from my tumblr.
It seems like a good number of PR fans view Pokemon Rangers and Trainers actually being ideologically competing and dissonant factions or something o: Well, Trainers have starred in one strain of canon games while Rangers did in another. But I think (...and hope) that's not your reason for pitting them against each other (for my lack of a better word). xD My thoughts are not complete, but I think we have a better discussion in this site format than that one can ever hope (cough) so below...
I am someone who finds it hard to believe that Rangers-Trainers relationship is antagonistic or even from different “cultures” so to say. Most Trainers are civilians, and the Rangers are a law enforcement... I see little reason why they’d be in each other’s way so much. Of course, someone who believes in this may come from the premise that “Pokemon Training” is an intrinsically abusive practice, of which I will not necessarily disagree, but yes, I kind of rule that premise out of the equation of this headcanon.
About the “different cultures” part. I do agree that there seem to be regions ruled by the League(or otherwise) versus the Union (details of which may vary). I am yet to determine whether to see these regions being analogous to real-life independent countries (or parts of different countries), but they do seem to be more homogeneous compared to real-life countries, and the interrelations between these regions seem pretty well-established and relatively free.
And this is where my memory capacity gets busted, but I do not remember seeing a positive evidence that people in the Ranger regions do not “own” Pokemon? All I remember is that Rangers do not own Pokemon. And the Rangers are a single organization. If this is the case, it’s an easy argument that the practice of not carrying Pokemon is more of an organizational policy than a regional culture. I must admit this is where I determined a good chunk of my headcanon about the Trainer-Ranger relationship. (Please point it out if you can prove me wrong here, I’ve just restarted PR1 but haven’t gotten beyond naming Lunick) I think I just find it hard to believe that the Union represents the cultures of the regions beyond being a (part of the) governing body.
(The below is actually from a document on my PC dedicated to the relationship between Union-guarded state(s) and non-Union-guarded state(s). I'm always looking for things to add on there)
- All right, I think the majority fandom view is that their philosophies are competing and dissonant... Anybody have it otherwise? xP
- Not that I have them entirely harmonious to each other. I mean, the main regions' law enforcement are crazy incompetent at its best and I think we can agree that stands contrary to those of the Ranger regions P:
- But if that is the case, what prevents the Union from meddling more in the affairs and efforts of other regions? That is, assuming that they do get involved at all.
- This just points to a less-than-ideal and probably shady side to both the inter-regional relations and each region's self-governing.
- For those of you who have the dichotomous League vs. Union governments, the Union may simply be the weaker state among them and don't have much power outside their own jurisdiction...
...Well, I may sort of have that same dichotomous government idea I guess, except... xP
- Right now I have it that the regions (although likely not each of them) do have their own governing bodies, but they are interdependent on each other, probably more so than real life states.
- Neither the Union nor the League may be the highest authority as I have now. After all, given how most of the regions are based on small parts of rl countries, they may not be very big themselves, and it could be the case that several of these "regions", canon regions or otherwise, belong under one autonomous government.
So thank you if you actually read that all, and please, talk to me! :
Because what better way to spend life than trying to make sense out of any part of the canon they never thought through