Are Pokémon 'immortal'?

Almonds

Almonds

Lovely
Scorbunny Fan
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
14,622
Reaction score
4,578
The majority of Ghost pokemons had a previous life (Yamask, for example). They originally died, but were brought back to life.

There's slso the fossil pokemons being revived. They died at some point, but were brought back by scientific means.

Are pokemon 'immortal'? They are stated to have a life span and are subject to death. But if they can be brought back by various means, then does 'death' even have a meaning in the pokemon world?
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

The way I see it is that they aren't brought back from death:

In Yamask case, it was a human whose spirit was concealed into a mask and that eventually became a pokémon. While their body technically died, it's mostly the method in which it did that gave it that fate. (Then whether new Yamask come from a similar fate, or from the existence of these new Yamask, or most likely a combination of both, that's another story).
So I wouldn't call those so much "deaths" as "transformations".

When the scientists talk about "bringing an extinct pokémon back to life", I think they're reffering to the species itself. So the pokémon is cloned, and technically that DNA composition stored within the fossil is what is made into a living being again. But the original "owner" of that DNA is already long gone.


On the other hand, in the animeverse, Dr. Fuji did clone Amber with the intention of reviving her. So I guess that deppends on how you interpret Ambertwo having preassumbly Amber's memories.
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

Well, this is the question that is made difficult by the fossils and Ghost-type. But essentually, no. In fact the whole thing about Alder is that the death of his precious Pokemon partner hurt him so much that he became a wanderer. Though I do wonder if you brought a bone of your deceased Pokemon to a lab, would that count in terms of fossil resurrection and if so would they be the same Pokemon with memories in tact, or would they be something entirely new? The game never specified if the fossil Pokemon are like that or not.

But Yamask and Froslass don't really count as Pokemon who defied death. They're Pokemon who defied the lines between human and Pokemon. The Dex info claims Yamask were once humans who now carry masks resembling their faces; Froslass is the soul of young women lost in the snowy mountains. So really, Yamask, Froslass, and Pokemon like them are in a league of their own really. Not powerwise, existance wise.
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

Well, it seems like every Cubone's mother dies (or is killed, in that one case). And because that one Marowak was able to be killed, it wouldn't be immortal. Though, Pokemon do seem to be able to come back as ghosts or just be Ghost Pokemon in general.
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

As per Alder's situation... no. They aren't.
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

They aren't really 'immortal', but I think they can extend their lifespan by getting trained by Pokémon Trainer.
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

They are mortal, a few of them actually died. Alder's Volcarona, Latios from Pokémon Heroes, Lucario from 8th movie... :3
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

Well, they do age and die naturally. I wonder if they age inside Pokeballs, or even require food and water as energy in the ball. It would kind of be weird to send out a dead Pokémon into battle after it perished in the ball without you noticing...
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

It's all depends on the Pokemon. Some are long Lived. Some, Longer lived then others.

There are many instances of Pokemon showing signs of old age in the anime.
Some are implied to have lived much longer then even the characters in the Anime thought possible
(implying it's uncommon, at least for that particular Pokemon, to live so long.)
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

I'd say it covers various things. Some Pokemon originally where human and transformed into Pokemon (Religious/Mythical origin). Ghost Pokemon probably fall in here as well just not human based. There are various beliefes that state how ghost/demons/spirits and whatnot came to being. Others did develop scientific like humans I'd say and another kind was "created" like Porygon. Some Pokemon kind might even be only came to existence due the existence of humans. Bringing fossils back to live qualifies as cloning to me or recreating the original form by using various possible ways. I don't know how this whole cloning thing works scientific, for that I lack the intellect/knowledge. Pokemon age normally and might only have different lifespan as animals like we know have. They also bleed like most living beings. The catching/storing in Pokeballs, well I explain it to me as something like cryogenics to keep any needs at a minimum, not entirely shutting off since they still need food and water from time to time just not as often as usual.
 
Last edited:
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

Alder's Bouffalant, a kid's Onix in the Sevii Islands, Latios, Lucario, Marowak, and IIRC several manga Pokemon are proof that Pokemon are not immortal. Some certain legendaries may be, though.
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

Also, I figure Ghost Pokémon (and obviously resurrected fossils) are capable of death themselves, even if it came from deceased spirits.

For example, probably a Spiritomb would dissipate with its stone totally destroyed. Or a Yamask could likewise fade away.

So even if you considered that kind of transformation averting death, it isn't permanent either.


Addressing the rest is irrelevant because it's obvious all can suffer some form of death, except probably deity-like beings. Pretty sure say, Dialga will exist as long time does for instance.
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

They probably are not... They probably do live different ranges of time, with the Legendaries and ghost-types the longest.

If they do die, it would require things of high extremes to do that though, considering Pokemon don't "die" after getting hit with attacks that otherwise would kill them. Or old age...
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

Pokemon have been shown to live in Pokeballs for years at a time, such as James Carnivine or that Sandshrew at the bottom of the lake in that episode in DP. Also, there's no telling how long Oak has had those 3 starter Pokemon, since he claimed to have caught them when he went on his journey. Perhaps Pokemon can't die while in their Pokeballs.

However, in the normal environment, accidents happen. Pokemon such as Kabuto could be caught in a mudslide or something. It's a bit gruesome to think about, but that's how many fossils that we have in real life were created. And the games have Pokemon graveyards, so obviously something happens to them. Perhaps Pokemon don't die of old age, but rather only by disease or accidents.
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

Most of the legendary pokemon are immortal while others can die as shown in Lavender Town, etc

I do not believe in that crap about Yamask being human as previous posters have stated, that's just pokedex rubbish just like a lot of its entries. A pokemon is a pokemon, nothing to do with humans. Plus the pokedex tries to make out that there is only one of each pokemon like with Cubone's mother as if every single Cubone is an orphan.
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

If there's something that I learned about immortality, it's that there are two separate and distinctive types.

First, you have absolute immortality. Absolute immortality means that you can survive anything, even the destruction of the universe itself. There is literally nothing out there that can kill you. Think along the lines of Galactus: you can watch everything die around you and come out unscathed. Are there any Pokemon out there that are absolutely immortal? I highly doubt that; in the twelfth movie it was pretty much implied that even Arceus can die. So in that case, I seriously doubt that a truly immortal Pokemon exists.

However, there is a different type of immortality: functional immortality. Someone who is functionally immortal can be killed by normal means but won't die due to sickness, aging, etc. In other words, as long as their bodies can function, they will live. Think along the lines of Golett and Golurk: they've been around for thousands of years yet they still live. Are there functionally immortal Pokemon out there? In that case, yes and those are probably Legendaries, Automatons and the like.

Well, that's my take on things. Feel free to add yours.
 
I was quite annoyed by how the anime dumbed down Arceus like that making him to be like a regular pokemon who can die and also not know that Marcus was the real traitor, etc.
 
I suppose that Pokemon aren't immortal, but different of humans, it wasn't shown by now any physical feature that differs and young Pokemon of an old one besides evolutionary stages.
 
It depends on whether you mean on the Anime or in the games as in the games its pretty clear that they are not immortal otherwise there would be no Pokemon Tower/House of Memories in Kanto(serves Johto too?), Mount Pyre in Hoenn, Lost Tower in Sinnoh and the Celestial Tower in Unova all of which are burial grounds for deceased Pokemon
If the Anime follows the games then the same will be true but even if it is the case its likely that the dub would either sugar coat it or remove the reference completey
e.g. "you'll destroy yourself" or "leave this world"
 
Re: Are pokemon are 'immortal'?

Deadman said:
I'd say it covers various things. Some Pokemon originally where human and transformed into Pokemon (Religious/Mythical origin). Ghost Pokemon probably fall in here as well just not human based. There are various beliefes that state how ghost/demons/spirits and whatnot came to being. Others did develop scientific like humans I'd say and another kind was "created" like Porygon. Some Pokemon kind might even be only came to existence due the existence of humans. Bringing fossils back to live qualifies as cloning to me or recreating the original form by using various possible ways. I don't know how this whole cloning thing works scientific, for that I lack the intellect/knowledge. Pokemon age normally and might only have different lifespan as animals like we know have. They also bleed like most living beings. The catching/storing in Pokeballs, well I explain it to me as something like cryogenics to keep any needs at a minimum, not entirely shutting off since they still need food and water from time to time just not as often as usual.
Click to expand...

If I may provide some assistance in that area, there are two types of cloning in the real world. One is cloning of organs using stem cells from those organs. For example, there is a proposal to use this type of cloning to make a clone kidney for someone. If that person needs a kidney transplant, they could bring out the duplicate, and since it is a genetic copy of one of their kidney's there would be no eventual organ rejection.

Two: Cloning of an entire species. For this process, scientists take a sample of the creature they want to clone. Then they take a fertilized egg cell of another member of the species. This egg cell already has the DNA of a new organism in it. Let's call the DNA in the egg DNA-B, and the cloning sample DNA-A. DNA-B is cut out of the egg, and replaced with DNA-A. The egg cell is then put back into the mother, and what ends up being born is a complete genetic duplicate of another animal.

Using these methods, some people with money try to clone their lost pets. But this process does not produce your pet, and wouldn't produce a person if a person were cloned. The body may be the same, but that is all. Real cloning methods can't account for memories and experiences, and the clone has to grow up all over again. Our memories, experiences, the culture and times we grow up in help shape our personalities, so you won't get the same person. And even if the memories were there, the very fact that it's a clone would have an impact on a sentient creature like a human, and alter personality.

Real cloning also has another problem, genetic imprinting. Imprinting is a natural process that happens when eggs are fertilized and DNA comes together. I think the process normally takes months, or at least a long time, and the above methods basically ask for this process to happen in seconds. Another person described it as a baby being born with old DNA. The end result is that the average life span of the clone is much shorter, and they suffer more from age-related diseases and problems (hardening of arteries for example) and probably see these things come up sooner.

So for fossil Pokemon, they might not be the same creatures as what they were cloned from. I would just say it is resurrecting the species. Then again, I've mentioned here that I am toying with a story where cloning preserved memories...in light of that, maybe I need to refine my ideas...

On an interesting note, something like the genetic imprinting issue seems to have been hinted at by the anime. When Mewtwo appears again with his clone Pokemon, the Nidoqueen gave birth to a Nidoqueen. Not a female Nidoran, but a fully evolved Nidoqueen. It's really interesting if you remember that Pokemon "evolution" is not so much evolution as maturing. Something is obviously wrong with the Nidoqueen clone's DNA, something it the gene's controlling evolution, that made it produce a miniature adult rather than something in infant-stage.
 
Please note: The thread is from 13 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom