Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

  1. #1
    Is a pretty Sneasel Sneazy Sneasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Transgender
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    277
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    They both look docile but according to they dex entries Froslass freezes and displays the frozen bodies of it's victims while Roserade lures in prey with sweet scent then kills them with its thorny vines , do you find and of this tp be true?

  2. #2
    Avian lover Blaze-Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Earth ll
    Posts
    297
    Blog Entries
    50

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    I believe Froslass might be and Roserade fits that description

  3. #3
    Registered User RemainsToLinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Gender
    Genderless
    Location
    Round About in that Location, Maybe
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    Oh, of course. I mean look at the inspirations alone: yuki-onna for Froslass, and Tuxedo Mask for Roserade. I mean...that dude threw roses with deadly accuracy...scary...

    But seriously, yeah. Those 'mons are as dangerous as Eelektross or Chandelure. I mean, if your Dex info is focused on how you kill your prey rather than other quirks about you, you must be first and foremost pretty deadly.
    Hmmm...Nope, I can't think of a think for a signature nor do I have any pictures I think would fit.

    End transmission, please.

  4. #4
    Registered User Juvarra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Orange Archipelago
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    Why not? Yuki-onna is a frightening creature. And Roserade, well, it's a poisonous rose. Sentient.
    Surely they're more dangerous than a Pineco.

  5. #5
    Why bother Iteru's Avatar Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Kent, England
    Posts
    11,009
    Blog Entries
    87

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    There's a lot of animals that look as if there'd be totally docile and just aren't. Take geese; they look pretty and harmless but they become very vicious and defensive quickly.

    It's the same with Pokémon really. Looks are deceiving.

  6. #6
    is back for 2014 S.S. Shadow Minun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Cheaters anywhere
    Posts
    878
    Blog Entries
    18
    Follow S.S. Shadow Minun On Twitter Add S.S. Shadow Minun on Facebook
    Visit S.S. Shadow Minun's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    For Froslass, she might freezes somebody who "betrayed" her, and then show the bodies of them. But, Roserade would work in a similar way to that of a sniper. In fact, the roses on his hands work like bazookas (Solar Beam) or sniper rifles (Poison Sting).

    IMO, not just these two, some other Pokémon like Cacturne could be potentially dangerous too.

  7. #7
    Flirty Thief Kyriaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    8,226
    Blog Entries
    338

    Follow Kyriaki on Tumblr

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    Don't know much about Roserade, but Froslass is based on Yuki-onna's and she'd probably kill guys a lot in the mountains.

  8. #8
    Formerly GTT Envoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Middle of nowhere
    Posts
    2,402
    Blog Entries
    82

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    Quote Originally Posted by S.S. Shadow Minun View Post
    But, Roserade would work in a similar way to that of a sniper. In fact, the roses on his hands work like bazookas (Solar Beam) or sniper rifles (Poison Sting).
    As if I needed even more reasons to love Roserade. Thanks for pointing this out, my love for Rosy just skyrocketed tenfold d(and I already loved her from the beginning.)
    SoulSilver FC: 1334-2716-6164
    Platinum FC: 1591-7683-8872

  9. #9
    Cosmic Sky Demon Dragonfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    The Skies of Kalos
    Posts
    1,093
    Blog Entries
    127

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    Looks have next to zero correlation to strength in Pokémon. Think of the pokémon you find the cutest. Now think of its attacks. It doesn't even matter if the Pokémon is just in its first evolutionary stage or a damn Baby pokémon, it will have attacks that let loose some sort of supernatural/elemental power that would probably be ranked right next to a machine gun in the real world, destruction potential-wise.

    Seriously. All Pokémon can be considered cute (even much-hated Pokémon such as Trubbish) as much as they all have terrifying attacks that would cause massive, widespread damage in the real world. We're talking about a series that's trying to sell truckloads of cutesy plushies and games that has us pitting the very same characters they make plushies of against each other in insanely fun I-will-rip-you-apart bloodlust bouts at the same time.

    [sources: sig gif|avatar]

  10. #10
    From Leyend to Myth Infinity Mk-II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    In the wind
    Posts
    1,409
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    There are flowers in our world that kill you if you make the slightlest contact with anything of them, including spores.

    Now imagine these flowers are also autonomous and can shoot beams and spikes and strangle dinosaurs.


    Pokémon are literally monsters. Monsters that can be friendly and cute, but still have their metaphorical fangs.

    But this isn't about capability, it's about willingness. And there is a long enough history of people either misinterpreting looks or being decieved by them.
    And Frosslass specifically is based in one such story.

    [/overexposition]

  11. #11

    Default Re: Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinity Mk-II View Post
    Pokémon are literally monsters. Monsters that can be friendly and cute, but still have their metaphorical fangs.

    But this isn't about capability, it's about willingness. And there is a long enough history of people either misinterpreting looks or being decieved by them.
    And Frosslass specifically is based in one such story.
    Actually, I've always disagreed with calling Pokemon "Monsters"
    as I disagree with the usage of the word in virtually all cases.
    "Monster" implies a creature of "Unnatural" origin, an Abomination,
    and/or characterized by being Malevolent, inherently destructive and/or Evil.
    The word has historically been misused to refer to anything we humans fear or do not understand
    or as a "anything goes" sort of classification for anything not classified as plant or animal.

    While it's true the the word "Pokemon" originates from a time when ignorant humans
    once thought of Pokemon as just magical creatures,
    I do not believe it's fair to continue to think of them as "Literally Monsters."

    That said, I do agree with your point. I'm not trying to call you out on it
    rather it's a bit of a pet-peeve of mine whenever anyone uses the word "Monster"
    especially when referring to Pokemon.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •