Talk:Legendary beasts

Contents

Hide

Close table of contents

• (Return to top)
• Origin Speculation
• Dogs or Cats
• Trivia point
• Gerbils?
• Origins idea?
• Ordering?
• HeartGold/SoulSilver
• The new images of the Isshu trio seems to imply they would be beasts
• Design process
• Gold / Silver Beta
• Similar movesets
• Potential to move
• Capitalisation
• Rename

Contents

Origin Speculation

Some accounts I have heard simply state that Raikou, Entei and Suicune were, after their immolation, simply resurrected, not reincarnated. If that's the case, then they were Entei, Suicune and Raikou BEFORE the disaster, and so not CREATED by Ho-Oh - just related to him by the ordeal of these three individuals. I have no citation, so I did not add this to the article. SixthFlyingMan 09:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, speculation is speculation. Can't do much with it. Glinn Mgraw 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This and the Eeveelutions as their original forms are contradictions to what is told about them. ::Because Ho-oh embodied them with the 3 events that happened and therefore they are now of the types Electric, Fire and Water.

A more logical theory however is that they were unevolved Eevees. There's even some information backing up this:

-Eevees evolve into Eeveelutions of the element they are exposed too (limited to the beasts types) and Ho-oh gave them an "overdose" of those elements by embodying them with these from the events (they are even statwise comparable).

-the other thing is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8t8Ly0hfXY

There are 3 Sages, the protectors of the Tin Tower, in Crystal and they use 1 of just those 3 Eeveelutions in battle. One could assume there have been eeveetrainers, protectors of the Brass Tower once, whose the Eevees that died could have been. --Saiph charon 09:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dogs or Cats

I think that personally the beasts deserve to be called dogs more simple because each of them bears a resemblance to a dog, Suicune I think is the most because of his face and body shape. Raikou defeneatly has a canine body but a more cat looking face with it's teeth making him look like a saber tooth tiger. Entei looks about the most cat like I think it looks like a giant cat or lion kind of thing.

Calling them the legendary dogs is not really a correct term and is more of just an opinion. in my opinion, i like the idea of legendary cats better, but calling them the legendary beasts is more of a correct and collective term. Raikou in no way looks like a canine. Suicune has a lean canine body but has small cat feet, and Entei has a dog body but has a lion's face. So, legendary beasts is a better grouped term to call the trio considering that at least suicune and entei look part canine and part feline; as well as the fact that some people see more canine features in their anatomy while others see more feline features in their anatomy. --いぬみみ 23:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I know I was just wondering what everyone else thought, I think it is a good term for keeping the peace in pokemon. Something sorely needed since the whole voice change over thing. De Wolfy is here 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Beasts" is best, because there's just too much of a division amongst the fanbase as to which animal group they should be associated with, so it's best to keep it ambiguous. It's almost as bad as the Eeveelutions. Lucentas 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on! You must be blind if you:

• Don't see Raikou's extreme similarity with a saber tooth tiger
• See Suicune's animated silhouette in the title screen of Crystal and don't think it runs exactly like a cheetah
• Don't think that Entei roars like a lion and has a lion-like face Spideym 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally only see feline features in Raikou, Suicune is pretty obviously a wolf and Entei a big dog to me. But, that's exactly the reason they're the legendary beasts, because the fandom can't decide on cats or dogs.Reign 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia point

I just read in the trivia that each legendary beast is the physical form of one of the three events that happened at Brass Tower when it was destroyed; Raikou was the lightning stike, Entei was the fire that started, and Suicune was the rain that put out the flames. Is this true? Has it ever been mentioned anywhere else? Bttsstewart 10:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned somewhere in the Gold/Silver/Crystal games in Ecruteak City. I don't remember which person you have to talk to though. --いぬみみ 02:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The legendary POKéMON are said to embody three powers… The lightning that struck the TOWER. The fire that burned the TOWER. And the rain that put out the fire…

This is said by a member of the Wise Trio in Pokémon Crystal after the player encounters Ho‐oh. IIMarckus 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good. It's just, I treat fan assumptions with sceptism. Good to see its true. Bttsstewart 15:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gerbils?

Who calls them "the Legendary Gerbils?" Sounds more to me like something that only the person who edited that in called them...Anyone know for a fact that "some circles" call them that? LordArceus 16:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong but i think the term came from the fact that fans were split between calling them the legendary dogs or the legendary cats. i guess some people thought, jokingly of course, that they might as well be called legendary gerbils because dogs, cats, and gerbils are all furry but there really isn't an opposite animal to gerbils. but again, it's just a term that was created from humor. --いぬみみ 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. theres no way that was in game or anime. no gerbilsDCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))}

I've seen it around on several forums and fan sites; it's just a humorous fanon term. Lucentas 22:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that it was me who was the first to refer to them as legendary gerbils. I'm Missingno. Master. See my new and improved user page, and comment on it! 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, on my Youtube account I have a video of their music and about half the comments say their legendary gerbils. Pokemonemerfan1954 06:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Origins idea?

Not my thought- this was brought up as an anonymous post on 420chan's /po/ but was surprisingly insightful, especially with the origins of the beasts and their roles in the game compared to what they were said to be in this metaphor. I suppose I will say this in two words: Dante's Inferno. In the first Canto of the Inferno, Dante is assaulted by "a lion, a leopard, and a she-wolf" (who symbolize the sins of self indulgence, violence, and malice, respectively).

Normally I would laugh away any attempt to explain where GameFreak got the basis for a monster without them explicitly stating it, but the simultaneous appearance of a lion (Entei), leopard (Raikou), and she-wolf (Suicune) in "Inferno" seems too conspicuous to ignore. Any thoughts on this? Extended analogies from Dante to prove/disprove? NonaSuomi

Doubtful, considering Entei and Raikou look nothing like a lion or leopard, and you can only make a weak comparison to Suicune as a wolf.Reign 09:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ordering?

I'm seeing Raikou, Entei, and Suicune. That's according to the NDex numbers. Not sure if it's just me, but does anyone else see the same naming scheme as in the birds? Suicune' (pron. is Spanish for one) Raikou (rhymes two) and Entei (sorta like three). Which seems better?--Mew a.k.a. Immewnity was here at 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're reading too far into it this time. —darklordtrom 02:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

HeartGold/SoulSilver

It says elsewhere on the site that if suicune is KO'd in HGSS, it'll reappear in Burnt Tower, and keep reappearing until it's caught. Is the same also true of the other two legendary beasts? --Oatzy 20:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Only Suicune reappears after being defeated. R.A. Hunter Blade 04:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true, Raikou and Entei also reappear after being defeated.. you just gotta beat the E4 (doesn't matter if it's the first time beating it or not). They just reappear in the wild, no need to re-summon. ▫▪Ťïňắ ^♫♥ 04:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's in the wild though, not the Burnt Tower, which was the question. Which is also why I didn't know they reappear in the wild, since I only checked the Tower... R.A. Hunter Blade 22:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, excuse me, but how can you catch them in HGSS? When I encounter one and use my Golbat and Mean Look to stop them, the beast Roar after about 5 turns.

Takaoldaria 13:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's more of a forum question, but whatever. I've always found Mean Look to be a waste of time, seeing as their HP and status carry over to your next battle with them. You can weaken them one move at a time, put them to sleep, and catch them if you're patient enough to track them down again each time they flee. --AndyPKMN 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The effect of Roar makes your Pokémon run away if it's used by a wild Pokémon. Mean look only makes the other Pokémon unable to run away, until you switch out whatever used Mean Look, or if you flee from a wild battle. R.A. Hunter Blade 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The new images of the Isshu trio seems to imply they would be beasts

Of course, it isn't official, but it got me to thinking. What will Bulbapedia do if the trio in Isshu can only be accurately called the Legendary Beasts? Is there a plan in place to prevent this page from erupting into a cat/dog war? I've done research into the origin of the beasts, and can easily provide it for double checking if need be. Once again, I'm not saying that the page should be changed. I'm just asking if Bulbapedia has a plan if the new trio turns out to be something that can only be called The Legendary Beasts --Shadowater 21:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Design process

In January 2012, Sugimori prompted the designer of the Legendary beasts, Muneo Saitō, to discuss their origins on Twitter. I came across this screenshot of the tweets (with translations). It might be useful to add some of this information to the page. For example, she states that Entei, Raikou, and Suicune are based on a lion, tiger, and leopard, respectively. --SnorlaxMonster 11:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Gold / Silver Beta

Can someone please add everything we know now from the beta version of the 2nd gen games ? Please. Jeangabin666 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Similar movesets

Would it be a good idea to toggle the trio's movesets between generations with the {{pokelinkback}} template?KasaibouF29 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Potential to move

According to a member of the Wise Trio:

"When the BRASS TOWER burned down, three nameless POKéMON were said to have perished. It was tragic. However… A rainbow-colored POKéMON… In other words… HO-OH descended from the sky and gave new life to the three POKéMON. They are… SUICUNE, ENTEI, and RAIKOU. That is what they say."

Which name should the page "legendary beasts" be moved to? "Three nameless Pokémon" or "Nameless Pokémon"? --SaturnMario, his talk and his contributions 23:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The descriptive phrase "nameless pokémon" refers to whatever the legendary beasts were before they were resurrected by Ho-Oh, which we can say almost nothing about. It would also be a very confusing page name, since they aren't nameless anymore. Minibug (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Shouldn't this be "Legendary Beasts" rather than "Legendary beasts", to match how it's written in the only source we have for the name? Hewer (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Unless we find any other sources. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

With no other official name or usage to compare against, that could make sense, yeah. Landfish7 02:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Since this seems to be quite a cut and dry case and is a fairly small change, would I be able to go ahead with the move myself? Hewer (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

If the only source we have is the pokemon.com article, I would have to oppose the move. The article was contributed by a non-staff TCG player and I don't think we should treat it as official communication about how that term should be capitalized, as I don't believe the precise wording used in these articles has much oversight from TPCi. Minibug (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand that it's not a very high-priority source, but in this case it's literally the only source we have, there's no better alternative. Hewer (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO I would consider this not even a source, as these player contributed guides routinely do not use capitalizations/terms that are otherwise standardized. The next time we get a post like this, the contributor might choose to capitalize the phrase differently or might even make up a completely new phrase for this trio which we would then "have" to move the page to. Minibug (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

To minibug's point, the MOS does prefer consistent usage of a term. Given what we know now, I'd like to see that consistent usage first before we consider moving the page. Landfish7 17:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to tackle this from another perspective, what's the benefit of having it at "Legendary beasts" rather than "Legendary Beasts"? (As Hewer has said, there seems to be literally no source using that, as opposed to at least the one we're discussing the veracity of.)

Is it just that it's been at that title for the longest time? (I guess arguments should be about why the suggested page title is worse than the current one, but the discussion just seems to revolve around why the new title isn't ideal on its own merits. And it being here for a long time is the only argument I could possibly see, but noone has actually used it as an argument yet.) Let's assume the page didn't exist yet, would there be any reason to create it at its current title rather than the one it is suggested to be moved to?

Maybe as an addendum, could someone (maybe a proponent of not moving the page) illustrate how the introductory sentence would be like? Would it stay like this, with a different capitalization than the page title (???); or would it change the capitalization in-text but keep the source (???); or would it remove the source (in which case, would we reinstall the {{unknown name}} tag)? Nescientist (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Fanon and conjectural titles are usually written in sentence case, except when part of a title would be capitalized otherwise. The page is at "Legendary beasts" because "Legendary" is a proper adjective in Pokémon contexts but "beasts" is not. Moving the page to "Legendary Beasts" would necessarily suggest that the title is not fanon or conjectural.

I agree with Landfish7's concern about consistent usage. If there's a consensus on the acceptability or lack thereof for Pokemon.com contributing writers, we should abide by that to determine if the source remains. I would personally lean towards not accepting them for cases like these. -- Apopheniac (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I added some references for the name "Trio of Sacred Legends" and the Japanese versions. Basically, the English "Trio of Sacred Legends" is used only once in the Super Mystery Dungeon soundtrack, but the equivalent Japanese versions 伝説の三聖獣 or 三聖獣 are used a bunch of times in the game dialogue.

I find it interesting that the article was already saying before that 三聖獣 is the Japanese name of this trio.

In the Japanese wiki, the article name is 伝説の三聖獣 but with a warning that it's provisional and can be discussed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. This reminds me of Pokémon of Myth, where we went with an English name that has only been used once but is a translation of a more commonly used Japanese term. Hewer (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Rename

Okay, let's give this another go now that more official names for this trio have been found. Based on the results of previous discussions, I assume we can all agree that this page should be moved from the current fan name to an official name, and the article lists three to choose from. The first, "Legendary Beasts", is from a questionable source as discussed above, so it's a matter of deciding which of the other two to use: "Trio of Sacred Legends" or "Beasts of Legend". Neither has been used very commonly, but they both have actual official uses so they're still both better than the current title. My preference is "Trio of Sacred Legends", as while it only has one known official usage in English, it's a translation of a term used multiple times in Japanese (much like Pokémon of myth), and it was used more recently compared to "Beasts of Legend" (as well as being used in an actual game rather than only a guidebook). Hewer (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with using the name "Trio of Sacred Legends".

If we check the references section, we currently have 8 Japanese quotes referring to this trio as 伝説の三聖獣 or 三聖獣 in Pokémon Super Mystery Dungeon. This was was translated once as "Trio of Sacred Legends" but most of time it was left untranslated or changed to just "Legendary Pokémon".

The Japanese wiki uses this as the page title too: 伝説の三聖獣.

Yes, in-game usage should take precedence over guidebooks and web articles.

We have been using "legendary beasts" in lowercase but "Legendary Beasts" has been found in a TCG article from Pokémon.com.

"Beasts of Legend" has been mentioned in two guidebooks by Versus Books - the Gold/Silver guidebook and its updated version for Crystal (it basically uses the same text, except with the Crystal changes included). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Trio of Sacred Legends Does have potential to be a good offical name use. Plus its a very unique to use and distinct for the trio. I seconded the use of Trio of Sacred Legends. Plus Beast of Legend is another good alternative to if anyone else is interested in that instead. While not commonlike Legendary Beasts, its a good option to use. Jacob9594 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The term has been used one time in a single spin-off. The MOS prefers consistent usage over time, and I don't feel that bar has been cleared for this topic as to warrant a major page move, which would involve unilateral terminology updates across the wiki. Notably, "Trio of Sacred Legends" is a collective term, while "Legendary Beast" can be used singularly, so this would not be a straightforward text replacement. The fact that the game the term is used in otherwise avoids having an English-language equivalent in all other cases is also telling.

While "Legendary Beasts" is still broadly a fan term, it has at least been used informally by official sources, such as in a post by the official Pokémon Facebook,[1] so I don't think it hurts to wait for a more proper term to be used consistently, especially either in the core series or across official media. Landfish7 15:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

"The term has been used one time in a single spin-off" - This also describes Pokémon of myth, a title you recently defended due to it being official. What do you think makes this situation different? Hewer (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If this page had already been moved through staff decision or consensus, then no, I would not have it be moved back to a term with no official usage (though again, one difference here is that "Legendary Beasts" does have official usage, if only in informal contexts). That said, I think it's perfectly sensible to not carelessly repeat the same situation with Pokémon of myth to other pages by hastily moving them to similarly underused terms. That is not a precedent I was defending in that discussion. Landfish7 17:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

That is a fair point and avoid issues from what happened on that page. Jacob9594 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

"Pokémon of myth" has only been used once in Pokémon HOME, but its Japanese equivalent (神話のポケモン) was used in DPPt and BDSP, where it was consistently translated as "mythical Pokémon". We opted to use the less common translation as the page title only because the more common translation would cause confusion with Mythical Pokémon.

"Trio of Sacred Legends", on the other hand, is the Japanese equivalent of 伝説の三聖獣. While 伝説の三聖獣 is used throughout Super Mystery Dungeon, it has not been used in a core series game. In addition, it was not translated to a consistent English term throughout the game. Therefore, we can conclude that "Trio of Sacred Legends" is just the title of a song and not the name of the group. Storm Aurora (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The Japanese title of the song matches the term used throughout the game, so I wouldn't say it's "just the title of a song" any more than Pokémon of Myth is just the title of a Research Task. You're right that Trio of Sacred Legends has a bit of a weaker case than Pokémon of Myth as it hasn't been used in a core series game, but that doesn't really get us anywhere since no name for this trio has been used in a core series game, with "Trio of Sacred Legends" being the only one that has been used in a game at all. In a case where there is no completely perfect official name, I believe using the best one we have is still better than a fan name. Hewer (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree, but I do think we should focus on this page's title of its own merits rather than comparing it to a different situation, even if there are similarities. Ultimately, I don't think it hurts to hold off. The thing with it being the title of a song in a relatively older spin-off is that such a title will likely only get increasingly dated. There's no indication that it's ever going to be the established term for this group, so I'd like to see if it gets used again or if a new term arises. Landfish7 18:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the "wait and see" argument because we don't have any reason to think we'll get a better official name for this trio in the future. We might do, and if we do then we can use it, but we could just as well go years without one (we've already gone well over two decades with no names for the trio used in the core series). I don't see the benefit of using a fan name over an official one in the meantime.
That said, I'll acknowledge your earlier point about how some lower-priority official sources have used the term "Legendary Beasts", which one could argue might take priority as a more recently used name. But if we're using that as justification then I'd rather we capitalised the title to be consistent with those sources. Hewer (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose we can use "Legendary Beasts" (capitalized) since we currently have 2 sources for that name (albeit outside of the games), one of those from a 2025 Facebook post so it's pretty recent. For what it's worth, that other name "Beasts of Legend" is pretty similar to "Legendary Beasts" so I wonder if that helps to legitimize the latter a little more.

If we implemented "Trio of Sacred Legends" as the name used throughout the wiki, I wonder if it would be acceptable to use "Sacred Legends" as a shortening. For instance, replacing "He caught the legendary beast." with "He caught the Sacred Legend."

However, one argument against using "Trio of Sacred Legends" is that those could an entirely separate group of Suicune, Raikou, and Entei found in the spin-off. The Mystery Dungeon games canonically take place in a separate world. Maybe those three Pokémon called "Trio of Sacred Legends" haven't been created by Ho-Oh and have never been in Ecruteak City.

In Pokémon Puzzle League, Mewtwo is known as the Puzzle Master, but we obviously don't use this title for Mewtwo in any other context. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

In response to the last part of your comment, I don't think that matters because the article isn't exclusively about one specific trio of Raikou, Entei, and Suicune, in the same way the elemental monkeys page isn't about one specific trio of individuals. It's about the general grouping of the three Pokémon species. Otherwise, this article wouldn't have a section for the Mystery Dungeon games. That Mewtwo example is also not comparable because it's not a group name, it just refers to Mewtwo, who already has a very clear official name like all other Pokémon species. Hewer (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, either "Legendary Beasts" or "Trio of Sacred Legends" is fine. I suppose it should be easy to search-and replace all instances of "legendary beast(s)" into "Legendary Beast(s)". Implementing "Trio of Sacred Legends" on all pages would presumably take more work to check if it fits into the text. Maybe the page can be called just "Sacred Legends" instead?

Since this trio is not named in the core series, then it depends whether a spin-off game or the websites take precedence. The Japanese equivalent of "Trio of Sacred Legends" is used 8 times in Pokémon SMD dialogue so it's a deliberate trio name, but it was only translated into English as the name of a sound track. (Personally I'm not convinced with the argument that "Trio of Sacred Legends" is just the name of a soundtrack and not the group. The track title is clearly about the group.)

"Legendary Beasts" has only been used in two known sources: one about Pokémon Sleep and the other about the Pokémon TCG. If "Trio of Sacred Legends" is rejected because it was only used in a spin-off game, then what does it say about "Legendary Beasts"? Strictly speaking, "Legendary Beasts" has not been used in official material about the core series. But I think it's at least better than the lowercase "legendary beasts", which apparently has not been used anywhere.

So far, "Beasts of Legend" is the only one used in sources talking about the core series games (two guidebooks in this case). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)