Palworld has brought back a Pandora’s Box that Pokemon let open in Black/White: Does Team Plasma have a point? Is the player in Pokemon/Palworld an evil entity just for playing?
Some preliminary context for those unaware. Pokemon Black/White’s version of an evil team was Team Plasma, which argued that Pokemon trainers were evil for capturing Pokemon and forcing them to fight alongside them. While the game gave us the character of N, who is honest and sincere in his ideas and intentions, Team Plasma is presented as an hypocritical boogeyman that wants to force all other trainers to free their Pokemon, but secretly this is only a ploy to make sure no one can oppose them when they attempt to grab power for themselves.
Palworld has its own take on the idea: out of the different hostile factions, we find early on the Free Pal Alliance, which similarly argues that capturing pals and forcing them to do your bidding is evil, and we find again that their leader really commits to the idea, but her underlings are constantly attacking pals in the wild and sometimes even putting them in cages.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Pokemon fanbase was very defensive of this idea, often repeating the arguments provided by the games that captured Pokemon like the companionship anyway, dismissing the fact that wild Pokemon violently resist being captured unless you force them into submission to accept the Pokeball. The fact that you forcibly push them into a situation where their previous freedom to choose not to associate with you gets overwritten by a newfound willingness to obey means that they’re being effectively brainwashed - if we were to apply our real life standards to this situation we would say without a doubt that the situation is exploitative and we’re wiping our ass with the idea of consent. Palworld is even more “in your face” about this, given that the brainwashing mechanic of Pokeballs/spheres does not only work on the mons, but on humans as well. The general reaction of the Palworld community seems to be acknowledging that it’s fucked up, but nonetheless jumping straight to the fact that the Free Pal Alliance are hypocrites as a whole or even calling them a parody of PETA.
My position here is: should these games even address the ethical dilemma? Once you put the ethics into the game’s narrative, the designers are basically forced into going to “Yes, but” territory, since acknowledging the ethical issue leads you to the conclusion that the game only allows you to play as a morally dubious character at best, but given that that would be unwise from a marketing pov (at least for Game Freak), the narrative ultimately has to twist the argument into some sort of fallacy (The Pokemon actually want to be captured/The Free Pal Alliance is full of hypocrites anyway), which in my opinion is actually the heinous design decision, since you’re pushing the player into twisting the moral dilemma in a way, thus training moral hypocrisy, rather than the much healthier position “Yes, capturing Pokemon/Pals is evil, but it’s a game so no actual sentient creature is being harmed”.
Both Pokemon Black/White and Palworld hint at the idea of human-Pokemon/Pal association out of free will through the character of N and the Free Pal Alliance, who do not capture their creatures, but rather they choose to cooperate with them out of real free will, but this option is mechanically impossible for the player (save, arguably, for rare exceptions where Pokemon freely join you through through scripted events). This ends up cementing the ludonarrative dissonance where the player has to justify themselves into thinking that what they’re doing is morally acceptable, despite being presented with actually ethical in-lore alternatives that they just do not have access to. It is understandable that, from a game design perspective, the Pokemon/Palworld developers do not want to spend significant effort into reworking the mechanics of Pokeballs/spheres, which are already effectively fun for their gameplay loops, but that leads them into the position where Team Plasma and the Free Pal Alliance have to become caricatures of their actual ideas, which on the other hand is a waste for their respective lores.
Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my rambling. My Chikipis have already laid all the eggs I need for baking cakes, so I’m off to butchering them for meat, bye.
Well, in Pokemon at least, Pokeballs don’t mind-control the target. When Ash first got Pikachu, Pikachu rarely listened to him. Other Pokemon were more docile from the start, but there’s still examples of Primate or Charizard who actively didn’t want to work with Ash.
In Palworld, they’re doing this on purpose to make a more grimdark world to get more press / have a edgier environment than Pokemon ever did. So… yeah? The edginess is the damn point of the game.
Palworld even goes a step further by making it pretty undeniably clear that you are in fact mind controlling them, given you can capture humans and make them work for you just like Pals do. They can be violently opposing you one moment, and turning their guns on their friends to defend you the next.
It’s not like Pokemon is all perfume and roses, either, though. The game puts a nice veneer on it, and the player operates on the pretense that they’re cooperating with pokemon and forming bonds with them (through mechanics like Pokemon Amie and the camp scenes and whatnot), but then you’ve got things like the historical war where humans used pokemon to fight actual life-and-death battles, and the whole thing with Slowpoke tails being delicacies, and some suspicious foods in a world where all of the animals are pokemon…
Really, I appreciate Palworld’s approach a lot. If we’re going to be committing acts of animal cruelty and functional slavery, I’d at least rather the whole thing isn’t whitewashed, and at least the Pals in Palworld are fighting actual life-and-death fights, not the equivalent of a world-endorsed dog-fighting ring where we’re making animals near kill each other on the regular just for entertainment and sport.
I think Pokemon Special Manga had roughly the right level of edginess / darklord energy to me. Palworld seems unnecessarily grimdark, to the point of pointlessness.
Pokemon Special still has the death matches:
As the famous scene of Charmeleon vs Arbok. And its far less rosy about Red’s (aka: Ash) chances of becoming top 1% through the Pokemon League. Its not all roses but its not all dumb grimdark energy either, its a good balance. Lethal force against a giant snake trying to lethally poison you and your friends is fair, and Blue (aka: Gary) is right to use lethal force, and Red is naive about holding back in that fight. Having the rivalry also helps compared to Ash vs Gary (the Anime counterparts to Red and Blue in Pokemon Special)… setting Blue up to be the more pragmatic (albeit lethal) rival, with Red being the more classic protagonist.
Mind-control and enchantments being used for… ill-purposes… is explored in a lot of fantasy settings. I don’t think Pokemon (or Pal-world for that matter) are very good settings for that.
Maybe the sweet spot would be somewhere in between. I think Palworld is a step in the direction I’d prefer, at least, but based on some of the internet discourse around this topic it’s clear that that doesn’t apply to everyone. I think if they actually spent some time giving us a bit more exposition about the whole situation it’d be a little more palatable. If they ever implement PvP (which is on their roadmap), it’d be neat to be able to align with or perhaps join the NPC factions, or apply their ethos to player-made guilds, and be able to play as the equivalent of the Free Pal Alliance or the Syndicate. Or, alternately, some alternative to Pal Spheres… imagine for instance if there was a real alternative to capturing Pals, and if someone wanted to take the moral high ground they could actually avoid the things they find objectionable, while still playing the game.
It’d be the Pokemon equivalent of being able to play a character who was opposed to the Pokemon League as a whole and aimed to dismantle the whole system, rather than participate in it, which I’d find compelling.
You mean… Sonic SatAM ? :-)
There’s other settings where people are literally getting mind-controlled to work for an evil overlord, with a scrappy young group of freedom fighters running disruption campaigns against them. But the setting needs to be reworked entirely from the ground up.
I think such a setting could occur in Pokemon, but it just hasn’t been written yet. More importantly though, Pokemon is aimed at a younger demographic who wouldn’t appreciate such a story. And indeed: Sonic SatAM’s problem was the lack of toy sales. A lot of these cartoons are toy-commercials after all, as that’s where the real source of funding is. If the comic/anime/cartoon fails to sell toys, the whole system falls apart.
These slightly darker and more complex stories about freedom fighters (Sonic SatAM), or conspiracies (Young Justice) tend to lead to superior shows… but inferior toy sales. So everyone reverts to a happier storyline a few years later and My Little Pony suddenly shoots up to #1 (no offense to the Bronies out there, but yall spent money on those toys and it supported that universe…)
EDIT: I should probably note that Team Rocket in the Pokemon Special manga is a secret organization controlling large swaths of the world. In fact, the above fight is Koga vs Blue. Yes, Gym Leader Koga was trying to kill two kids, because Gym Leader Koga (future Elite 4 member) is an elite agent of Team Rocket.
That’s not “capture” or any soft words here. Its literally kill. Koga even resurrected a zombie Psyduck as part of this arc.
In the Pokemon Special Manga, Team Rocket is a serious world threat with deadly consequences. I mean, imagine what a criminal ring could do with legendary creatures, especially when said criminal ring has already infiltrated multiple members of upper-class society (Ie: Gym Leaders and Elite 4).
I loved Sonic SatAM. Totally had a crush on Sally Acorn when I was a kid, and almost nobody even remembers who she was, now. It had some surprisingly heavy themes for a kids’ show.
I think the juxtaposition of the kids’ show (or game) aesthetic against the more adult themes is fun; I wish more games would do that. Undertale did a great job with it, for example.
If you want it for specifically Pokemon, I do highly suggest the Pokemon Special comics. (EDIT: Named “Pokemon Adventure” in the English speaking world. Though “Pokemon Special” is the Japanese name, so you’ll likely be able to find it in any case…)
Its the world the original creator of Pokemon wanted anyway, before Nintendo watered it down for a more kid-friendly environment.
EDIT: Anime in general took kid-like aesthetics and bring mature themes into them. Madoka Magika, Promised Neverland, Full Metal Alchemist, and the like. Young Justice did a good job for American media.
That’s neat, I’ll give it a look! Haven’t read any printed Pokemon media.
I mean, the fact that Pikachu, clearly not wanting to have Ash for trainer during the first episode, and yet still being expected to obey and tag along, is still very iffy, coming directly from the view that pets are property and must do as we say because we own them, rather than pets requiring human caretakers because we live in a world that doesn’t leave much room for them to live independently.
I mean… there’s all sorts of problems in Pokemon lore. The fact that you can literally capture the creator of the oceans (Kyogre is practically a god), or the master of continents (Groudon), or the master of the Sky (Rayquaza) is when things started to get silly in Gen3.
Overall, Pokemon entities, like N, only make sense within their season (ie: Black and White). Its not like the creator of Pokemon foresaw how Pokemon’s lore or story would evolve 10+ years later, so trying to retcon N’s logic into things from Gen1 or Gen3 is… well… its going to be problematic.
Its the general problem with any long-running series. You either end up with amorphous meaningless blobs (see Mickey Mouse or Sonic, who have been in so many settings that they are practically meaningless today), or you end up with contradictions as your story writers took short-term / long-term risks with the lore and setting.
Generally agreed there. It takes a lot of commitment from a company to keep a franchise’s lore consistent through decades, and it’s rare for them to decide it’s worth it.
I’m curious how Pokemon Horizon, with Liko’s focus on adventure, will help the Pokemon series here on out.
Even from the start, Ash was not really “catch them all”, but was a generic adventure in this world. Very few Pokemon (relatively speaking), become Ashs’s friend, so its not really a mass-mind control thing. And only Team Rocket (or other “evil” entities) have the problem of actively trying to “steal” Pokemon or otherwise mistreat them. Even then, Jessie / James are among the most empathetic characters (which is why Wobbuffet and other such `mon hang out with them so much), so everyone’s pretty much morally fine.
The few times “Pokeball-mind control” was used was like… Mewtwo in that one movie, and other such obviously evil situations.
Liko is perhaps a better basis for a modern Pokemon hero moving forward, rather than Ash. I mean, when Pokemon got started, the focus was (as always) selling toys and figures and cards. Pokemon is now popular enough you don’t need the main character causing casual FOMO upon children to buy more toys, if you get my drift. :-)
You either end up with amorphous meaningless blobs (see Mickey Mouse or Sonic, who have been in so many settings that they are practically meaningless today)
Or Mario, who goes from battling the giant turtle that kidnapped his crush to going go-carting or playing sports and board games with him on a title to title basis.
Your point about pokemon disobeying your orders is given more structure in the games, where if you don’t have the required gym badges, your higher-leveled pokemon don’t see you as a person worth obeying. Then when you get that badge, they fall in line. The point being… might makes right? You command authority only through fighting and defeating enough trainers and their pokemon? That’s a pretty problematic conclusion you could draw from that game mechanic.
I think the conceit in Pokemon is that they willingly serve humans who demonstrate dominance. By capturing a pokemon in a ball, you show it that you deserve to be its master. This is also why you need to prove yourself with badges in order for powerful pokemon you didn’t personally capture to serve you willingly.
I mean, the badge thing is primarily there so that when you trade a level 70 pokemon to your kid brother who is vs Brock (who only has lvl 10 pokemon), your kid brother gets a slight penalty for trying to use Pokemon obviously outside of their level. They also obviously exist as a 2nd gate for Cut / Surf / (etc. etc.) abilities, to prevent the same high-level trade from increasing the size of the world too much and sending your kid-brother onto a sequence-break.
In the typical anime lore, the badges don’t “control” pokemon or command respect. The exception being the Pokemon Special manga where badges have significant power, but that’s why Team Rocket / Giovanni explicitly takes over multiple gym leaders in an attempt to combine badges and take over legendary Pokemon (which is a more grimdark setting that does have these conspiracies or evils to face)
All of Ash’s badges don’t allow him to control Mewtwo or other `mon. In the case of Charizard, it was finally finding challenges that Charizard deemed worthy that brought respect. I’m not sure if Primape ever actually respected Ash. Mimikyu for Team Rocket was also for purely selfish reasons, there to harass Pikachu… I don’t think Team Rocket ever truly controlled Mimikyu.
Bates vs watson argument
I think Shin Megami Tensei actually solves this with their capturing system, which is really more of a negotiating system. At any time during a battle, you can talk to an enemy demon and ask them to join you. They may request money, items, health/MP or require you to answer questions correctly in order to join you. It’s neat since it has some risk/reward since you can keep plying them with more resources or you can say they’ve gotten enough and push them to join.
I don’t play Palworld and I haven’t played Pokemon in years, but this was beautifully authored and a fun read.
Somewhat related. Since discussions about working conditions are heavily censored in China, people have recently started to use Palworld contents as a disguise/satire/substitute for it. For example, see this game media’s video if you know Chinese. Compared to the first world “controversies” around PETA, third world people are more acutely aware of the parallelism between Pals/Mons and their own conditions and thus people “just understand” the underlying problem rather than argue about what it is and what it isn’t on the surface level.
I mean, every “Mon” series has to deal with the fact that your basically making animals fight for your amusement, but that this is somehow a good and normal part of the world that the player shouldn’t think too much about. But yeah, unless the game is trying to actually comment on that aspect of the genre then it’s probably best not to even bring it up. Palworld is an interesting case. What with the guns, putting pals to work, and butchering them for resources. Admittedly, I haven’t played the game, but it really doesn’t paint the player in the best light. You’re certainly not an innocent ten-year old off an adventure. If anything you’d be a villain in a Pokemon game. But it’s difficult to say how hard the game wants you to think about that. Like, is the fact that the game lets you do all these things the developers way of saying “Being a Mon trainer would be really messed up if these games were realistic” or is it part of the “Pokemon with Guns!” attitude that has been a big part of the marketing?
Either way, I think that a game that focused on building a cooperative relationship between a “trainer” and their Mons would be interesting. Like instead of just capturing them and sticking them in a PC you would need to actually work to keep them satisfied and willing to follow you. Kind of like SMT mechanics, but more of a constant relationship you have to manage. Could get tedious, but it’s an interesting idea.
Interestingly I can think of a couple games that get around the mon-game issue you mentioned, and in pretty different ways.
Ooblets (which I haven’t played, but appears to be popular with 91% positive on Steam) has you grow your mons in a garden, and rather than pitting them in fights with other critters, you do dance battles. It appears to be a bit more slice-of-life vibes but with the monster-collecting element.
And Cassette Beasts (which I have played, would recommend to anyone who likes monster collectors easily, and is 96% positive on Steam) dodges the issue in a different way. You don’t actually capture and train monsters… you record them, and that recording lets you transform into that kind of critter. Successfully record a Traffikrab in a fight, and you can then transform into one later. You are still fighting the wild ones, but you aren’t enslaving any or having them fight for or serve you in any way. The equivalent of trainer battles is fighting other people who also do this.
That’s basically what the game is. The pals help you keep things running and you give them food and a bed to sleep in. Sure you gotta beat the shit out of them to capture them, but the happy noises they make when they finish something is satisfying. You can also pet the one you have out.
Monster rancher is definitely more along the lines of a relationship you manage while still having battles in an arena. Monsters have personality traits and they either like battling are neutral or hate it, but you have to manage their needs and likes the whole time with food rest and activities. Not perfect but historically my favorite take
Palworld doesn’t attempt to make the player seem like a good person, you’re stabbing and shooting wild creatures off the bat. But it’s a survival game, with you needing to establish a base for food, gear, and protection. Pals maintain berry fields, help you build, chill your fridge, etc. Wild pals die fighting each other all the time, so maybe being put to work in a defended community isn’t the worst fate for them?
I don’t think it makes sense to focus on it, unless the game is willing to degrade the experience of the player for over-consuming. And that’s not going to happen in the current design of the game.
I do think it would be really interesting to make a game like Palworld that has finite resources, and thus punishes overconsumption. Have the game encourage (but not require) unethical behaviors, and then punish the user for it. Basically you could choose to enslave pals, or win them over with kindness and form a reciprocal relationship (they help you on the farm, you provide a better life than they’d get in the wild).
I don’t know of any games that do that, and it’s something I’ve been interested in for some time, but preservationist gameplay typically isn’t as fun as destructive gameplay. That said, the idea of natural economies is really interesting to me, and I’d really like to explore that space (I just don’t have the time to do so). If anyone has any game ideas that do something like this, please post them.
There’s Eco on steam. I haven’t played it myself personally, but I’ve been interested for a while.
I’m not sure if there’s animal taming, and the animals are just normal IRL animals, though.
I think Palworld including their “activist” faction attacking the animals in the wild might be an intentional dig at PETA.
Maybe their crazy as fuck leader is ideologically consistent in her own beliefs, to the point of believing that dogs humping your leg means they can consent to sex and that there’s nothing weird about a girl riding horses because rocking on the saddle gets her off, but PETA’s member shelters are some of the most active practicers of animal euthanasia, and literally kidnap animals from their families and euthanize them before the families can take legal action to get them back.
literally kidnap animals from their families and euthanize them before the families can take legal action to get them back.
Animal*, which perfectly matched the description of the dog they were supposed to pick up, and the two employees who did it were fired for it like 10 years ago. The only other time PETA employees have ever illegally taken an animal was when they found a police dog loose at the side of the road, and decided to pick it up instead of let it get run over. Since they actually saved that dog, it never makes the news for some reason.
I’m really tired of seeing this misinformation. If they were just kidnapping animals to kill, they would have taken that family’s other unattended dogs as well.
The first time my friends and I stumbled upon them we took one look at the name, saw a member crossbow a squirrel and said “Yup, that’s PETA.”
It could be an intentional dig, but imo with the game being early access, it’s just the same enemy AI as those bandits.
Zombies are creatures as well, will PETA whine about COD zombies or L4D?
No, it’s a video game, get reallity out of here… Same for any creature of fiction… what part of the word don’t they understand?Peta HAVE whined about quite a few videogames, going to far as to produce parodies of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA_satirical_browser_games
It includes pokemon, but also Cooking Mama and Super Meat Boy.
I get pokemon and even Super Meat Boy… But why Cooking Mama? 🤨
Because you cook meat. It’s not a vegan game, and thus has a vile heart full of the darkest evil.
