>>46231694Me too.
>>46232341>>46232396Wow, such shallow thinking. Remember that poison Crobat, along with Espeon and Umbreon, was the original face of friendship evolutions.
There are some rare Poison types whose "very nature is to corrupt". And even most of those aren't malicious: sure, Muk is a lump of living toxic waste and spreads dead wasteland around itself, but ultimately it's a wasteland of humanity's making, and Muk doesn't do anythinf malicious apart from just existing as it was born to be.
Most, however, are just animals or plants that have a single type-defining quality: secreting something poisonous or acidic either as part of their defensive mechanisms, or as hunting strategy (or, in several acid-related cases, as a digestive aid). If you aren't a D&D paladin, it's hard to put down "weakens/kills their prey via venomous bites" as somehow more evil than "weakens/kills their prey via high-voltage electrocution"; and in 99% of cases the delivery method is far more selective (either needing a physical contact, a specialised organ, or being bitten/eaten itself) and far less prone to collateral than you paint it to be.
Of course, there are types like Gengar and Dragalge. Definitely malicious and aggressive - just like most Ghosts and Dragons are.
If collateral and destructiveness are your metrics, better take a good hard look at the Fire types, and leave "eeevil" guys like Bulbasaur, Oddish, Crobat, Croagunk and Scolipede well alone - or better yet, well understood and cherished for their unique adaptations. Because IRL, being poisonous is kind of the most peaceful survival strategy: it aims to prevent bloody struggles, and often goes together with a bright coloration that warns: "don't mess with me! Even if you win, a single bite or prick will bring you death or extreme sickness too!" Of course, in Pokemon that kind of prevention doesn't work, but maybe not every species can just selfdestruct at the adversary and be well on the next day.
