>>54643543>No, that wouldn’t make sense,Of course it would, you would base it on the mon you see and the various adaptations and features they tend to share. He was inspired by the paradoxes you know, the ideas didn't just come from the ether, the says as much.
Also if you look at the sketches and the paradoxes they're not one to one as if their features were copied exactly. Suicune's crest in the sketch is more like the original rather than the paradox for instance.
>Except see above for why it doesn’t make sense.You haven't given a reason, essentially you're just saying it can't because it can't.
>It’s descriptive wording that states it’s made up, not of Pokémon they’ve actually seen and are describing, but inspired of others they have!I'm trying to interpret this but the English is really bad.
I mean, it sounds like you're trying to say that the page on the sketch is saying that it's 100% original despite the fact that it says it's not and it was inspired by the pokemon they saw.
We don't know what pokemon specifically he was inspired by, the book doesn't say that so you can't say that he wasn't inspired the the paradox beasts/swords.
Do you understand?
We don't have enough to work with to say that it's one or the other.
>I never said they were synonymsYou did?
>“-which means illusory or made up in the mind; the imagination.” You're still saying that illusory and fantastical are synonyms here.
You know a synonym is a word that has a similar or the same meaning as another, right? Saying
>It uses Fantastical in the description, which means illusoryIs saying that they're synonyms.
