Quoted By:
While most Pokemon have been designed in a manner which conveys a clear message, there is still a hapless handful of the ones devoid of such a clear, comprehensive pattern. With no clear inspiration or expressive information, such pokemon are doomed to being described with ill-fitted tropes born out of ignorance.
<Here we have the worst offender in terms of blurred design process.
Since he was first introduced into a family which had no need for such glorified 'third gender', anyone sympathetic to him used to solve this enigma by slapping most shallow stereotypical patterns with zero indication from GF that there may be truth to them.
Nearing gen VI most (if not all) of these tropes and patterns have been dispelled and debunked, leaving me with a question:
WHAT THE HELL IS GALLADE SUPPOSED TO BE?
>He isn't a chivalrous knight, because that was the role intended for Gardevoir in both original name, descriptions and now it has been confirmed beyond all doubt by its dragonslayer Fairy typing. And even then we have Escavalier and Lucario.
>He isn't an oriental combatant, because there is already a wide selection of Pokemon who are clearly intended as such from the get-go.
>He isn't an ancient combatant either. Golurk fits this role perfectly, while Gallade has merely a fin atop of his head which has been so overused throughout the ages, that it sends no clear message.
>He isn't a legitimate member of the Ralts family, because being the effect of a stone-dependant evolution means that he is an unintended quirk with such rare and unlikely chance to evolve that he borders on non-existence.
>At the same time he looks too generic to feel special.
Any ideas? For I have none.
