>>43988380I didn't say all fairy type should be like Grimmsnarl, just that lore wise it's better to have designs that make more sense and have more thought put into them rather than "Well so uh, this thing is pink.. and it's cute.. yeah, just make it a fairy". It becomes a non-type at this point and kind of defeats the purpose of having a whole new type added. Like what new purpose does it bring? What's its difference compared to others that warranted its addition? Just that it's pink and cute? It makes more sense if you look at it like a type meant to represent weird, funky creatures, pixies, sprites, mischievous forest dwelling spirits, etc.
Not all dangerous looking Pokemon are dark, not every spiky and edgy one is dragon, and so on, for most type assignations there's thought put into them, which is why simply going pink = fairy looks so uninspired in comparison. I know there's your standard girl-with-wings fairy, but even that provides a good inspiration and gives us designs like Ribombee, even Mawile being a futakuchi onna and being relabelled as fairy was a great choice given its design, but all these and more have a reason. Pokemon like Jigglypuff, Alcremie, and Slurpuff being fairies is baseless and comes off as filler at this point, it makes the type look like a non-type, just a broad categorization for marketing purposes. And it has nothing to do with it being girly or not, several Pokemon are cute and girly without being pink or fairy type, like most eevees and several first stage Pokemon in general, so simply reducing fairy to "it's meant to be girly and if you don't like it just don't look at it" is not willing to look at its potential. The problem is not "it's girly so it's bad", because again, many Pokemon are girly, the problem is how bland and uninspired it can be when there's a world of possibilities.
So again, I'm not saying "fairies should be edgy like Grimmsnarl", I'm saying "fairies should have a solid inspiration like Grimmsnarl did".
