Fridge Logic / Pokémon Types

Fridge Brilliance and Fridge Horror entries can be found here.

---

• Even if a normal person isn't very high up on the natural order, what about the fact that a normal person could easily kill a bug? Humans have a variety of ways in which to kill bugs: Things like bug zappers (which raises another question of why Electric isn't effective against Bug) and pesticides. Normal people and animals essentially are at least higher on the natural order than bugs are; meanwhile, bugs are a common fear for many normal people (this troper included), and some of their stings can cause allergic reactions in normal people. The main point this troper is making here is that normal beings and bugs have a great mutual effect on each other, so why aren't the two types mutually super-effective against each other?
  • The "variety of ways" plays into the fact that Normal has the largest movepool out of all the types. Bug zappers are, to scale, the equivalent of being tasered with a battery the size of your own house. Bugs being a common fear is why they are super-effective against Psychic-types. And an insect's sting can cause an allergic reaction in a lot of things. The long and short is that it's not just humans bugs have a great mutual effect on.
  • But what about the fact that a normal person could just step on a bug to kill it?
    • A normal person can step on and kill pretty much anything the size of a bug, it's the size difference that matters more than the fact it's a bug. If the sizes were reversed, then a bug could step on and kill a person. Of course, the whole "step on" idea is played with by giving moves like Stomp double damage on Bug types, but the logic doesn't really work for Normal type moves as a whole.
    • Stomp doesn't deal double damage to Bug-types. It does deal double damage to Pokémon that have used Minimize.
• Since water covers 75% of the Earth's surface, it represents the environment just as much as the Grass type. Given both that and the fact that aquatic creatures can be harmed by the effects of pollution, as well as water being just as pollutable as land, shouldn't Water be weak against Poison?
  • Water is more analogous to Ground in that scenario than Grass — plants are alive, so they're actually harmed by poison, whereas pouring toxins into water isn't "harmful" to the fluid itself any more so than pouring any other outside substance into the water would be. Water isn't naturally all that pure a substance anyway; in nature, it's typically filled with all sorts of superfluous elements.
  • Water doesn't resist Poison like Ground does because Ground is largely impermeable to many toxic substances, while they can float about freely in water.
• Metal rusts in water. Why isn't Water effective against Steel?
  • Some metal. Certain elemental mixes resist oxidation, like... stainless steel!
  • What about those hydraulic steel cutter thingies?
  • That's water used in a specific way to cut through steel — it still doesn't change the fact that splashing water on metal won't break it into pieces.
  • All the same, the Water type isn't just water itself, but creatures that live in water and who breathe it. By polluting the water, you harm those creatures, so Poison should be super-effective. Besides, Water only has two weaknesses, and as the type pool increases, it won't be enough for each type to only have just one or two weaknesses. Each type should at least have three.
    • I just guessed it was one of those things Japan came up with and never changed and besides, Normal-types have been vulnerable to only Fighting types and can't affect Ghost types.
• Since contact on the ground is required for electricity to flow through the body, shouldn't Flying-type Pokémon be the ones immune to Electric attacks, while Ground-types are weak to them?
  • Lightning tends to strike the tallest things that are closest to it. The logic behind the Flying-type's weakness to electricity is thus since birds and the like are airborne, they're at a high enough altitude to be struck by lightning. Also, electricity is one method of clipping a bird's wings so that it cannot fly.
  • Also, electricity flowing through the ground doesn't take a detour through things on the ground (like people) because that would be a path of greater resistance. You need to get between electricity and where it's trying to go to get zapped.
  • Furthermore, Ground is immune to Electric because it literally grounds the charge it gives it somewhere to go. when you're airborne and not touching anything, there's nowhere for the electricity coursing through your body to go.
• Metal conducts electricity; why isn't Electric super-effective against Steel?
  • The electricity doesn't hurt the metal in question, depending on its makeup.
    • It doesn't hurt water either, though...
    • Actually, it does. An electric current can split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen — it's called electrolysis, and it's relatively common in college chemistry labs.
  • The exterior metal "skin" of Steel-types most likely functions as a makeshift Faraday cage. The current takes the least-resistant path over the top of the skin, leaving the vital organs within untouched. This same property is what protects you inside a car that gets struck by lightning (not the rubber tires) and also ensures that the internal electronics don't get fried when aircraft are struck while flying.
    • But what about temperature? Water raises the thermal conductivity of whatever it touches, and electricity is a form of heat. They should both affect Steel on the grounds of temperature: Water cools it to the point where it's brittle enough to break, and surely a Steel-type would feel the heat from an electric attack? Maybe that's what affects them.
  • Does your car get brittle every time it rains?
• Frost weathering should mean that Ice is strong against rock as well as ground. So why aren't Ice and Rock mutually super-effective against each other?
  • Frost weathering requires water to enter the stone and then freeze to become ice; Ice-type attacks are, well, already ice and cold, no water phase involved in the attack, and neither of those things alone will break a stone. Rock, on the other hand, will shatter ice on impact.
    • What about moisture already inside a Rock-type's body? They're alive, after all. Couldn't whatever they have for blood be frozen by ice attacks? ...Which sounds like it's getting a bit into the Fridge Horror territory.
    • Not if the body fluids of Rock-types have an abnormally low freezing point. And, in fact, assuming that all Rock-types have body fluid at all is a big assumption.
    • Well, considering the purpose of blood is to transport oxygen and nutrients to various tissues around the body, Rock-types must have something in their bodies that serves the same purpose. It would likely need to be able to flow or circulate, so even if it's not what we would typically consider "blood", it would still probably be considered as some form of liquid. Unless Rock-types are, in fact, Eldritch Abominations with biology we cannot even begin to comprehend.
    • There are plenty of Pokémon who are quite literally inanimate objects magically brought to life; I don't think you can assume that all Pokémon need any sort of blood-equivalent to survive. The only thing that holds universally true about Pokémon life is that it's dependent on Infinity Energy. Even if they do have blood, the point still stands that their freezing point might be too low for ordinary Ice-type moves to do much.
    • The world's glaciers would like you to know that they are, in fact, capable of carving out huge U-shaped valleys (as opposed to a river's V-shaped valleys) from mountain stone. They are also capable of mechanically grinding the rock beneath them until it has reached such a fine-grained size that geologists refer to it as "rock flour." Frost weathering is not the only tool in ice's arsenal.
    • That process occurs over an insanely long time; you're not going to get that effect from just chucking solid ice or concentrated cold at a stone. Any of the elements could overpower any of the others under the right conditions and given enough time, but just because Ice can sometimes overpower Rock doesn't mean that Rock is especially vulnerable to it. That's like saying Fire should be super-effective against Water because a bucket of water gets evaporated by a forest fire, or your Level 50 Blaziken can OHKO a Level 5 Mudkip with a Fire-type attack.
    • By that logic, Rock types should also resist Water and Grass. Almost all erosion processes take time to produce noticable results. New tree roots don't crack the sidewalk after the first day of spring. The Grand Canyon wasn't carved by rivers in a single night. Likewise, you won't be reducing a boulder to sand just by throwing a bucket of water on it, or whacking it with a tree branch.
    • That's fair. In that case, I would argue that, while defensively the Ice-type is treated like a frozen substance, offensively it's treated more as concentrated cold (which is not to say that Ice-type attacks don't involve actual ice, because they often do, but the "energy" of the attack that counts for super-effectiveness is more about the cold aspect). Stones don't break no matter how cold they get, but they do break from tree roots and water erosion. Even if not, you could argue that grass and plants breaking through rock is, if time-intensive, a more common phenomenon in nature than frost weathering or rock flour, or at least, it's one that's more commonly identified.
    • Say, do you remember Rock, Paper, Scissors? Much like paper, doesn't snow blanket over a rock, and is capable of having the moisture from initial contact to allow it to probably condense over with ice? It also buries it and is able to contain it away from its own form much like how Ground is able to do so with sand and soil, making the landscape more smoother and safer without it.
• Why are Fighting types weak against Flying-type attacks? If a pigeon crashes into a prime Muhamad Ali, I think the pigeon will be the one taking the brunt of the damage.

  • It's like this: If you're a boxer on the ground and there's a bird flying above you, you can't reach it because boxers don't leave the ground. While Fighting types can learn moves to handle Flying types, the fact that they can't leave the ground means Flying types have the advantage.

• Why isn't Poison super-effective against Fighting, Normal, and Water? The bodies of both normal people and professional fighters will be affected by being poisoned, and aquatic creatures can be adversely affected by the effects of pollution. That, and water itself can be polluted by things like oil spills. So why isn't Poison super-effective against all these Types?
  • It is possible for living things to build up a resistance to poison over time. There are a few real-life examples of cities trying to control their rodent populations through poison, only to discover the rat populations are now becoming immune to the poison.
  • Water (the fluid, not the things that live in it) isn't especially harmed by having oil in it. Normal is supposed to be neutral; Steel and Rock resist it not because they have some particular quality that repels it, but simply because they are supposed to have "above average" defensive ability, and likewise Fighting hits super-effective not for any special reason but simply to reflect that it has "above average" offensive ability. Poison-type isn't known for either quality natively, so it stays neutral against Normal. Fighting-types are about prime physical fitness, so they can fight off poison and sickness better than other "living" types, not worse.
    • Being physically fit doesn't necessarily make one healthy, either. If anything, Fighting-types are on the opposite end of the health spectrum from someone who just doesn't take care of their body: Someone truly healthy would be in the middle of the two, if that makes any sense. Lastly, there are diseases that attack and weaken the immune system, so I still think Poison should take Fighting.
    • Like the above troper said, if you are infected by a disease, you will eventually either become immune to it or get a vaccine for the disease or virus or what have you.
• Why isn't Ground weak against Bug instead of resisted by it? Don't some insects eat dirt?
  • Most bugs don't eat dirt, and those that do likely do so unintentionally (i.e. grubs that consume soil while eating their actual diet of plant roots).
    • Okay, but what about the fact that bugs can just burrow through dirt? That has to count for something, right?
• Shouldn't Bug be weak against Ice and Electric? Bugs can't survive in colder temperatures, and things like bug zappers can easily kill them.
  • Certain bugs, such as wetas, can actually survive being frozen in a block of ice for extended periods of time, and thaw out the next spring. As for bug zappers, a sufficiently large amount of electricity proportional to the victim can kill anything, so it doesn't make them necessarily weak.
  • Not to mention adding two common attacking types would worsen their Kryptonite Is Everywhere woes.
• Same troper as the one who asked the above question. Since bugs live in and eat dirt, shouldn't Bug be super-effective against Ground, rather than just resistant to it? And what about being effective against itself? Don't some bugs eat other bugs?
  • Most bugs don't eat dirt, and those that do likely do so unintentionally (i.e. grubs that consume soil while eating their actual diet of plant roots). And yes, predatory bugs tend to eat other bugs, but simply being bugs doesn't give them any inherent advantage against their bug prey (whereas the inspiration for their weakness to flying is due to how most birds are much larger, tougher, faster and smarter than the bugs they prey on).
• If Intangibility explains Ghost's immunity to Normal, how does that apply to Ghost-types that have physical bodies (like the Drifloon and Litwick lines as well as Sensu Syle Oricorio)?
  • Those Ghosts can presumably turn intangible at will.
• Both fairies and ghosts are supernatural creatures who are mischievous and use trickery. Magic is also depicted as capable of affecting anything, even the dead (such as when it's used to resurrect people and turn them into zombies like the jiang-shi), so how are Fairy and Ghost not super-effective against each other?
  • Probably because their respective advantages against each other ultimately cancel out to normal effectiveness. The relationship isn't as simple (as in, there are more variables to consider) as Dragon vs Dragon or Ghost vs Ghost, so it would be difficult to justify any other sort of matchup.
• Dark-types represent dishonesty, deceit, trickery, and evil, right? Since evil is self-defeating in nature, and since villains are often dishonest even with each other in fiction, shouldn't the Dark-type be effective against itself?
  • Dark resisting itself is the same reason why Prankster fails against Dark-types now; using a person's very own cheap tactics that they understand well against them isn't going to be as effective.
  • But if I punch someone in the throat who's just as likely to punch me in the throat, it'll still knock the wind out of them, right?
  • If you see it coming, you would be able to lessen the damage.
• Metal rusts in water and conducts electricity; why aren't Water and Electric effective against this type?
  • Some metals can resist oxidation — like stainless steel. Also, electricity is conducted along the surface, protecting the internal organs.
  • But what about temperature? Water raises the thermal conductivity of whatever it touches, and electricity is a form of heat. They should both affect Steel on the grounds of temperature: Water cools it to the point where it's brittle enough to break, and surely a Steel-type would feel the heat from an electric attack? Maybe that's what affects them.
• The reason given for Steel's resistance to the Dragon-type was that knights had steel armor to protect them from dragons. Well, what about the metal swords they used to slay the dragons? Metal weapons are great at piercing physical flesh, so shouldn't Steel be super-effective against Dragon?
  • A common feature of such stories is that one needs a special sword that has been enchanted in order to slay a dragon. Steel-types probably aren't made from an enchanted alloy.
  • Okay, but what if you shot a dragon with a gun? Wouldn't the bullet penetrate its hide? Or if you blew something up, wouldn't metal shrapnel pierce its hide? Also, what about on the abstract level? Steel represents technology and the application of knowledge: As times change, technology and knowledge supersede superstitious beliefs in mythical creatures.
• Why isn't Psychic super-effective against Normal? Surely a normal person would be susceptible to mental influence, no? Plus, on the abstract level, Psychic represents the possession of knowledge, which some normal people are against.
  • That is very biased. Normal does not mean dumb, and the reason for it is that normal people have chaotic thought processes, and while psychics work on them, they have more difficulty working with it than with a disciplined , organized mind.
• Both fairies and ghosts are supernatural creatures. Both are mischievous and use trickery. Furthermore, in some fictions, magic can manipulate anything, even the dead. So why aren't Fairy and Ghost mutually super-effective against each other?
  • Much like earlier examples above, both being tricksters does not make them super-effective against each other. In fact, many works of fiction actually show both of them being able to manipulate the other (ghosts could have magical properties). They are equally effective to each other, but do not necessarily hinder each other.
  • But that's just my point: They can manipulate each other. Both are supernatural creatures, and if ghosts would compete with each other, why wouldn't they do so with fairies? Moreso, the goodness and moral purity that Fairies represent would affect the soul much like how the evil of the Dark-type would. Fairies cast light, ghosts hide in the shadows of the things that block the light. I don't see that as "balancing out"; if they can affect each other like that, then they should be mutually super-effective. On both the literal and abstract levels, the matchup plays out.
    • I think it's one of those Japanese things that they never really explained

---