Formality of Ownership

This might be a topic that, when discussed, weakens suspension of disbelief, but may be worth discussing to some extent. The topic concerns who really has ownership of a Pokémon, whether captured in a Poké Ball or otherwise and concerns specific people. It might seem that the answer is simple - being that whoever captures it owns it, and so goes for the one who says so - but situations in the game and the anime might suggest otherwise. It makes an apparently simple relationship a little more complicated.

An issue that ties into this topic is that some Pokémon genuinely identified with an owner are often seen not in a Poké Ball. The most notable case is of course Ash's Pikachu, which despite having a ball of its own, is almost never seen in it; the reason given is that Pikachu hates inside being inside the ball. But then again, in situations that involve farms and ranches, the Pokémon aren't inside Poké Balls, despite the apparent convenience - they're kept as they are traditionally. It may be, then, that Poké Balls are reserved exclusively for Trainers, but then that doesn't keep Trainers and non-Trainers from participating in battles with the Pokémon that they own, though never captured with or never seen inside a ball.

Another issue related to this topic is the lending of Pokémon to other Trainers, which has occurred in the anime involving several characters on a couple of occasions, and occurs regularly in the games where so-called "rental" Pokémon are involved (Stadium, Colosseum, et cetera, and one of the Battle Frontier attractions). Here, the issue is not so much ownership but usage and obedience, but ownership in a way still has some relationship. In the case of the rental Pokémon, who do the Pokémon belong to? For either case, how apt are Pokémon actually in obeying the Trainers they are lent to? It may be simple to assume that the answer to the former is that the Pokémon belong to the proprietor and to the latter is that they simply are told by the actual owner to do so, but these are only plausible ones.

A discussion about ownership wouldn't be complete without regarding issues of its transfer. For the most common way of transfer by trade, ownership is simply exchanged. However, it's not implausible for someone to give a Pokémon to someone else without expecting a return, and it's not hard to expect that it would simply be passing the ownership, though this is not a guarantee that it will be without a hitch. The issue of ownership loss factors in too; for a release by its Trainer or owner, then the answer is clear as the ownership itself is simply relinquished. But what about owners that don't intend to relinquish ownership yet are forced to, as an example with the loss of their physical being? In that case it's plausible to assume that the ownership is just lost, but that's only a supposition.

Given these situations, it might seem hard to come up with a cohesive general explanation. However, I offer the theory that ownership is an "emotional bond", and that this bond is extended (to others, as with rental or lent Pokémon) or limited (when ownership is passed or lost) based on the situation. The Poké Ball, as a capture device, then becomes simply a facility of formally indicating ownership for a Trainer as well as the "emotional bond", while the latter takes precedence in any situation.

In any case, Pokémon can and do identify with just about anyone, ownership issues aside. I'd like to think that this is true based on the situations I've described above. For that reason, this is an interesting topic to discuss, but not to overthink about, and to just "let it ride".

One year ago: The Sweetest Days - Ash and Pikachu