Change of Pokémon Nature Upon Evolution

Posted here is my proposal to allow for the change of a Pokémon's National Park Nature upon it's evolution.

On Nature:​

Nature plays a prominent role in the Pokémon games, as well as in many competitive battling communities by affecting (or not) the stats of every pokémon. In the anime and manga “natures” as interpreted in the games are not present, but most pokémon do have a “nature” in that they have unique personalities that change the way that they interact with their trainers. Within the URPG natures do not have any effect upon battles; nevertheless, they are significant within the National Park having a profound influence over the way that a pokémon behaves within the role-playing setting, including battles.

On Pokémon Evolution and Nature:​

Within the Pokémon games, a pokémon's nature remains constant throughout every evolution; its stat boost and hindrance sticking with it. In the anime (and perhaps the manga in which I haven't read enough to see an evolution), however, there are examples of a pokémon's personality changing with evolution; Ash's Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard providing a very strong example.

Let's look at the behavior of the Ludicolo evolution family:

We begin with Lotad:

Then there is Lombre:

And finally, Ludicolo:

Look at this Oshawott:

Spoiler

So happy with his little scalchop. Maybe he get's super determined when he's about to fight, maybe not. Maybe it is like Ash's Oshowott who loves to fight, but only if it thinks it can win.
But look at this Dewott:

Spoiler

Tough, determined, and disciplined, that Dewott works hard to hone it's scalchop fighting arts.

Currently, the URPG uses the nature system presented by the game.

The Proposal:​

In the URPG, natures are a factor solely in the National Park, and the National Park strives to emulate conditions similar to the manga and anime through role-playing. If nature only affects pokémon in the National Park which emulates the anime and manga, why then does the URPG use the system of natures in regards to evolution presented in the games as opposed to the system of natures in regards to evolution presented in the anime, manga?

It my proposal that we be able to change a pokémon's nature when it evolves, if we so wish it.

Advantage to a Change:​

Opens up an entire new aspect to role-play that was previously not possible. Examples:

A basic pokémon knows that it is weak and is incredibly shy or lonely as a result. Evolves into something stronger that has more confidence.
A basic pokémon follows a trainer without question. Evolves into something more powerful and now sees trainer as weak.
A basic pokémon is incredibly care-free and jolly. Evolves into a more experienced, skeptical Pokémon.
A basic pokémon initially loves to fight. Evolves into a pokémon that has suffered many injuries, and shies from a fight.

Along with many other possibilities that a role player can think up!

Possible Objections and Rebuttal:​

A trainer is already completely free to change it's pokémon's personality when it evolves through their role-playing.

Spoiler

On the surface, this is a true statement. However, a pokémon's nature fundamentally decides the way that it battles within the National Park, and currently there is no way to change this upon evolution. So sure, you can role-play your pokémon as having a different personality upon evolution, but you can't change the way it battles. This seems incredibly inconsistent.

Won't people no longer want to evolve their pokémon, so they won't have to change it's nature?

Spoiler

Nobody would be forced to change a pokémon's nature upon evolution. They would just have the option.

Won't this cause an influx of permabasics in URPG?

Spoiler

What do you care if people who enjoy role-play more than battles want to keep their pokémon at a lower evolution? I see no problem here.

I am not convinced that “Natures” are the same as personality. Natures are only present in the games, and so we follow the game's notion of “Nature”.

Spoiler

If the majority opinion were that “nature” had no effect on “personality”, then I would propose that we scrap the entire nature system from the section of the forums that deal heavily with “personality”, ie. the National Park, but I don't think that the makers of the National Park had it in their minds that nature was separate from personality.

There you have it. That is my proposal, to be discussed, and hopefully to be clearly refuted or accepted.

For a reference to the inspiration for this proposal, Read Here

 

This proposal is well written, well thought out, well argued and it's not my jurisdiction to have to make a decision.

I love everything about this.

 

Voting no. Pokemon natures don't change in the game, and I see very little in terms of substantial reason for URPG to differ from that. In my opinion, the closer we are to the games, the better in most cases (particularly the 'little things' cases, such as this). Perhaps more importantly, if you want your Pokemon to act one way, go ahead and have it act that way.

Let's say MY personality resembles that of the Jolly nature. Does that mean, in some situations, I can't act in a way that resembles something closer to the Bold nature? i.e. I'm in a good mood, but something occurs that makes me mad and suddenly I'm making bold decisions. Your Pokemon is never constricted to one set of reactions because it's listed as a Brave-natured Pokemon.

I do throw my hat in for removing natures though. They've never made a difference on how I personally RP as either a Trainer or a Ranger. A human being can act any way they want, the same goes for a Pokemon. Natures are just there and serve what is largely, if not wholly, a false image of a purpose. Remove them and solve this problem while, more importantly, simplifying the system and cutting off what is largely dead weight.

 

I am by no means an experienced URPG member, but from a first glance, I can formulate some ideas in relation to this proposal.

I would not recommend removing natures- from the few RPs that I have read, I can easily see the value in Natures. However, here are a couple ideas for resolving the point in question.

Firstly, bar all Pokemon that are not fully evolved from entering the National Park. This anyway makes sense- after all, the Park is dangerous, too much so to risk bringing unexperienced Pokemon in. This actually makes the problem of Pokemon evolutionary nature changes null.

However, I would like Natures to be amendable. Thus, I would suggest that, for those who like, one Nature is chosen as a basis which is then expanded on in the Pokemon's stats. For example, I might have a Serious Empoleon who secretly enjoys the company of a certain Poemon despite the Empoleon's emotionless appearance. Alternately, I might have a Timid Ambipom which is especially afraid of cherries. It would be really cool if a Trainer could add more amendments to describe the Pokemon's character change after each visit to the National Park.

The Natures do add a touch of consistency in personality, but they demand conformity almost to an unreasonable point. Flexibility is good, and this way, URPG accounts for character growth and expanded character description. I don't know what others think, but it sounds good to me!

 

Time to step up and put in mah Ranger opinions.

I would like to say that you can literally do almost anything in the Park, as long as you get permission from a Ranger. You can roleplay around your Pokemon's Nature, too. For example, I have a Naughty Raichu, and in the Park, it is stated that naughty Pokemon do not like to follow orders and may disobey. However, seeing as this Pokemon is one of my trusted Gym mons, I could probably get away with giving a direct order and more than likely getting my Raichu to actually do it, having built the bond of trust as a Trainer. This isn't to say that she will always do as I say in battle; sometimes she may ignore me and do something on her own, or pester the opponent and tease them instead of outright attacking. But she probably won't be stupid about it if I acknowledge the fact that she could disobey and give her a bit of leg room to choose what moves to use. She, as a Pokemon, has grown up with that nature and learned from her battles, still maintaining that first nature but growing into a more evolved version of it. The restriction is part of the challenge of creativity; giving your Pokemon a specific Nature gives it a well-developed plan of attack.

One worded Natures do not define a personality, either. Let's take your example of Ash's Charizard. Let's say that his nature is "Rebellious" (I know it doesn't exist, but bear with me). As a Charmander he had a bad past; he was troubled, ornery, and immature, which carried over to his Charmeleon evolution. Charmeleon began to get a bit of (forgive my pun) fire underneath and started to show more of his Rebellious nature, though still immature about it with Ash. As a Charizard, he still gets pissed off at Ash for direct orders and tries to bully the other, stronger Charizards later, showing his arrogant and immature side from youth. This isn't to say that Charizard didn't change at all; he learned to trust Ash and sometimes ease up on his negative attitude. However, Charizard still has his bouts of arrogance and rebelliousness, just like when he was younger. His Rebellious nature EVOLVED to change along with him.

So my answer is that natures should remain the same and grow with the Pokemon. People, even as babies, exhibit traits of shyness, cheerfulness, and intelligence, and most of the time retain those personality traits into adulthood, though their environment will shape those traits into unique, multi-faceted personalities. Pokemon's natures only describe their main characteristics and not every little part of them that exists.

 

Just poking my head in here to say that as a Park Head I am keeping a very close eye on this discussion. Not gunna post my opinion just yet because I want a few more people to have their say first but I am definitely paying a lot of attention to how this is going to pan out.

 

I had this rather long response all typed up when bmgf decided to quit on me or something and the servers stopped responding. Bah. Anyways, here's me trying to rewrite everything again. Apologies if something isn't clear... ^_^;;

---

That's a really interesting idea you have there, I'll give you that, and it has a very detailed argument/explanation behind it, but... I just don't think it's needed right now for I feel the Park is already a big enough of a playground for you to work in, even without the changing of natures.

I don't think that large a number of people would be bringing NFEs into the Park, mainly because there's a larger possibility of being escorted out of the Park early due to all mons being knocked out. That being said, I do see the potential originality and creativity that could arise in posts/runs if this idea was to be implemented. I could see it working for character development and additional subplots/stories etc etc, with you going into the Park with your basic mon of this nature, then going into the Park on another run with the evolved form of another nature.

As I've said earlier, it's not that needed in my personal opinion, and so I propose a compromise (probs the wrong term but w/e) of sorts: let's take that Lotad family example of yours, and say you're on a run with your jolly Ludicolo. At one point, perhaps you notice how happy your Pokemon is and remember how different things were before, back when it was a mischievous Lombre. This gives you the opportunity to look back and reflect on how much it has changed, and possibly how much you have changed, if you so wish. :3 You could insert bits and pieces of history here and there, eventually adding more and more to the bigger picture as the story starts to unfold.

This, I believe, would encourage trainers to bring FE mons on runs instead of keeping them as permabasics, while still being able to fabricate stories and whatnot revolving around their mons. When it comes to the Park and roleplaying, I have nothing against permabasics per se (it's not really that much of a difference if the trainer's posts are of good quality), but I do believe that the URPG is discouraging use of these permas altogether - even if you do mean to help evolve basics or for Park purposes - so I say we should stray away from that. Furthermore, there's a slight possibility of abuse if the idea does get implemented - let's say a certain trainer captures a basic mon with a difficult nature to roleplay around (maybe Sassy in some cases as it demands contest-style battling, and perhaps the trainer dislikes this way of doing things), and evolves his/her mon and changes the nature to something like Docile. I do not want to believe that people would do things such as these, but there's always that small chance, which could turn out into a rather large problem if it got out of control the same way permabasics had.

On another note, I noticed you quoted Bulbapedia entries with regards to the supposed behaviors of the Lotad/Lombre/Ludicolo evolution line. (also just in case you got the wrong idea, I'll address this now ^_^; You can definitely choose a nature completely different from what is known/usual/canon, and add your own little twists and flaws and advantages into it (so long as it's reasonable enough), making for even better and more original posts as this would make your Pokemon behave rather uniquely and allowing your mind to just flow with creativity. For example, I'd say you could have a Snorlax/Slaking/lazy-looking mon with a Hasty nature, perhaps with the reason that it would love if things could get done and overwith really quickly, but would rather be a couch potato and let others take over the job. It just wants everything done NOW, but is too lazy to get up and do it for itself. Notice how two very different and often contradictory natures have been melded together here, creating a different character altogether.

Having to think things through in this way, having to work around your Pokemon's natures, the contradicting personalities, the underlying story behind your Pokemon and how it behaves, the plot twists you throw in... They all build up, bit by bit as you reveal more and more details of the creature's past (without having to change natures mid-game, mind you), and eventually they all create this larger picture that everyone now understands. It's all part of the challenge and fun that is the National Park!

Again, it is a nice idea, and it could probably work, but it's not really a necessity. We can do without it, though it may not work the way you want it to, but I do believe the overall effect/result in the long run is still the same/very much similar. The Park doesn't really have any set limits on what you can and cannot do - there aren't exactly any boundaries when it comes to roleplaying, just make sure you can justify/explain it well enough (even if it's bit by bit), and you'll be fine; you probably won't even feel like there are barely any restrictions at all!

--
EDIT:
Now that I think about it, abuse could be avoided by having the Park-captured mons have permanent natures right from the start. This would lead to further debate over the matter, though... Also, I don't think that would really fit in well with what you're trying to achieve here with your idea. But, yeah - I thought I'd put it here as it's something to ponder about.

 

I'm also watching this thread closely, as Chainy said, and was listening in and participating in AIM conversations about it. I'm not going to post all of my thoughts just yet, but I do agree very much with what Muddy and Proto have pointed out, since they coincide with some the things I mentioned on AIM.

Along with this, if Natures start to become a big problem, or if someone picks the wrong one when they're new and want to change it later, we can perhaps look at putting Aprijuice into the Park Shop. These would probably work like the Apriballs in that you would need to collect a certain amount of Apricorns (I'm kinda thinking like 5 or maybe one of every color) and pay a fee to create it.

That being said, I do agree that Pokemon caught within the National Park shouldn't be able to get their nature changed at all, evolution or not.

 

The only issue I really have with this is people using the Park frequently may try to use this to their advantage and get easy-to-use Natures on NFE Park-caught Mon, changing it to something like Docile after evolving. The last thing we want is for issues to arise from abuse.

Also, most Rangers randomly roll a Pokemon's Nature in the Park. Some do it before the battle (like me), and others roll it after the battle. Either way is fine. But not all NFE Pokemon are shy or timid or easily scared; there are plenty who are Bold, Reckless, and Serious. Also, as others have said, Natures pretty much only dictate the Pokemon's main personality. I'd say my Nature, if I had one, is Jolly, but there are plenty of times when I act out of that Nature, like when I'm upset or worried. You can RP around the Pokemon's Nature to suit the RP and the current scenario. A Brave Pokemon can easily become terrified of something that traumatized it earlier in its life (a Floatzel that had its tail bit by a Shellder as a young Buizel might have an innate fear of Shellder and refuse to be around them, for example). A Timid Pokemon can still show bravery, so on and so forth. The whole point is, so long as your posts have sufficient quality, you can do pretty much whatever you like in the Park, including working around your Pokemon's Nature.

However, if enough people like this idea, I'm fine with implementing it, but most likely with some sort of restriction. I like Winter's idea of having to gather ingredients to make ApriJuice. Or, if someone wanted to change a Pokemon's Nature upon evolution, they could make a list of say 5 Natures, and a Ranger would randomly roll one of those. It still gives you some leeway, but it prevents possible abuse from just letting people pick whatever Natures they want.

With that being said, I'll be keeping an eye on this topic along with Chainy and Winter.

 

theevildookie (12:32:30 AM): keep natures out of battling and we're all good
theevildookie (12:32:50 AM): ok thats all i care about

 

While I don't know enough about the park to comment on a lot of things said in the thread, I would like to add my opinion on the idea to ban NFEs from the park. In my opinion, the park is the place NFEs should be MOST welcome. Let's consider the anime for a second. Here's some of Ash's important battles and the team he used (done mostly from memory, spoilered because they may contain spoilers for those parts of the anime).

Orange Crew:

Spoiler

Orange Crew Leader Drake:

Spoiler

Pikachu, Squirtle, Tauros, Lapras, Bulbasaur, Charizard; with Pikachu being the one to finally KO Drake's Dragonite.

Johto League:

Spoiler

Gary:

Spoiler

Tauros, Heracross, Muk, Bayleef, Snorlax, Charizard; probably the 6v6 where he uses the least NFEs

Harrison:

Spoiler

Pikachu, Totodile, Snorlax, Noctowl, Bayleef, Charizard

I don't remember the Hoenn League very well, so maybe I'll edit that in later.

Battle Frontier:

Spoiler

Pyramid King Brandon (3):

Spoiler

Charizard, Bulbasaur, Squirtle, Pikachu; Pikachu managed to KO Regice immediately after it used Rest

Sinnoh League:

Spoiler

Paul:

Spoiler

Pikachu, Infernape, Buizel, Gliscor, Staraptor, Torterra; he also used this team in an earlier 6v6 with Paul while Infernape was still a Chimchar (evolving into Monferno during that battle)

Tobias:

Spoiler

Heracross, Torkoal, Gible, Sceptile, Swellow, Pikachu; he knew that Tobias would be using a Darkrai and ended up fighting a Latios too, which Pikachu managed to get a double KO with.

Unova League:

Spoiler

Cameron:

Spoiler

Boldore, Oshawott, Pignite, Pikachu, Unfezant, Snivy; A whole one fully evolved in a 6v6 (well, 6v5)

Possibly more on this later, class now.

 

I really don't think this is all that big of a deal. I'm not that huge into role-playing and I've rarely ventured into the park. All I know is that I found the addition of natures in the park to be fairly nonsensical. I don't see why they were ever added. They seem to me to be nothing more than an arbitrary trait determined on a given pokemon to direct the person entering the park toward certain actions, which really make little difference. If natures are even all that important, I don't really see why they can't be changed at will, as long as its not during an RP run with that pokemon.

Either way, give this man what he wants.

EDIT: I'm seeing most, if not all of the Rangers who have posted in here consistently saying you can, "RP around your Pokemon's nature". Can someone please explain to me then why natures make any bit of difference?

 

In answer to your question, WTP, it's because it's a very integral part of the Park to roleplay through your Pokemon's nature. It's part of how we grade a roleplay, and how well the "Trainer" knows their own Pokemon. The reason for natures is to help direct what kind of attacker your 'mon is. While some natures lend themselves to certain Pokemon, others do not, and bonus creativity points from working with that 'mon's nature come from adversity. Honestly I think taking away natures or being allowed to change them would make everything too easy, which was why they were added in the first place.

However, I like the Aprijuice idea. I think that would be an extremely fair way to change a nature without overabusing it.

 

/Implying the park isn't still incredibly easy.

Also, I don't see how that makes it really any more difficult, if you're aware of what nature your pokemon have.

 

In my personal experience, it has made things more difficult. Like with my Quirky Ninetales, I had to challenge myself to think of the environment and use her attacks creatively, since she doesn't like to use straightforward attacks very often. I just think that Natures help to both challenge and promote creative writing for the roleplayer; it gives them a board to launch off of, so to speak. Like a conversation piece. It just sparks something for the writer to begin with while also preventing super easy battles. Also 'easy' is relative, I think; some Rangers are harder to roleplay for than others, and writing for tougher 'mons can be super difficult. But that's just me.

 

The Park has been easy for you cos you've gone through like twice and your posts were of high quality. The Park is supposed to get harder as you go along. Take my current run for an example - I'm an accomplished Park adventurer, with like six or seven complete runs under my belt, and yet I'm getting crapped on every single battle in my current run. I've always felt that the Park is supposed to get slowly harder so that there is some challenge in the roleplay and yet newbies aren't immediately scared off. What this means is that in someone's first three runs or so, the Ranger isn't going to worry too much about Natures, unless there's something hugely inviolate (for example, a Rash Pokemon spamming Sub, Toxic and Double Team) but they will begin to become more important in subsequent runs.

There is absolutely no way NFEs or permas are going to suffer any kind of nerf in the Park. Just because everyone is butthurt about their use in battles doesn't mean they're going to be abused in the Park as well, so everyone should just stop worrying about that.

I am against Park-caught Pokemon having completely unchangeable Natures, i.e. they can't even be changed with Aprijuice. I am pretty okay with putting Aprijuice in the store, though, especially with Winter's added thing.

The thing to remember is that Natures do not necessarily affect the personality of your Pokemon. They merely affect the battle style. For example, my Swampert has a Quiet Nature, but in my posts he's always very happy and carefree and inquisitive. The Quiet Nature part shows up in how he battles, i.e. I usually command strong single attacks instead of combos, and am liberal in my use of Protect. There is no rule controlling Pokemon personality, only their battling style. You can have a Bold personality Psyduck that acts like a frightened three-year-old all the time as long as in battles it usually acts according to its Nature.

 

Can you even abuse a permabasic in the park? What advantages are there of using a permabasic over a fully evolved Pokemon?

 

None that I can think of. I think it's just for story?

 

I'd be all for making Aprijuice available in the Park Shop. Either for a medium-hefty sum of cash or several Apricorns. After all, people can find Apricorns just about everywhere. It'd be a reward for showing up to the Park more often.

I was neutral, leaning towards pro the option to change the Nature during evolution. Then, I believe it was Proto who reminded just how integral Natures are to the very core of the Park. It isn't just about what moves to use, it's about how you use them. Have a little fun, really. Use Pokemon you would normally never use.

Be ready to make things interesting, and pretend that your Pokemon can actually do things with you. They have a set personality, just like you or me. Sure, we have a multitude of traits. So do Pokemon. Despite this, it's a common icebreaker to give a single word to describe yourself. That word is similar to your nature, no? I think it would be the same for Pokemon, in this case.

 

Actually, the pokemon has a set personality, but you can have multiple characters if I'm not mistaken, meaning your personality isn't set. Honestly, I really don't give two shits one way or another about whether or not you can change natures. However, I don't see why you have to capture a pokemon with a pre-determined nature. Why not just let the person capturing decide after that battle, especially if it has no bearing on the battle to capture the pokemon itself.