Pokemon Umbral Discussion 30: Less and Less About Pokemon Each Day

[Dracorion]

You know, I totally forgot to rail on Geminex for that part.

But yeah, Bard said it. Pokemon stay and fight for their masters, even if their masters are stupid enough to put themselves in danger in the first place, for several reasons. Comraderie is usually the most prominent reason, I think.

Imagine if you will that there's a war going on. Joe and Jim are best friends and soldiers for their country. Suddenly, Jim takes a bullet to the leg! Jim is bleeding out right there on the battlefied. You think Joe is going to be thinking "nah, the idiot put himself in danger in the first place, I'll just leave him there"? Fuck that shit, Joe is going to get Jim to safety. Or if Jim died, Joe would be pretty pissed at the enemies.

Of course, PATCA isn't military. So imagine instead that Joe and Jim are police officers.

[Menarker]

But... But... I was the one who said all that stuff about comraderie being only one of the reasons that pokemons fight for their masters in the first place!

Ah well.

Is the plan official now or are there any details we're missing?

[Geminex]

And I'm not saying that pokemon shouldn't defend their masters. I am saying that a battle master being defeated in combat shouldn't be sufficient motivation for them to go rogue. I'm trying to achieve this, in turn, by quite simply simply changing the definition of "defeated". And what the hell is the problem with that? Is it so very illogical? What is so very, very revolutionary about my idea to change it that you must protest with such vehemence?


But very well...

I do apologize for not living up to your expectations. I had assumed you'd prefer it if I concerned myself with balancing, rather than focusing on ways to screw you, your characters and this RP over. But, as I said, very well. Let us see where else I could employ my mind to best effect.

[Bard The 5th LW]

No, there master being in danger, and unable to protect himself, is sufficient means for them to go rogue. They sort of like him/her. They don't want him/her to die. So far, the definition of defeated means unable to move or battle. This means they are incredibly easy to kill if they haven't been killed already. Going rogue (not associated with the book by Sarah Palin in any way) is the fail safe to keep them alive. If they are dead, then the pokemon get revenge.

Going Rogue does help balance it for the most part. It help balance things for enemy trainers. Sure I got away with shooting Moon on the first mission, but that won't happen often. It may be unfair for PCs, but do you think it would be fair if we could just kill/incapacitate every enemy trainer we come across? If you're angry about it, have Impact carry Latios for such a fail-safe.

I'm sorry, but I just don't quite see why you see so against that part of the system. Mission 1 established what a defeat was when Rayleen was defeated. She was incapacitated and her Pokemon went rogue.

I have no problem with balancing Gem, maybe we can come to an agreement, but your reasoning so far just seems rather flimsy.

[Geminex]

No, there master being in danger, and unable to protect himself, is sufficient means for them to go rogue.

Why? Trainers are constantly "unable to protect themselves". Their pokemon should be constantly going rogue.
And if a zero-HP battle master retreats from battle (i.e. stops fighting) they're no longer in danger, since enemies are unlikely to attack them.

And finally, once again: Game-related, making pokemon go rogue once their master is defeated will just encourange battle masters and legion mages to play incredibly offensively personally, while using their pokemon incredibly defensively.
Seriously, how does going rogue impart balance? I'm not saying it should be thrown out altogether. I'm just saying that it is retarded for cataclysmic consequences to occur if a combat class is defeated.

[Dracorion]

Originally Posted by Geminex

I do apologize for not living up to your expectations. I had assumed you'd prefer it if I concerned myself with balancing, rather than focusing on ways to screw you, your characters and this RP over. But, as I said, very well. Let us see where else I could employ my mind to best effect.

You're not forgiven.

But I'd like to propose a deal: if you stop arguing about pokemon going rogue, then whenever Impact gets knocked out Jeanette Ricewood's satellite will nuke the enemies every turn.

[Menarker]

Originally Posted by Geminex

Why? Trainers are constantly "unable to protect themselves". Their pokemon should be constantly going rogue.
And if a zero-HP battle master retreats from battle (i.e. stops fighting) they're no longer in danger, since enemies are unlikely to attack them.

Not everyone treats being at 0 hitpoints the same way as you would (your character supposably still being conscious and able to give orders). We all expected you to be knocked out cold, not in any shape to retreat, never mind bark orders.

Heck, why does a trainer "black/white out" if they lose all their pokemon in-game even though they don't actually suffer direct injury? Seemed odd that any trainer that would defeat all of your pokemons were allowed to attack the trainer and knock you out cold. (Unless the PC is such a wussie that defeat makes him/her faint).

Also, in this setting, if someone was to go down to 0 hitpoints and still conscious, you could damn well be assured that an enemy's response to them running away is not "Oh, he's fleeing for his worthless life. I'll let him go." You think the Ruin generals (Most of them aren't like Lexhur), Faynoc or Burkmont are that nice? Especially with the existance of items that restore your health to full such as Max Revive and Full Restore, where they would come back to haunt the foe, fully recharged? The outcome of a foe reducing you down to 0 hitpoints is going to be more like a post-mortum one-liner followed by a coup-de-grace unless something stops them.

My two cents.

[Geminex]

Ok, even assuming you'd be right in that respect, pokemon don't go rogue to protect their masters. They only go rogue to avenge them. Meaning, their masters have to be dead, or really fucking close to it. Like Rayleen was. So unless you guys want to have a PC need a month-long hospital stay every time they get to 0 HP, I don't think 0 HP should mean really close to death, and thus, I don't think that 0 HP should mean "pokemon go rogue".

But screw this, I'm done. I have insults to avenge.

[Dracorion]

Who knows? Maybe you'll actually avenge them this time.

[Geminex]

Considering that most of them were directed at my potency as a villain, I'm thinking up some villain-licious ways to make you regret said insults. It is highly enjoyable.