>>48183750>>48183762Like earlier there's the one guy that said he thinks there are different breeds of Pokemon that are made to be eaten.
In a world where both animals and Pokemon exist, it makes sense that certain Pokemon were eaten, as they were probably just confused for rare and delicious animals.
But in a world where only Pokemon exist, it begs numerous questions; among them, the question, Why are they even called Pokemon? If Pokemon isn't a contraction of Pocket Monster, then what the fuck does it mean? This question will invariably lead back to some bullshit about how it was an ancient word used to refer to these creatures, when we all know it's not that, and that it's just a contraction of the words Pocket Monster. And if it does mean Pocket Monster, why are these incredibly mundane things called monsters? Why are they not just called animals? Why are they prefaced Pocket- monster. It just goes on and on this way, unless you concede that there's something special about Pokemon. To illustrate how special they are, mundane creatures like the animals from our world must exist.
Pokemon cannot be entirely divorced from our world because so much of what makes it even work as a setting is how it is contrasted from our world. But properly illustrating this requires more work and more thought than anyone in charge is really willing to give.
>>48183799But there's nothing to suggest that in-universe Indian elephants are different to real world Indian elephants. Copperajah could just as easily be a Pocket Monster, and not the Pokemon World's version of an Indian elephant. If you choose to perceive things that way.
