen was really ridiculous. A dog. A fox with extra tails. A different fox with a mane. A pile of sludge. A rock with arms. A cat with a coin on its head. A butterfly. A seal named... wait for it... Seel. And a ball that looks like an everyday object and explodes when provoked. (How does something like that possibly have an evolutionary niche?!)

Reply

duo_aurion April 1 2009, 13:10:05 UTC
In defense of the first gen, aren't walking Christmas trees and bells with psychic powers just as ridiculous? (Though Seel is without a doubt the worst of all the Pokemon, ever.)

Reply


eevee April 1 2009, 13:06:54 UTC
My concern is a little more practical: Arceus significantly (20% across the board!) raises the bar for legendary stats, which would seem to hint at the beginning of an ever-more-ridiculous arms race in future versions. Further worrying: how many legendaries did we get this time around? Uxie, Mespirit, Azelf, Dialga, Palkia, Heatran, Regigigas, Giratina, Cresselia, Phione/Manaphy, Darkrai, Shaymin, Arceus. That's pretty much every legendary gimmick ever used so far: a trio, something that roams around the world at random, a unique legendary for either version, an event legendary with a cool unique area that we'll never see because it's just given to us in trades, and a super-powerful super-secret legendary with an interesting gimmick that defies most of the rules whose existence Nintendo never really acknowledges.

This doesn't fill me with confidence that they'll tone it down the next time around.

Reply

blackjackrocket April 1 2009, 21:36:48 UTC
But I don't really see why they *should*. How many thousands, if not millions, of legendary creatures are there throughout the world?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up