Pokeballs: What do they ACTUALLY do to Pokemon?

[WanderingNamekian]

Recently I've begun to wonder how Pokeballs work. Not like the matter conversion or even like whether or not Pokemon like being in them, but actually the mechanics of what they do to a Pokemon. I find it odd that wild Pokemon will fight so vigorously against a trainer, yet as soon as they are caught are automatically completely loyal to that trainer, or at least will obey their commands. Stranger still, there are machines that can reassign this loyalty from one Pokemon Trainer to another, without the knowledge or consent of the Pokemon (Pokemon Trading).

With this information, I began to wonder whether or not Pokeballs did more than store Pokemon, ie: whether they altered their mental state to make them more obedient as well. This suspicion was all but confirmed when in an anime episode (where Jessie and James were trying to help Tyson capture a Gyarados), one of them asked why they didn't just use a Pokeball, and Meowth said that Pokemon needed to be caught wild for research. This idea is also supported by the Raikou! Legend of Thunder! special, in which Hun and Attila never attempt to use a Pokeball on Raikou.

For the record, I would like to state that I don't think that Pokeballs brainwash Pokemon, merely that they domesticize them. Therefore the difference between a Pokemon before capture and after is the same as the difference between a wolf and a dog. This also makes sense because just as it is possible to turn a wolf into a pet with a good deal of effort and training. We see that some people (usually those too young to have Pokeballs/attempt to enter the League) have no problem training Pokemon without them, although it seems to take a lot more time (Crystal in "Putting The Air Back In Aerodactyl" for example). However, we should not discount the fact that the difference here is the equivalent of something that took thousands of years of evolution in our world.

Assuming this is correct, what are the moral implications? While the idea of the show and games seems to be that people and Pokemon work together, if this is true, then it seems like humans are taking severe advantage of Pokemon and forcing them into unnatural obedience. Or is it that this is better for both humans and Pokemon, as it creates more harmony between them? Just want to hear opinions on this.

 

[League]

There's a pokemon myth (click) that effectively explains (metaphorically or not) why pokemon appear as they do.

Pokemon aren't opposed to human capture at all, I must believe. (Even if that myth is regarded as fanciful, it must be an attempt to explain a natural phenomenon.) They might welcome it, even, and grow up and mature expecting and anticipating human capture.

 

[Feenie]

Tough question. N acts like Pokemon being shut in Pokeballs are bad... I wonder what the Pokemon think, though. He says he understands them though... I wonder what it's like to be in a Pokeball. I can't imagine it being much fun... Well, I'll go with what N says. But I feel like Pokemon being in Pokeballs isn't SO bad... I mean, Dwebble went willingly into Cilan's Pokeball... I wonder.

 

[Space Opera]

My favourite theory.

Pokémon are different from humans in biological structure. In fact, their matter is unstable and has a certain tendency to turn into a special form of energy. This is, however, only triggered by certain radiation.

This radiation is that of Apricorns, those nut-like fruits people made Pokéballs out of in ancient times. The inside of an Apricorn's shell contains energy drainers, a sort of biological energy black holes - they let out that certain radiation and they can suck energy in to their centers. Those are there to protect the Apricorns from Pokémon that might want to eat them in a very effective way - a Pokémon that cracks the shell of an Apricorn will be hit by the radiation, turn into energy, and be sucked towards the Apricorn. This can imprison smaller Pokémon inside forever - which additionally provides the Apricorn with more power to suck in more Pokémon - or if it is a powerful Pokémon, it would feel dizzy and perhaps decide the Apricorn is not good to eat. If a Pokémon actually eats the Apricorn, however, it dies and the energy drainers release the energy they contained.

Different types of Apricorns, targeted as food for different kinds of Pokémon, contain different kinds of energy drainers which suck in different types of energy - usually some form which is dominant in some Pokémon and not others (such as Water Pokémon, fast Pokémon, heavy Pokémon, etc.). All Apricorns contain some drainers for all variations, though, so they can all catch anything that is weak enough. Humans also react to the radiation from the Apricorns, but are nowhere near as unstable as Pokémon and only long-term exposure to open Apricorns can cause any problems for humans. This, however, is what has happened to Kurt in G/S/C - it causes the person to seem older than what they really are.

Those who make Pokéballs out of Apricorns use special tools for it. They open the Apricorns, hollow them out and then close them with hinges that will, as regular Pokéballs, open upon semi-harsh impact with the ground or a Pokémon (hence the need to throw the balls). This, of course, greatly increases a Pokémon's chance to escape from the ball.

In a normal Pokéball, different types of mechanical energy drainers have been placed behind a few mirrors. The mirrors work like the glossy inside of an Apricorn's shell, reflecting the Pokémon so that it does not get divided between the energy drainers. They have different types so that the ball will have an equal chance of catching all Pokémon.

What the Pokémon experiences inside the ball is a sort of timeless, dreamy environment - Luxury Balls and Friend Balls provide the Pokémon with a more comfortable one than other Pokéballs.

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

This is about what the pokéballs do to the pokémon in the sense of obedience, not in terms of capture mechanics.


The domestication theory really holds up if we consider things. Though it wouldn't be an absolute domestication nor takes over the pokémon's will or anything, as it's clearly shown several times the pokémon can at least be reluctant and dislike it, (Including even HGSS, where some pokémon species, preassumbly less used to this sort of treatment, start by openly disliking you) and even blatantly stop following orders and disregarding any loyalty they'd be supposed to have. Most likely traded pokémon against trainers who weren't the ones to even capture them.

It working like some sort of instant-tameness thing is kinda plausible, but I'm not sure of where would it exactly fall between "forcing into total obedience" and merely "convincing to not decapitate the trainer the moment it's sent out", probably it leans more on the latter.

Personally though, I think it's more of regarding the trainer as an authority figure than anything else. And I'd figure it being based on how the trainer effectively has limited control over them, rather than some artificial psychological effect.


In any case, considering that they (at least as a whole) can break this sort of relation making it well known they don't appreciate it (as it's said by Drayden and Iris), there doesn't seem to be much in terms of moral implications. There's really not much difference in having them follow orders in a few seconds or in years, though being together with years would build trust bonds, most of the time they would be simply impossible.

Now, the main problem, of course, it's that this of being able to control pokémon can be obviously and easilly exploited, which is apparently something that happens quite often. And I am not talking about evil teams, it's implied many normal trainers force their pokémon without much regard to them.

So I guess pokéballs are a double-edged sword. In one hand they allow to tame pokémon that wouldn't listen otherwise, but in the other they can be abused.

 

[pokevampwarrior113]

I have always wondered that to . And i have three things to say that have been overlooked. in the show, first ash's charazard would not obey his commands, second picachu dosent like to be in his pokeball, and third pokemon can come out of their pokeball at any time so they must have free will. :banana::-D:spin:

 

[Wiley Willy]

They beat them into submission. <-- True Story.

 

[yourlilemogirl]

I have always wondered that to . And i have three things to say that have been overlooked. in the show, first ash's charazard would not obey his commands...

How was that overlooked?
Charmander was essentially a "traded" pokemon, so when it evolved, he simply didn't have the right stuff to keep it controlled or keep it's respect (kinda like in the games where a pokemon above a certain level won't obey a trainer if they haven't proven themselves worthy by having the correct badge).
----------------------------------------

i find this interesting, off and on i would wonder why pokemon would just [mostly] blindly follow whoever owned their pokeball. Why weren't the pokemon confused and demand to return to their original owners? -shrugs- i leave that to ya'll to answer for me /lurks

 

[DracoMan]

I don't think that a Pokemon's obedience to the one who captured it is really about the technobabble of Poke Balls. I think it's more about the captured Pokemon recognizing the strength of the one who caught it. The trainer's strength and skill leads to the Pokemon respecting the trainer, and that leads to obedience and (hopefully) friendship.

 

[The Knights of Wario Land]

Well, some Pokemon seem to have complete mental moodshifts when they're captured, but some of those Pokemon have willingly gone into the Poke Ball and still retained their original attitudes (Charmander, Scraggy, etc.).

 

[WanderingNamekian]

I don't think that a Pokemon's obedience to the one who captured it is really about the technobabble of Poke Balls. I think it's more about the captured Pokemon recognizing the strength of the one who caught it. The trainer's strength and skill leads to the Pokemon respecting the trainer, and that leads to obedience and (hopefully) friendship.

While it would be nice if that was the case, if it was true, we probably never would have invented Pokeballs, Pokemon would just follow people, and wait outside of buildings too large for them to be inside. Also, if this is the case, why don't all Pokemon that a trainer defeats in the wild just start following them? I know this happens sometimes, but it is not the normal occurrence. I think beating a Pokemon earns some respect, but in most cases does not cause the Pokemon to want to follow that person, although it may feel that urge a little bit, it wouldn't be enough for it to actually do it. I think the Pokeballs somehow amplify or induce those feelings in the Pokemon.

 

[Azure Butterfly]

I always thought that the balls formed a bond between the Pokemon and the human who caught them. They could feel the emotions of their master and contact with human emotions would cause them to be more humanlike themselves.

 

[33Whimsicott33]

I could've sworn I read somewhere that a pokeball contains a miniature environment that "once inside, the pokemon will get to love its new home and its trainer." (pretty sure that was the exact quotes)

 

[Vhazhiphor]

Let's put it this way: If you got your ass handed to you by somebody, and then that somebody said they wanted you to come along with them, you wouldn't have much of a choice. If you try to rebel, they can just pound you back into the ground again.

I hold with those that say it's an authority thing (Defeat Means Playable as opposed to Defeat Means Friendship). You can later earn a pokemon's loyalty and trust; a pokeball is just a way of saying "you're coming with me, whether you like it or not". Notice that they have a chance of breaking free; they can choose to go, or try to fight back. And either way, once the ball stops shaking, it's all over.

 

[ReturnofMCH]

in super smash bros melee the trophy of a pokeball states that "it projects an image related to that pokemon's dream. however it cannot interact with other pokeballs"
'nough said

 

[Wildcat]

Maybe the pokeballs are actually a fun and comfortable place to be. But to me it really looks like a cramped place to be

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Well, if this thread is about how a Pokemon becomes obediant when captured, here's what I think:

Once a Pokemon is captured, the trainer has the power to call it back whenever they want to. So it would be quite hard for a Pokemon to escape. So now they're pretty much stuck with this trainer. So they start to get used to the whole domestication thing, and then they start warming up to the trainer over time. It's not an instant bond that magically forms as soon as the Pokemon is in the ball. It's a relationship that develops over time, just like my relationship with my dog. Pokemon seem to instantly warm up to you in the games simply for the sake of gameplay. (Though I always personally thought that a Pokemon game that explored the trainer's relationship with their pocket monsters a little more would be interesting.)

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

With this information, I began to wonder whether or not Pokeballs did more than store Pokemon, ie: whether they altered their mental state to make them more obedient as well. This suspicion was all but confirmed when in an anime episode (where Jessie and James were trying to help Tyson capture a Gyarados), one of them asked why they didn't just use a Pokeball, and Meowth said that Pokemon needed to be caught wild for research. This idea is also supported by the Raikou! Legend of Thunder! special, in which Hun and Attila never attempt to use a Pokeball on Raikou.

In DPPt, there's an essay on Cyrus's computer where he talks about how pokeballs hinder a pokemon's natural power. He doesn't elaborate, but it's what necessitated the Red Chain. I wonder if this is common knowledge in-universe or if it's just something a few scientists know and the League tries to keep from getting out.

As for why pokemon become loyal upon capture, I think the answer may come from a game with no humans in it at all--Pokepark Wii. It's said in there that fighting is how pokemon communicate, and that they're likely to befriend a pokemon that's stronger than they are. When there's humans around, this logically extends to them as well.

 

[Pomegranate]

I always thought that the balls formed a bond between the Pokemon and the human who caught them. They could feel the emotions of their master and contact with human emotions would cause them to be more humanlike themselves.

I like this theory. It's similar to the Ranger games, and would fit together well with them, if you think that the Styler and the Poke Ball are just two sides of the same coin. The Styler communicates your feelings to a Pokemon, and the Poke Ball uses the same technology in a different form to do the same thing. That would also explain why Pokemon with mean trainers are angrier and more violent, etc.

 

[Peppermint Phoenix]

I think that it is brainwashing pure and simple.