Quote Originally Posted by NyteFyre View Post
Well, is manipulation beyond legends? Look at Mewtwo for f***s sake! He nearly destroyed the world with a huge rainstorm, interacted with several distinct people directly, kidnapped a Nurse Joy, cloned a ton of pokemon, and more or less killed Ash! Before he had a change of heart that is. Entei, though only an illusion, kidnapped Ash's mom, and held her prisoner. I doubt legends are beyond petty influencing for their own purposes, whatever they may be.

In your list, you forgot the Deoxes, Deoxi...whatever the plural of Deoxys is. Also, you forgot to mention Ho-oh, the legendary birds, and Raiku, as well as all of fourth gen. I know we're an alt version of gen 4, but it still helps to draw from them, especially on subjects such as this.

However, I do agree that if it's supposed to be a mediator, it shouldn't be doing so for it's own desires. Would make more sense to change "to suit it's needs' to something like 'so that the balance is uncorrupted' or 'so that there is as little bloodshed as necessary'. Something like that.
I didn't say manipulation is beyond legends. What I'm saying is that Mewtwo and Entei are less deities or guardians like most legendaries but like humans are extremely emotionally conscious and have their own agendas. Yes, they're manipulative and capricious, which is what makes them so much better than most of the newer legendaries IMO. So yes, your points are basically parallel to mine on this front. I was citing Pokemon as examples, not simply to categorize each and every one of them, which is why I didn't bother placing each legendary from Gen 3 back, because I already made my point and/or didn't know enough about them anyway (Raikou and Ho-oh I know nearly nothing about, and the birds aside form Zapdos don't really have much development).

However, as you agreed with, Kuranpu doesn't fit with Mewtwo or Entei. As the "mediator of all disputes", by nature, it cannot be humanized in that way. Thus, petty manipulation should be beyond it. This is my argument.

As for the new edit, "to keep the world in balance" doesn't really say anything, because the connection is difficult to make. Making people more or less aggressive keeps the world in balance? How?