Pokemon Which aspects characterise Dragon-type Pokémon?

[Mitja]

I split these posts from the "How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?" thread. Discuss the Dragon-type here. *[mod]Drohn[/mod]

Spoiler

Old post (after spoiler is edit since this is now a starting post of a thread):

Dragon TYPE isn't only about dragons. Like all types, it covers a broader spectrum of aspects/features/abilities, and for Dragon in particular, words come to mind like "majestic", "mythic", "epic".

Especially in a case where a "species" type is an added extra, its more about the elemental aspects (however unobvious they might be) than it is about the pokemon resembling the appropriate creature cliches.

-----

-----​

What is Dragon as a type about?
Is it really simply about resemblence to depictions/descriptions of dragons from the real world?

And more specifically, given the Dragon Pokemon we have seen so far, is it possible to determine what qualities/features gamefreak considers Dragon-TYPE-like?

Is there any additional aspects to it? (for example Flying, besides being a technique also covers wind as a sub-element well etc.)


Here's all the Dragon type lines so far:
-Primary Dragon type

--------------------------------

----------------

----------------

----------------

--------------------------------

----------------

--------------------------------

----------------

--------------------------------

----------------

--------

--------
--legendary

-------------

-------------

-----

-----

----------------

----------------



-Secondary Dragon type

--------------------------------

----------------

--------------------------------

----------------

--------------------------------

----------------

----------------

----------------


--legendary

----------------

----------------

----



And of course the new pseudo-Dragon type that started this topic:

----------------

----------------


And another addition from XY

 

[Metalizard]

RE: How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?

^This.

Dragon TYPE isn't only about dragons. Like all types, it covers a broader spectrum of aspects/features/abilities, and for Dragon in particular, words come to mind like "majestic", "mythic", "epic".

Especially in a case where a "species" type is an added extra, its more about the elemental aspects (however unobvious they might be) than it is about the pokemon resembling the appropriate creature cliches.

Not to be rude but that just sounds like total BS to justify the fact they don't use the Dragon-type the way they should...
No, Dragon-type is not about "majestic", "mythic" or "epic", otherwise it would be called Majestic/Mythic/Epic-type, not Dragon-type and a bunch of pokémon that are not dragons or even reptiles could be of that type.
If they decided to create a Dragon-type, they obviously had those specific creatures in mind (Dragonite's line are the only Dragon-types in the first Gen and it's rumored the type was created specifically because of them). In fact, even though dragons are considered mythic like you said, there were no legendary Dragon-types until Gen III.

I already gave this example once... Dragon-type is like the Bug-type. They're "species" types like you said. They're based on what the creature looks like instead of a specific element. Giving the dragon-type to something that is not at least reptilian in appearance is like giving the Bug-type to a pokémon based on any vertebrate animal - It doesn't make any sense!

-EDIT-

After reviewing all Pokemon that possess an alternate form or forms, it seems that all possess the same HP Base Stat regardless of form or the means of transformation.

This makes me even more curious about what changes to base stats Mega Evolution will do, since the lack of an HP change in Mega Mewtwo doesn't prove its SP ATK is the only stat that gets an increase.

I mentioned that before:

btw, none of you people should expect boosts in HP. They never change the HP between pokémon forms (which is what Mega Evolution is in practice). Like, Never! Afaik, Pokémon can't have their base HP stat increase and then decrease again during battle. The HP stat works different than the others...

 

[professorlight]

RE: How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?

Exactly. As I said in another thread:

Bug and dragon types (conceptually) are heavily influenced by creatures, rather than elements, that means the typing is defined by the pokemon and it's real world inspiration, not the other way around.
Example:
You get a snake, right? then you can get water (gyarados, milotic), rock (onix), poison (ekans, arbok, seviper), grass (snivy, servine, serperior), dragon (dratini, dragonair). that's a lot of different types with a single overarching form and a lot of side influences (the carp that became a dragon, a rattlesnake, a cobra, a serpentine dragon, etc).
But you get, say, an ant, or a moth, or a spider. What can you do with an ant that doesn't cry for a bug typing? crabs don't have this problem, despite being arthropods, because they are not perceived as bugs.
That's why all the dragon types that don't look like dragons stand out so much and don't make sense, and that's why all the bug types look like insects, or arachnids, it's their shape that restricts their typing.

In pokemon, the umbrella term "dragon" encompasses dragons (duh), very powerful creatures (thinking mainly in dialga, palkia and giratina), reptiles (cold blood->ice weakness), mythic stuff (dragon has advantage over dragon) and dinosaurs (most dinosaur-inspired pokemon can learn dragon type moves and ancientpower in some way).

You'll notice ampharos doesn't fit in any of those.

 

[Bogleech]

RE: How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?

Not this again.

"Dragons" never had a set anatomy in mythology.

What we think of as "Eastern" dragons typically combined characteristics of snakes, dogs and fish.

European dragons could be chimeras of reptile, bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, even insect. Many older portrayals of dragons are dog-headed, chicken-like creatures, or even like bat-winged rats.

Native American folklore had dragon-like monsters who wavered from clawed snakes to horned giant leeches.

It DOES just mean big, epic, scary, vaguely reptilian monster. Always did.

 

[MuhFugginMoose]

RE: How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?

You'll notice ampharos doesn't fit in any of those.

HAha, you can't look at Ampharos and seriously tell me he doesn't look in the least bit "Draconic". . . He doesn't look like a sheep at all. Haha, when was the last time you saw a sheep stand on its hind legs and have a long almost Giraffe like neck? As for why a sheep evolved into a Dinosaur like creature, we will never know. But we cannot deny Ampharos looks more like a dragon than Altaria does.

Also,

how would a gun-octopus be? or a cannon/tank-fish? it doesn't come as easily, doesn't it?

Well, as far as a cannon/tank like fish goes, that could have been their opportunity to take advantage of a walking fish.

Haha, I don't think it's all that difficult to make one off of the general idea of that. . .

 

[Metalizard]

RE: How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?

^Honestly, neither one looks like a dragon to me in the slightest bit... But I do appreciate Ampharos as a dragon-type more than Altaria...

It DOES just mean big, epic, scary, vaguely reptilian monster. Always did.

You hit the point yourself. As many different characteristics as dragons can have, the main core will always be that of a reptilian creature.

 

[Mitja]

RE: How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?

So tell me then what makes, for example, Dragonite resemble "dragons" closer than Ampharos?
Same for Altaria...

I really don't get how its out of place for Ampharos to be Dragon. I personally wish they'd have made it Electric/Dragon by default in gen II already... (in fact I believe they only didn't so you don't get a dragon type from a random sheep in the early routes back then).


Oh and to responses to my previous post, how does Kingdra fit in what you're all saying? lol

I mean you can't say "Dragon is about dragon" and then brush off several of the designs as "exceptions" ala gamefreak not knowing what they're up to etc.

 

[Tatertot]

RE: How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?

Oh and to responses to my previous post, how does Kingdra fit in what you're all saying? lol

Kingdra is Dragon because it is based off of a sea dragon, which are related to seahorses. So it's mainly a play on it's name, proving that Game Freak doesn't really care what you guys think a dragon should or shouldn't be, they'll do what they want! Honestly, if Game Freak wants to make an ant lion, a bird with clouds for wings, or a sheep a dragon, whatever, who really cares? They probably have some obscure reason for all of them that we're not seeing. It's not like there designers go "Oh, well this thing doesn't have a reptilian appearance, better not call it a dragon so the fans don't get mad. Because after all, sticking to logic is the most important aspect of Pokemon."

...

 

[Metalizard]

RE: How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?

So tell me then what makes, for example, Dragonite resemble "dragons" closer than Ampharos?
Same for Altaria...

You're kidding, right? You mean, what else besides the obvious European dragon appearance? Well, actually Dragonite is a mix of japanese dragon with european dragon. The antennae and the stripped pattern come from the japanese dragon basis while the overall body shape, bat-like wings and strong pointy tail come from the european dragon. I know it has that dummy face but it is one of the few Dragon-types that actually resembles a dragon...

 

[King Xerneas]

RE: How do you feel about the revealed Mega Pokémon and which new Mega Pokémon are you hoping to see?

I feel like this may help explain a bit why Altaria is a dragon type:
Altaria is likely based on Peng, Chinese legendary birds of enormous size, said to travel 3000 li in one flap of their mighty, cloud-like wings. They're often portrayed as having a dragon's head and whiskers.

 

[professorlight]

Bug and dragon types (conceptually) are heavily influenced by creatures, rather than elements, that means the typing is defined by the pokemon and it's real world inspiration, not the other way around.
...
That's why all the dragon types that don't look like dragons stand out so much and don't make sense, and that's why all the bug types look like insects, or arachnids, it's their shape that restricts their typing.

...
It DOES just mean big, epic, scary, vaguely reptilian monster. Always did.

big, epic, scary, vaguely reptilian monster = mythical creature
big, epic, scary, vaguely reptilian monster = dragons
big, epic, scary, vaguely reptilian monster = dinosaurs (dino=terrible, saur=lizard)

You'll notice ampharos doesn't fit in any of those.

HAha, you can't look at Ampharos and seriously tell me he doesn't look in the least bit "Draconic". . . He doesn't look like a sheep at all. Haha, when was the last time you saw a sheep stand on its hind legs and have a long almost Giraffe like neck? As for why a sheep evolved into a Dinosaur like creature, we will never know. But we cannot deny Ampharos looks more like a dragon than Altaria does.

I like bogleech's definition, so let's use it, shall we?
big -> 1.4mts, I'm taller than her.
epic-> every other pokemon is, and let's be honest, ampharos doesn't stand out.
scary-> HAHAHAHA... sorry, sorry. Seriously now, how can anyone be afraid of this?
[img width=150 height=]http://www.serebii.net/blackwhite/pokemon/181.png[/img]
vaguely reptilian -> this is the only one that has a liiiitle chance of being right, but still, doesn't look that much reptilian, and it even evolves from a mammal.
monster -> well duh, but every pokemon fulfills this trope, so...

when was the last time you saw a sheep stand on its hind legs and have a long almost Giraffe like neck?
Well, that would be the last time I tried to make a sheep look like a lighthouse, but the poor thing didn't survive the process.

As someone said, altaria is based on a chinese epic being, kingdra is a sea dragon, a play on the name, and vibrava and flygon are also based on the confusion adult antlion=dragonfly->dragon/dinosaur/dragonfly, as nonsensical as it seems.

 

[MuhFugginMoose]

As someone said, altaria is based on a chinese epic being, kingdra is a sea dragon, a play on the name, and vibrava and flygon are also based on the confusion adult antlion=dragonfly->dragon/dinosaur/dragonfly, as nonsensical as it seems.

Well, apparently we're going off of looks alone. Which, Altaria doesn't LOOK like a dragon.
If your reasoning is what Altaria is based off of, then that's completely fine. That would make my reasoning of Ampharos' Name in Japanese being translated to "Electric Dragon" just as valid.

 

[Flys Gone 2071]

Dragon-type is mostly from what its based-on or its looks. There sometimes seem to be some Pokemon that don't look like Dragon but still have Dragon typing (Kingdra and Altaria) because they are inspired in a myth/animal similar to dragon.

Lets take the definition the Bogleech gave and apply it. Its a good one but not all big, epic, scary, reptilian creatures are dragon and there are dragon-type who aren't big epic reptilian creatures.

Dragonite: This one fits the definition perfectly except that the sprite is always smiling so it doesn't give a scary look.

Kingdra: This one is fishy, it is as big as a human and is somewhat epic but it isn't scary or reptilian at all.

Flygon: It bugs people its typing considering that it fits 3 or 4 types at once. Its big, maybe epic, it isn't scary at all and it isn't a reptilian either but it still represents the dragon type a lot for its wings and that it is scaly.

Altaria: It isn't big, or epic, or scary, or reptilian like but it is still a dragon type.

Salamence: I believe Salamence is the one who represent dragon types the most (with Dragonite) and it fits all the characteristics.

Garchomp: It fits the characteristics again but it doesn't give a dragon vibe as much as Salamence or Dragonite, maybe not even as Flygon.

Haxorus: Big, epic, scary and reptilian. You could easily see it as dragon type.

Druddigon: This is probably what people find closer to a dragon within the dragon-type Pokemon.

Hydreigon: This is probably the one who fits with all the characteristics the most but it isn't as dragon-like as Druddigon, or Salamence or Dragonite.


Pseudo-Dragons:

This ones mostly fit the type by look and moves. They have most or all of the characteristics.

Charizard, Gyarados, Ampharos, Sceptile and Serperior for some people and the list goes on. Dinosaur-like have dragon type moves frequently too.

My point is that it doesn't need to be Dragon-like (but they mostly are) but that they have to do something with dragons and that doesn't mean they are dragon-types. Amphy would classify as dragon-type if they wanted to but that doesn't mean it has to be, the same for Charizard lovers or Gyarados.

 

[professorlight]

As someone said, altaria is based on a chinese epic being, kingdra is a sea dragon, a play on the name, and vibrava and flygon are also based on the confusion adult antlion=dragonfly->dragon/dinosaur/dragonfly, as nonsensical as it seems.

Well, apparently we're going off of looks alone. Which, Altaria doesn't LOOK like a dragon.
If your reasoning is what Altaria is based off of, then that's completely fine. That would make my reasoning of Ampharos' Name in Japanese being translated to "Electric Dragon" just as valid.

I was using bogleech's classification for dragon types, looks have nothing to do with it. And I supported it with facts: the peng is a thing, altaria is a thing and they both have enough in common to assume a link between them.

My reasoning is that altaria is a dragon because it's based off the peng, you agreed.
Your reasoning is that ampharos is a dragon (and should have been from the begining) because it's japanese name is "electric dragon". I have yet to see evidence that points to ampharos being a dragon using evidence besides that, unlike altaria and the peng.

 

[Frezgle]

Your reasoning is that ampharos is a dragon (and should have been from the begining) because it's japanese name is "electric dragon". I have yet to see evidence that points to ampharos being a dragon using evidence besides that, unlike altaria and the peng.

Well, if its fine for Kingdra and Vibrava/Flygon to be Dragon-types based on just their names, why not Ampharos?
I personally don't see anything in its concept or design that screams "Dragon-type", but they've given the typing out for the same exact reason before and everyone seems to be cool with the other cases.

 

[Mitja]

@Metalizard
Kidding? Let me kid you with some Dragonite sugimori art butchering.

I picked Dragonite because imagining a less evolved form of it, gets really close to Ampharos in looks...at least in my head at that point.

So if I take away those obvious dragon features... antennae, wings, striped belly..in exchange for some fancy orbs (taken not from Ampharos but Dragonites actual pre-evo)

Is it still worthy of the type? (sorry for the crappy paint work)


But honestly.
A Dragon type might resemble specific dragon looks, but there is no actual limit or definition for what a dragon looks like or has to look like.
I mean that's the interesting thing about dragons. Through the world they are diverse in look yet still considered the same kind of made-up creature.

 

[Metalizard]

Dragon-type is mostly from what its based-on or its looks. There sometimes seem to be some Pokemon that don't look like Dragon but still have Dragon typing (Kingdra and Altaria) because they are inspired in a myth/animal similar to dragon.

True. And honestly, I'm fine with that. I'm not saying pokémon like Kingdra, Altaria or (Mega) Ampharos can't be dragon-type. What I'm not fine with is them giving the Dragon-type to such pokémon purely out of some reference to a myth and leave other pokémon (namely Charizard and Gyarados) out of the group when those two possess an actual draconic appearance.
To be specific, Gyarados is inspired by the legend of the karp that transforms into a dragon, so not only it looks like a dragon, it also has a myth just like the other pokémon mentioned here, so it is more than qualified to be a Dragon-type.
As for Charizard, you can't be more european dragon than that. No other pokémon captures the general appearance and essence of the european dragon more than Charizard, not even the true Dragon-types like Dragonite and Salamence. Simply put, there's no other story behind its concept or anything else, it is just based on an european dragon and that's all. period. Yeah, I know it is not dragon-type because it's a starter and all that but with the advent of Mega Evolution, I'm hopeful that they will use that opportunity to change that issue without having to change Charizard itself, since it's only a temporary transformation.

 

[professorlight]

Your reasoning is that ampharos is a dragon (and should have been from the begining) because it's japanese name is "electric dragon". I have yet to see evidence that points to ampharos being a dragon using evidence besides that, unlike altaria and the peng.

Well, if its fine for Kingdra and Vibrava/Flygon to be Dragon-types based on just their names, why not Ampharos?
I personally don't see anything in its concept or design that screams "Dragon-type", but they've given the typing out for the same exact reason before and everyone seems to be cool with the other cases.

In kingdra's case, it's a joke on the fact that sea dragons are not dragons, I guess; look at skrelp, it's a leafy sea dragon, yet no one came around yelling "why isn't skrelp a dragon type?! ".
I have argued about vibrava and flygon before, and I'll say the same I said then: GF dropped the ball. They should have made flygon a separate dragon/ground line, and trapinch and vibrava bug/ground and bug/ground with levitate, or make the whole line bug/flying and maybe give flygon some dragon type moves.

I think flys gone was wrong taking bogleech's dragon type description as a whole, instead of as individual traits that determine a pokemon's dragon type. Setting such rigid standard leaves some of the dragons outside, like altaria, garchomp and kingdra, while taking each trait individually includes them into the group.

And that dragonite is as worthy of dragon type as dragonair is, in my opinion.

 

[Bogleech]

Actually, Flygon and Kingdra were not made into dragons based just on their names, as far as I know, because they don't call them "sea dragons" or "dragonflies" in Japan, and Flygon is based on an antlion anyway, totally different insect

And wow you guys are taking my description a little seriously, I was just generalizing.

In fact, European dragons in the earliest legends can be SMALL - like fox-sized - more mammalian than reptilian, and even rather pathetic, wretched creatures. Those are my very favorite sort of dragons, personally; they're unnatural, foul, toxic little vermin. I'd love more dragon types like that.

 

[professorlight]

Actually, Flygon and Kingdra were not made into dragons based just on their names, as far as I know, because they don't call them "sea dragons" or "dragonflies" in Japan, and Flygon is based on an antlion anyway, totally different insect

And wow you guys are taking my description a little seriously, I was just generalizing.

In fact, European dragons in the earliest legends can be SMALL - like fox-sized - more mammalian than reptilian, and even rather pathetic, wretched creatures. Those are my very favorite sort of dragons, personally; they're unnatural, foul, toxic little vermin. I'd love more dragon types like that.

Maybe GF investigated their names in other languages for inspiration (like maractus: maraca is certainly not a japanese term)? If we take away that reason... then what happened? "hey, I like this fella, let's make it a dragon type!" "awesome. now let's do japanese things!".

I think your description was very good, it encompasses most things the dragon type represents in pokemon, without leaving out the fact that is a "creature" inspired type, rather than elemental.

But that's the "real" european dragons, right? in pop culture, dragons are mighty, enormous beasts. perhaps something inspired on those legends will happen, though, GF thinks of everything, obscure and popular, at it's due time.