Topic: Tag Implication: poképhilia -> feral

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Ko-san said:
Not all pokemon are classified as feral.

Qmannn said:
I disagree. Pokemon like Lucario and Lopunny may be humanoid to begin with, but that doesn't make them any less feral. That's just how their species are shaped. I wouldn't consider them anthro until extra human characteristics are added.

Do we have a definite word on this? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen this exact argument before

Updated by anonymous

Qmannn said:
I disagree. Pokemon like Lucario and Lopunny may be humanoid to begin with, but that doesn't make them any less feral. That's just how their species are shaped. I wouldn't consider them anthro until extra human characteristics are added.

You should read this: https://e621.net/forum/show/137224

And this post in particular: https://e621.net/forum/show/137346 where an admin clarifies that the anthro tag is for any creature which has anthropomorphic traits, even if it's their original form. So yes, some pokemon are anthro. That's because anthrofied is the tag to use when they are made even more anthropomorphic than their original form. The two tags have different rules. Pokemon aren't anthrofied until extra human characteristics are added. But non-anthrofied pokemon are sometimes feral and sometimes anthro, depending on how anthropomorhic their original form looks in that picture.

Updated by anonymous

The way I try and think of it is like this.

Pokemon are their own species, but they're still a fantasy species created by humans. Their original form can be more feral or more anthro than others, but an antbro pokemon is NOT an anthofied creature until an artist adds MORE human like aspects to the design than were originally present.

(I'm leaving the 'antbro' typo because it conjures hilarious mental images)

Updated by anonymous

  • 1