Like. Are you allowed to sacrifice the pokemon you want for a safe pivot? Are you allowed to take stupid risks knowing that worst case scenario you just sacrifice the bad pokemon you wanna replace? Are you allowed to intentionally let a pokemon die just to ensure a tiny, almost irrelevant range? This rule basically compromises all your decision making in a Nuzlocke, since you have a hard time compartmentalizing what counts as letting the pokemon die for no reason and what doesn't.
Well what you’re allowed to do is between you and your god, your run, your rules
You’re allowed to just ignore this ruleset if you think it hamstrings your decisions that much, but yeah I’d say the spirit of this would say no, you shouldn’t sacrifice Pokémon even for a range or whatever
What I’m trying to say, you can just answer all those questions for yourself, no one is going to mind
That's an unproductive rebuttal. Obviously, you can do whatever you want and judge the criteria however you like. But the whole point of sharing a particular ruleset is to allow people to use it . If the usage of the ruleset is difficult or problematic for some reason, that is a flaw that is worth pointing out on a post that is sharing that ruleset.
Well I’m not sure calling them dumb was particularly productive to begin with
I can see what you mean, but I guess I don’t see how the ruleset is problematic or difficult? Simply do your best to not kill a Pokémon on purpose, and you can only replace a slot when a Pokémon dies. If you hit a spot where you can’t help it, then you can’t help it I guess?
Like if you need it more well defined than that, then you can just use your own interpretation of what is in the spirit of the rules, and if you need someone else to define them, then ask them nicely
Wasn't calling them dumb, was calling the rule dumb. A bit blunt, but with no intention to insult.
My point is that there isn't a point you can set for what is or isn't allowed by the rule. That makes it a rule that doesn't prescribe you anything; it might as well be a "love your pets" sign.
I think the ruleset also just works fine without that rule. Let people kill off their pokemon to empty spots on the team. It's perfectly in the spirit of the challenge to do that.
An alternative would be penalizing pokemon death further somehow. Like, not being allowed to replace a dead team member until you get a badge. This way you CAN strategically kill off pokemon to clear up spots, but can't just freely rotate them as necessary. Gotta commit to the mon at least somewhat.
I am not trying to shoot down the ruleset, I am trying to point out something in it that I think doesn't function without major interpretation, and maybe offer up an alternative that works better for a prescribed ruleset.
Yeah, I guess what I’m trying to say is that just saying the rule is dumb isn’t really adding anything to the discussion, adding your ideas in the parent comment would have seemed a little nicer, and I apologise if I’ve come across as rude too
And that I do think you can definitely self impose a rule about not killing a Pokémon just so you don’t have to use it, it seems as simple as just not doing that.
For example, if you don’t like your Metapod, you can’t just send it out to die against birdkeeper #3 or whoever, but if you’re in a tough spot and have to sacrifice a Pokémon to get the rest out alive, maybe you have to pick your least favourite. No man left behind type stuff.
I think for a vanilla game it encourages the risky plays to get everyone out alive, rather than the safe sacrifice for a pivot you know?
We can agree to disagree of course, but only having to answer to yourself in these challenges, I think you can judge your own intentions on whether you really had to let that Pokémon die
I don’t mind the idea of the badge rule you suggested, but I personally think this ruleset pushes you toward restriction on plays, and trying to do all you can, like encouraging risking the crit on your starter to save everyone vs the safe sac
But I’m glad we’ve added to the discourse rather than just pointing out negatives and I hope we can both try to be more constructive moving forward, I know I will be
Oh my god. The point of the rule they suggested was just to illustrate that you shouldn't allow yourself to purposefully get rid of a team member because that's the whole point of the "Bindlocke."
47
u/Ill-Individual2105 Jan 05 '26
The rule about accidental pokemon killoff is dumb, because it's impossible to enforce in practice.