>>51183655I can recognize Pokemon as fantastical, as fictional but at the same time I recognize what they're constructed as and this is spelled out with what little sources we have talk about it. That combined with what we visually see and are presented with is another part of the puzzle. When I call Pokemon critters is because that's how Pokemon are constructed as even with their fantastical nature. Verily so it's not a mirage on my end, the series makes it pretty clear that Pokemon are *not* people, from the dialogue from the characters to PokeDex entries, it is clear there is a fine distinction between people and Pokemon.
>>51183922Except for the fact that many of those are, as the product guide refers to, special storylines with very, very few exceptions. The talking Pokemon example is perfect because talking Pokemon are increably rare in the series and often times just a one-off thing constructed for special storyline purposes or at times for specific circumstances such as a way to advance the plot. For example there hasn't been a talking Lucario aside from the one in the 8th movie even when that movie set up the framework for it to happen. Meowth from the anime doesn't talk in the games as another blatant example. The reason is simple, because Pokemon usually lack that sort of agency.
The product approval guide gives glimpses of this philosophy they instruct others to follow, basically how the people who run the series want 3rd parties to handle their franchise and many of those are AGAINST humanization of Pokemon in a significant way. As for you other points that just the nature of the fantastical nature of Pokemon and the other just plain old anthropomorphism found pretty much in any fictional media, nothing special to note here.
Pokemon isn't a series constructed for the type of nonsense you want, it simply is not. As far back as 1996 they wrote of the idea of a Pokemon as a *pet*, not a person. Abandon this inanity.
