Ulgamoth Theory

[Venator]

Hence the word "subjective".

You did not use the wrd subjective. You said "you can just sort of tell" and if you looked at some legendaries without knowing anything about them, they wouldn't appear special in many ways.

 

[IslandWalker]

In all fairness, you could have said legendaries never have genders...and then came Latios and Latias. You then could have said they only have set genders. Then came Heatran. You could have said they don't breed...then came Manaphy. I don't really think Ulgamoth is a legendary, but who knows? It could just be another trend-breaker.

This is a really good point. I was a bit weirded out at Heatran's gender variations, and is it a legendary? Yes. SO, instead of just sticking to the old things, move on to the new. We have triple battles now. We have a legendary as #000 in the Pokédex. There's nothing wrong with changing. In fact, that's the thing that keeps Pokémon alive. It might not fit into the stereotype of legendary Pokémon, but these judgments are not always right. We'll have to wait for GameFreak to spill the beans, and they probably made Ulgamoth solely for this purpose-to keep us in doubt of its legendary status.

 

[Faye Scarlet]

Wow, and I thought debates on Brendan's hat/hair could get super steamed...

Is this really something to lose one's cool over? D: If the mods agree that Urgamoth is NOT a Legendary, why not lock this thread instead of allowing it to run in an endless circle?

 

[Zuruzukin]

In all fairness, you could have said legendaries never have genders...and then came Latios and Latias. You then could have said they only have set genders. Then came Heatran. You could have said they don't breed...then came Manaphy. I don't really think Ulgamoth is a legendary, but who knows? It could just be another trend-breaker.

Just stopping by really quick to point out that while Manaphy can breed, it cannot breed to create more Manaphy, so...Yeah.

Set genders, variable genders and breeding to get a non-legendary mutation still don't affect the one thing all legendaries have in common. Exclusivity.

That will never change.

 

[Venator]

Because we, as fans, cannot read Game Freak's mind when they created Ulgamoth. Ulgamoth may be a legendary. Any and all opinions on what a legendary is ride on this.

Just stopping by really quick to point out that while Manaphy can breed, it cannot breed to create more Manaphy, so...Yeah.

Set genders, variable genders and breeding to get a non-legendary mutation still don't affect the one thing all legendaries have in common. Exclusivity.

That will never change.

I didn't know you worked for Game Freak. Ohwait. You don't. You don't control what is or isn't a legendary only because of your own opinion.

 

[Articwolf10]

In all fairness, you could have said legendaries never have genders...and then came Latios and Latias. You then could have said they only have set genders. Then came Heatran. You could have said they don't breed...then came Manaphy. I don't really think Ulgamoth is a legendary, but who knows? It could just be another trend-breaker.

IT isn't a trwend but a rule... Remeber Rowan? He pretty much said why Legends never evolve because they are 'complete'.

They aren't going to change something that major. Genders have been around only since Gen II and the First Gendered Legend was aa Gen later... and Heatran is the only Legend that has a vairtable Legend but he doesn't evolve or Breed.

Ulgamoth can do both so he isn't a Legend. (Manaphy is different you can't hatch other Manaphy's only Phione's and can only Breed with Ditto while Ulgamoth can breed with normal Pokenmon.) Like the Majority said he isn't a Legend but he is special

 

[Orion-Sama]

I think that having Rowan focus so much on Legendaries and wonder why they're so strong even if they don't evolve pretty much proves Ulgamoth is not Legendary. Hell, anything that evolves is not Legendary if we go by this.

Can this be disproved? Yes, if GameFreak wants to. But so far, Rowan's words remain true. Even within the oddballs, the rule remains. No Legendary evolves.

 

[Zuruzukin]

I didn't know you worked for Game Freak. Ohwait. You don't. You don't control what is or isn't a legendary only because of your own opinion.

I don't need to work for Gamefreak to realize that. Oh, and Ulgamoth isn't a legendary according to Gamefreak, either.

Honestly. Tell me. What would be the point of legendaries if you could get a thousand of them? There's just no way it's ever going to happen. Common sense tells me that.

 

[Venator]

Rowan's theory makes one wonder "How did legendaries get so powerful if they didn't evolve?"

Can someone answer this? (and don't just say "they just are" because that is the stupidest thing to say, ever.)

I don't need to work for Gamefreak to realize that. Oh, and Ulgamoth isn't a legendary according to Gamefreak, either.

Oh, and where does this tidbit come from? Have guides been released or are you just pulling this out of your arse?

Honestly. Tell me. What would be the point of legendaries if you could get a thousand of them? There's just no way it's ever going to happen. Common sense tells me that.

Whats the point of them anyway? Each and every one already can be defeated by a non-Legendary pretty easy. If so called Legendaries can be defeated easily, do they really deserve to be called "Legendary"?

 

[Articwolf10]

Rowan's theory makes one wonder "How did legendaries get so powerful if they didn't evolve?"

Can someone answer this? (and don't just say "they just are" because that is the stupidest thing to say, ever.)

But thaty's pretty much True Arceus, Mew, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, Groudon, Kyogre, Rayquaza, Regigigas, Azelf, Ukie, Mesprit ect...

They are that Powerful they didn't exist in a different form Arceus hatched from the first egg and created the universe. He created the Dragon and Lake Trio from nothing. The weather trio were created by giological forces so they didn't evovle either

Name one Legend (Exluding the Beast Trio who were revived by Ho-Oh and The Balence Trio who came from one Dragon (Or at least Reshiram and Zekrom did Kyurem is probily whats left of the Dragon) that look slike it evovled?

 

[Venator]

But thaty's pretty much True Arceus, Mew, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, Groudon, Kyogre, Rayquaza, Regigigas, Azelf, Ukie, Mesprit ect...

They are that Powerful they didn't exist in a different form Arceus hatched from the first egg and created the universe. He created the Dragon and Lake Trio from nothing. The weather trio were created by giological forces so they didn't evovle either

The funny thing is, those are all legends. Legends have a habit, in most games (say Final Fantasy, I dare you) and real-life, to be false. We don't know where Legendaries actually come from. If they're just like other Pokemon (and real animals), they probably evolved into their current forms. You know, considering how weak all of them are. I mean, all of them can be easily defeated by a "non-God" Pokemon relatively easy. I would expect the gods who created the universe, time, space, the earth, ocean and sky to not be so weak.

Name one Legend (Exluding the Beast Trio who were revived by Ho-Oh and The Balence Trio who came from one Dragon (Or at least Reshiram and Zekrom did Kyurem is probily whats left of the Dragon) that look slike it evovled?

So, creatures 20 feet tall just appeared out of thin air? This may be a game but that's just poppycock in my opinion.


Edit: I have to go. My comp has a backdoor virus for some godawful reason. I can't do jack about it so I have to wait until my brother comes to fix it.

 

[Articwolf10]

The funny thing is, those are all legends. Legends have a habit, in most games (say Final Fantasy, I dare you) and real-life, to be false. We don't know where Legendaries actually come from. If they're just like other Pokemon (and real animals), they probably evolved into their current forms. You know, considering how weak all of them are. I mean, all of them can be easily defeated by a "non-God" Pokemon relatively easy. I would expect the gods who created the universe, time, space, the earth, ocean and sky to not be so weak.

So, creatures 20 feet tall just appeared out of thin air? This may be a game but that's just poppycock in my opinion.


Edit: I have to go. My comp has a backdoor virus for some godawful reason. I can't do jack about it so I have to wait until my brother comes to fix it.

except that most Legends in Pokemon Appear to be True (A la the Dragon Trio... Cyrus was able to create hi sown universe abliet temperaly as Giratina interupted him. Plus the Weather Trio caused the Weather to go nuts and remeber Raquaza had to intervene both times before they destroyed everything)

And this is Pokemon logic never plays a factor you can hatch a giant rock snake. and oyur Kangiskan is alreay with child when she hatches. So in Pokemon it can happen trying to put logic into it only makes it that more confusing.

Plus Gameplay/story segragation... Cannoicly you don't catch the Legends. Actually canicly besides Reshiram/Zekrom/Giratina You don't have to fight the Legends in the Main Story mode... (Rayquaza leaves as soon as oyu reach the top of his Tower calming The other Two's fight... And Dialga and Palkia dissapear when Giratina intervenes)

Rowan's words speak ture no Legends evolve and except for Manaphy and Phione can't breed. And Phione is the only Legend that can breed over and over again as you can't get Manaphy eggs except for the event one

Hopr your Computer gets fixed though

 

[dylanwtn]

Some Pokemon actually just grow up like regular animals. That's why there is a baby Lugia in the anime.
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Silver_(Johto)

 

[Falconwing]

That is probably the best explanation for that. The games don't really support it but realistically, it makes sense.

 

[IslandWalker]

Name one Legend (Exluding the Beast Trio who were revived by Ho-Oh and The Balence Trio who came from one Dragon (Or at least Reshiram and Zekrom did Kyurem is probily whats left of the Dragon) that look slike it evovled?

Arceus came from an egg. Mewtwo is an improved genetic clone of Mewtwo. Evolving is not necessarily growing up, take Eevee as an example. It is mutated with the stones and times of day, it's not just a bigger Eevee with more fur. Who knows is Meraruba was a normal Pokémon like Chatot or Tauros, that didn't evolve, and Arceus or some other random legendary mutated it?

Every Pokémon was created by the same Pokémon, why would that make any one of those "legendary"? There is obviously some story behind them, a mutation, that caused them to be who they are. I doubt a random Weedle would be considered a legendary for no apparent reason, so there's obviously something that makes them a legendary. Not even good stats is a reason, take a look at the uber pseudo-legends. Availability isn't either, take Rotom, Beldum (RSE), and Farfetch'd (RBY) as examples. Heck, even a special location isn't a reason, Rotom and Sudowoodo prove this.

So stop blinding your views of what a legendary can and can't be. As Triumphant Octopus said, you can't decide what a legendary is and isn't. Every generation, that definition is changed, and it will keep on changing. Instead of arguing about how it is definitely not a legendary, think deeply into the second paragraph. A legendary has something that makes it a legendary, not just the classic qualities.

It's like humans-only some are famous, but they DID something to get up there. There are good-looking, smart, and talented people who aren't famous, so what decides who is famous and who isn't? It's HOW THEY GOT THERE. Not just because a person has these qualities they automatically become a celebrity, and celebrities who don't have these qualities aren't.

SO stop arguing about this!! Seriously, I doubt that anyone on these fan-made forums works for Nintendo or GameFreak. YOU can not say what a legendary is, and if you think that it isn't, give some good reasons!! Lots of you are saying "it's not a legendary because it doesn't fit into the description of legendaries". Yeah. That's right, and even if stereotypes are mostly right, they are not always right. Not everyone in Japan is Japanese, and not everyone in Guatemala is Guatemalan.

Legendaries aren't what they seem, and it's pointless to think so. Or else, let's throw Latias, Latios, Cresselia, Heatran, Manapphy, and Phione out of the legendary group. Things change, guys. Even if this Pokémon turns out to not be a legendary, still keep this in mind. I'm not saying it is for sure a legendary, but I say it has a chance. Stop saying it's not possible because it is.

 

[VeggiePopper]

EPIC POST

You're absolutely right! We can't decide what a Legendary is, that only goes to Game Freak and rules are bended from time to time. But Urgamoth is still not a Legendary because even by the standards of this generation, it isn't treated as one:

As it's been said, Legendary Pokémon have signature moves. But many more non-Legendary has them too, so that doesn't prove it's a Legendary (unless Meowth, Smeargle, etc. are).

As for the "every generaton the rules change", that's not totally true. The main rule still applies: Legendaries don't evovle, don't have genders and don't breed. BUT there's always ONE exception to the rule: Only the Lati@s have speciphic genders with a gender counterpart, which was their main gimmick; only Cresselia has a speciphic gender (always female), only Heathran has variable genders, and only Manaphy/Phione can breed (even if you put two Heatran of different genders at the day-care they won't produce an egg), yet in a very special way. So, as you can see, there's always only one exception to the rule, but the general rule still stands: Legendaries don't breed, have genders nor they evolve.

Each one of this Legendary Pokémon break only one rule at once while retaining the others, but Urgamoth breaks ALL OF THEM (it has variable genders, has an evolutionary line and can breed), if it was indeed a Legendary, then there would be nothing to differenciate Legends and non-Legends anymore thus completely killing the purpose of Legends, what would the purpose of it being a Legendary be if it has nothing to distinguish itself as a Legendary?

Plus, not every Pokémon with a gimmick has to be a Legendary: Unown only learns one move, Ditto can't do anything but Transform and Smeargle is the only Pokémon that can learn Sketch; Shuckle produces rare candies and so on, yet none of them are Legendaries. So tell me, what is Urgamoth's ultimate gimmmick that makes it Legendary? Apart from being encountered at the wild at a high level (which already was disproved with Magikarp's case, unles it is a Legendary.... LOL at Legendary Magikarp) and meeting them once in the overwrold (which non-Legends aslo do: cue Snorlax and Sudowoodo), it has no other Legendary-like treat.

So no, just because it's powerful, rare (RARE, not one encounter only [because no, it's not a one-encounter, since you can breed for lots of them, plus you get it twice: once as Urgamoth, once as its preevo. How many Legendaries you meet twice without a Nintendo event?]), found at a high level and cool (which is a subjective thing anyway, there's no rule as to which Pokémon look cool and which ones don't) makes it a Legendary. Gyarados is cool, rare and very powerful, plus you can catch its pre-evo at the wild at Level 100, yet it's not a Legendary, not even a pseudo. Charizard meets the same conditions: it's generally considered cool, as a starter you get it only once and before Stealth Rock it was treated as a very powerful Pokémon, but it was never given Legend status. And then there's lots more...

That's not to mention the other arguments that have been disproved (signature moves, catch rate) and are simply stupid to be used as back-up points.

Island Walker: Although I agree with your philosophy, actually your final sentence goes the other way round and instead of proving that anything can be a Legendary, it rather proves that not everything is: as you said, stereotypes are general, but not universal, and not everybody living in Japan is a Japanese: following the same flow of thoughts, not every Legendary-like Pokémon is a Legendary (point in case: Rotom, Snorlax, Sudowoodo, Urgamoth).

 

[Arc Blader]

This is borderline stupid, simply because it's 100% subjective, but I've always felt that if a Pokémon was Legendary, you would just be able to know right away. Looking at Articuno, Mewtwo, Lugia, Palkia... you can just sort of tell. Ulgamoth just doesn't give me that feeling. Absurdly powerful? Yes. Legendary? No.
Just what I feel.

You did not use the wrd subjective. You said "you can just sort of tell" and if you looked at some legendaries without knowing anything about them, they wouldn't appear special in many ways.

Oh yes, I did use the word subjective. If you're not going to read my posts, don't respond to them.

 

[Venator]

As for the "every generaton the rules change", that's not totally true. The main rule still applies: Legendaries don't evovle, don't have genders and don't breed. BUT there's always ONE exception to the rule: Only the Lati@s have speciphic genders with a gender counterpart, which was their main gimmick; only Cresselia has a speciphic gender (always female), only Heathran has variable genders, and only Manaphy/Phione can breed (even if you put two Heatran of different genders at the day-care they won't produce an egg), yet in a very special way. So, as you can see, there's always only one exception to the rule, but the general rule still stands: Legendaries don't breed, have genders nor they evolve.

You're very contradictory, ya'know? You say IslandWalker made an epic post and that he's right in the fact that we cannot decide whats a legendary and then you say "Legendaries still follow a rule". It is not the rule you described, however. It is the rule that Game Freak decides what is and what is not a Legendary. Game Freak could have decided to make Breedable and evolvable Legendaries. You're rule wouldn't support it but in that case, your rule contradicts the Game Freak rule. And since the GF rule is absolute, that means your rule would be false.

Now, that was a hypothetical situation but it may not be so hypothetical, given Ulgamoth. Ulgamoth could be the new revision of the Legendaries page (and Legendaries *cough* rule) but he may not be revealed as one yet. Sure, he lacks the legendary theme but that could be just an oversight (or an intentional thing to start this debate) on their part.

But he may be a Legendary. Nothing anyone has said has disproved it. There are no "rules" for Legendaries besides the GF rule. That was IslandWalker's entire point.

(typed on phone. Damn that took forever!)

 

[IslandWalker]

You're absolutely right! We can't decide what a Legendary is, that only goes to Game Freak and rules are bended from time to time. But Urgamoth is still not a Legendary because even by the standards of this generation, it isn't treated as one:

As it's been said, Legendary Pokémon have signature moves. But many more non-Legendary has them too, so that doesn't prove it's a Legendary (unless Meowth, Smeargle, etc. are).

As for the "every generaton the rules change", that's not totally true. The main rule still applies: Legendaries don't evovle, don't have genders and don't breed. BUT there's always ONE exception to the rule: Only the Lati@s have speciphic genders with a gender counterpart, which was their main gimmick; only Cresselia has a speciphic gender (always female), only Heathran has variable genders, and only Manaphy/Phione can breed (even if you put two Heatran of different genders at the day-care they won't produce an egg), yet in a very special way. So, as you can see, there's always only one exception to the rule, but the general rule still stands: Legendaries don't breed, have genders nor they evolve.

Each one of this Legendary Pokémon break only one rule at once while retaining the others, but Urgamoth breaks ALL OF THEM (it has variable genders, has an evolutionary line and can breed), if it was indeed a Legendary, then there would be nothing to differenciate Legends and non-Legends anymore thus completely killing the purpose of Legends, what would the purpose of it being a Legendary be if it has nothing to distinguish itself as a Legendary?

Plus, not every Pokémon with a gimmick has to be a Legendary: Unown only learns one move, Ditto can't do anything but Transform and Smeargle is the only Pokémon that can learn Sketch; Shuckle produces rare candies and so on, yet none of them are Legendaries. So tell me, what is Urgamoth's ultimate gimmmick that makes it Legendary? Apart from being encountered at the wild at a high level (which already was disproved with Magikarp's case, unles it is a Legendary.... LOL at Legendary Magikarp) and meeting them once in the overwrold (which non-Legends aslo do: cue Snorlax and Sudowoodo), it has no other Legendary-like treat.

So no, just because it's powerful, rare (RARE, not one encounter only [because no, it's not a one-encounter, since you can breed for lots of them, plus you get it twice: once as Urgamoth, once as its preevo. How many Legendaries you meet twice without a Nintendo event?]), found at a high level and cool (which is a subjective thing anyway, there's no rule as to which Pokémon look cool and which ones don't) makes it a Legendary. Gyarados is cool, rare and very powerful, plus you can catch its pre-evo at the wild at Level 100, yet it's not a Legendary, not even a pseudo. Charizard meets the same conditions: it's generally considered cool, as a starter you get it only once and before Stealth Rock it was treated as a very powerful Pokémon, but it was never given Legend status. And then there's lots more...

That's not to mention the other arguments that have been disproved (signature moves, catch rate) and are simply stupid to be used as back-up points.

Island Walker: Although I agree with your philosophy, actually your final sentence goes the other way round and instead of proving that anything can be a Legendary, it rather proves that not everything is: as you said, stereotypes are general, but not universal, and not everybody living in Japan is a Japanese: following the same flow of thoughts, not every Legendary-like Pokémon is a Legendary (point in case: Rotom, Snorlax, Sudowoodo, Urgamoth).

I never said it WAS a legendary. In fact, I think it isn't, but the point still stands-only GameFreak can decide that, and the legendary "rules", which don't even exist, have been broken on multiple occasions.

 

[CreepyMushroom]

You're very contradictory, ya'know? You say IslandWalker made an epic post and that he's right in the fact that we cannot decide whats a legendary and then you say "Legendaries still follow a rule". It is not the rule you described, however. It is the rule that Game Freak decides what is and what is not a Legendary. Game Freak could have decided to make Breedable and evolvable Legendaries. You're rule wouldn't support it but in that case, your rule contradicts the Game Freak rule. And since the GF rule is absolute, that means your rule would be false.

Now, that was a hypothetical situation but it may not be so hypothetical, given Ulgamoth. Ulgamoth could be the new revision of the Legendaries page (and Legendaries *cough* rule) but he may not be revealed as one yet. Sure, he lacks the legendary theme but that could be just an oversight (or an intentional thing to start this debate) on their part.

But he may be a Legendary. Nothing anyone has said has disproved it. There are no "rules" for Legendaries besides the GF rule. That was IslandWalker's entire point.

(typed on phone. Damn that took forever!)

The only problem with this is that if legendaries were breedable, evolved, etc., etc., what would separate them from normal pokemon? GF's word? What's the point of having a separate category for a certain group of pokemon, if that group no longer possesses the traits that distinguished them from everything else? Now, I'm not going to completely bash the idea of Ulgamoth being a legendary, but I do think it would negate the concept of "legendary" as a grouping.

Also, the GF rule means that we can't assume anything about the legendary status of Ulgamoth. This means that, if we are to seriously follow this rule, no one should be posting on this thread arguing this point because neither side has been confirmed by Game Freak yet. So tossing that "rule" around as if it's supposed to support your claim seems kind of pointless.