Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account.
If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.
Pronoun field selections have been updated! To ensure they show up correctly, please reselect your preferred option(s) in the Account details page. Click here for more information.
There have been changes to the pronoun field in user profiles. Find out more here!
It may sound like a critical oversight on my part, but it actually never occurred to me that he wouldn't give her real jewelry. :XD: It was real.
As to the range, Prowler really has no idea. He doesn't know how far away she was when it was triggered, or how far she had to go to get home - he doesn't even know or care who she was. He generally takes no chances however, and would likely have had a high range detonator - since he obviously wasn't originally planning on detonating the bombs from inside the building.
I'm leaving it your call, though - it's a tricky situation, so it seems the fair thing to do.
The gist was this: All the guests left with a unique experience, but one of them left with something more.
And no, he wasn't lying about that. She did leave with a bomb, so unless by chance she left it somewhere or it malfunctioned, Prowler's conclusion was correct.
And I suppose, since Jarrett's already calling for confirmation, that will be your call.
Precisely. Though, in the Batman comics, there were no special prisons - that's why, regardless of their mental state, most supervillains were contained in Arkham. After all, an asylum would be accustomed to designing special accomodations tailored to specific inmates.
By the way, something I didn't feel needed to be overtly stated by Prowler, but should be pointed out because I'm sure Fate would be informed: Prowler has been refusing his meals.
Characters need to pick up where they left off - in other words, if your character finds himself imprisoned in any way, shape or form, at the end of the previous roleplay, but you choose not to retire the character (which is always an option), then at the beginning of the next roleplay your character appears in, you need to explain in detail how your character escaped - and it needs to be mildly believable.
Very true. At this point, Prowler is slowly swinging around to his primary goal of proving the futility of morality via the circumstantial necessity of evil.
Correct. That rule may be more concretely embellished in the near-future, but current roleplays will still be grandfathered in under the original rule. The main issue is, of course, that Prowler's goal is fairly vague and subjective - that's why I say it may come down to a stalemate.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.