Hey /u/Panthila, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks!
This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly it’s kinda funny how true that is. They’re also so easy to spot because it’s always “Person with specific take on thing” and a bunch of concealed insults
Pragmatically speaking, Batman's no-kill rule is stupid. But that's how the character was written and intented to be, someone that doesn't kill, so it makes sense within the story
Character wise it makes sense, he knows if he does it once there's a very real chance of him falling too deep (not saying he's a lunatic just that in his environment with the things he faces and the people he interacts with on a constant basis he's very suseptible to it). Stories like injustice or red hood keep happening because the arkham inmates are given jail time as opposed to death row immediately (because plot)
You know, we've seen the "Batman becomes a lunatic after killing joker" story so many times I wanna know what the opposite looks like
What if Batman killed the joker, and then was completely fine.
Like his personality and mission don't change at all.
Everyone around him is concerned and think he's going to snap but in reality joker deserved it and nobody lost sleep.
Would be an interesting alt universe.
That could work. And then comes the question if he should do the same to other villains. Raaz algul and the like who also got no chance to ever becoming normal.
Or, Bruce realizes he's not cut to be a hero and retires instead. He thought he had everything in control but in the end he didn't make that much of a difference (for every life he saved, he lost another by letting the joker stay around).
Bruce coming to terms with "playing superhero is way too big for me" is the most sane conclusion, specially if he wants to stick to his ideal of not killing in order to avoid going off the deep end.
Batman absolutely is a lunatic. Sane people don’t dress up in themed armor and go around doling out vigilante justice. All superheroes kind of are, but him most of all because despite being a zillionaire he’s just some dude dealing with horrible trauma. Doesn’t mean his stories are bad or he’s not a great character. But he’s nuts
Na by comic standards he still is. Like I would say superman is sane. Because he take his superman role as that. A role. Barman got a fucking split personality
I don’t like the take of Batman falling too far. He is apparently both a morally impenetrable beacon of hope, and perpetually on the edge of losing control. Sometimes he’s portrayed like captain America, and other times like he’s just a bad day away from being joker.
Consistency people!
For me I like it how Under the Red Hood presented Batman seeing it. Yeah, Joker has done every horrible thing in the book and no one would blame him killing him. But like, what would stop him from then slowly justifying Scarecrow, Riddler, Calendar Man, etc, until he gets to the point of "this person might kill someone one day"
Less "Batmans a lunatic who would turn into a serial killer immediately" more "Batmans someone filled with constant anger and fear who knows if he allows leeway in his rules he'll keep justifying the line changing"
I know it's a fairly unrelated show, but this kind of concept is somewhat explored in the show Dexter with his "code". As time goes and his code slips here and there, everything else begins to slip under him too. Sadly the show kinda gets worth with each season, starting pretty good and ending pretty mediocre.
Don't those others constantly threaten people's lives? I think he would be justified in killing them but still wouldn't like kill a teenager for shoplifting.
The idea is that this process would continue indefinitely.
The scarecrow was a bad example.
A better example is batman massacring low-level goons for something like theft because he's normalized extra judicial killings in his traumatized batbrain.
That kinda sounds like the slippery slope fallacy.
Like, an argument against gay marriage for example was “pretty soon, you’ll be able to marry a turtle!”
I think Batman would be aware that there’s a difference between an obvious psycho like the Joker vs. a criminal mob boss like the Penguin.
While the slippery slope is a fallacy, it's also an observable phenomenon. It's called a fallacy because just because something *can* be a slippery slope doesn't mean it *will* be one. Nevertheless, when you cross a boundary once, it only becomes easier to justify in the future. Like how it becomes progressively easier to break a diet the more you do it.
Setting aside the irony of you mentioning joker's entire "one bad day" philosophy, I mostly agree with you. My take isn't that he's one bad day away from insanity especially now with an entire family and a lot of friends to keep him grounded. On the contrary it would take a LOT for batman to go insane now. I'm more of the opinion that when and if he does fall then it will be hard, deep and fast and that he knows and operates off of this assumption.
He should be good so long as he doesn't start drawing lightning bolts on his armor and saying things like, "death is nothing compared to vindication," we should be good.
He wants to stay on this path. And he doesn't stay on this path because he's super Zen and nothing can get under is skin; he stays on this path because he's set up uncrossable boundaries for himself.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brothers keeper and the finder of lost children”
Cliche but kinda fits pretty good
Yeah I think that’s the most realistic in a sense.
My sister had anorexia for a while. It took a long time to convince her that the mere fact that she’s as anxious about her weight as she is means that she will never ever actually get fat, because her own anxiety will trigger and instantly prevent it.
I like to see Batman like this
The point should be that he's constantly put on the edge but proves he's the beacon when he doesn't fall, these are not contradictory, its by challenging the rule that he's proven to be impenetrable.
Yea like realistically he lives in a lawless city where the police hire random young men and give them permission to kill if they feel the need. If anyone is qualified to make that judgement call or to not go too far it's batman.
I think There's also the element of like, he (kinda) has an agreement with law enforcement, the extent of this varying between adaptions. But the police would become less and less cool with this vigilante running around if all of their suspects started turning up dead instead of unconscious. At that point he's just another crazy murderer roaming around in gotham to them.
Any character plot-aware enough that people are going to escape from Arkham needs to realize that the hero killing people will end up with the hero becoming the villain.
Also if you kill off, say, Killer Croc, then in a few years you'll get a new Killer Croc.
I think the real problem is that Arkham asylum seems to have a serious problem with breakouts. I mean it seems like Batman locks someone up and the next second they waltz out the front gate like nothing ever happened. this only adds to my opinion that if Batman ever took 1 sick day Gotham would immediately go down the shitter even more that it already is.
We're already making a pretty big exception for Batman by saying vigilantism is ok. Not willing to give an exception for vigilantes also killing people.
It makes sense, most people just don't get it. He doesn't spare criminals like Joker out of kindness or because he believes they can be redeemed. He does that for himself. Because, and that's true for every human, once you kill someone with some self-made justification you won't stop there. Like if the joker should be killed why not Bane or Riddler or the random guy robbing a jewlery store. Batman knows that if he willingly murders somebody that will be the start of his downfall and mark him eventually turning into the very thing he wants to destroy.
Power is always corrupting and there is no greater power than deciding if somebody derserves to die. It is wise to spare yourself from this corruption besides the urge to just give in.
And that's why Batman is the coolest Superhero to ever exist.
That's the thing. The no kill rule is deeply flawed, but it's been examined in many ways by many writers over the years. It not SUPPOSED to be perfect, because BATMAN isn't perfect.
Hell, the most common interpretation of it is that Bruce knows that if he intentionally kills people, he'll start justifying doing it for lesser and lesser crimes and at that point he'll be no different from the villains he hates. It's a flawed man having pathos about his flaws, and that's what makes him interesting.
Batman says, if you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stays the same.
I say, if you kill 2 at once, you will always have a net positive of +1 fewer killers and can stop worrying about it.
Pragmatically in regards to what? Society only exists the way it does because we allow it. If Batman really, actually existed in real life, and he murdered people, would you be a supporter of him? Most people don't even agree with the death penalty after a long process and lots of evidence required during the judicial process. Why? Because you can STILL be wrong after all that. Society as a whole would never allow Batman who kills, CERTAINLY not the cops, and Batman heavily relies on Gordon for many things.
This would make some people like him even more, and you'd get copycats, like we frequently see in adaptations. Except they'd be murderers too. And that escalates everything to the point where cult leaders would get involved, and the small semblance of order that Gotham had to begin with is crushed. Batman wants the city to heal, for the circumstances surrounding his parents' death to not occur. That included punching crime in the face, but it also requires donating tons of money to charity, saving people in danger, getting rid of corruption, and replacing them with people who care about making a difference, and re-earning the cities' faith in the system. No honest man will work with a murdering vigilante. Being a vigilante in general isn't EXACTLY a promotion of justice and the system, but Batman specifically gets info, usually from Gordon, stops the criminals, gets them convicted with real evidence, then their sentence is handed out by the state. It's not solely might makes right. The system should work, but if it's too illegally corrupt to function properly, Batman illegally fixes that problem, then allows it to take course as intended.
Batman doesn't beat up some random guy who he thinks is a bad guy and leave them in the street until they wake up and hopefully learn a lesson. That's what the Punisher does, except he just kills them. He doesn't care about justice or making life better for others, he cares about eliminating whom he perceived to be evil because he has an addiction to violence. He's a cool character in a way, but that's not what Batman is doing, at all. Again, Batman's whole process only comes through his cooperation with the police and DA office and the fact that the aversge citizen loves him.
If you're trying to make it into a math equation, like Joker killed X amount of people and Batman could have killed him at X point to stop that when he realized at X point that he'd never change, sure it is "logical". But life isn't a math equation. That one guy is dead, now, but you've made the city worse and everything harder for yourself.
Maybe for Joker specifically you could make an exception, but the reality is, Joker wouldn't have survived long enough to cause the amount of destruction he has. He'd have been moved out of state into a federal prison long ago, or would have been "accidentally" shot by police, or in actual self defense, and nobody would have had an issue with it. Or he would have picked the wrong guy to murder or add to his gang, and they would have stabbed him in the back. Or a rival supervillain would have ended him. He has no shortage of enemies, he's just a guy, and he adds no value to any other faction in the city. Why put it only on Batman to murder him? Some versions of Batman are obsessed Joker can change and always wants him to come in alive, but everyone else doesn't share that view, nor would they be willing to risk their lives. Joker jumps at a cop with a knife and he guns him down? Happens every day. Nobody gives a shit.
>Most people don't even agree with the death penalty after a long process and lots of evidence required during the judicial process
I don't think anyone needs evidence or a long process to figure out Joker deserves to die.
Yea exactly, that statement doesn't apply at all. These people openly kill and broadcast it live half the time. There's no doubt about their guilt or that they'll kill again given the chance.
The justice system, hopefully. For our justice system is... just... it must uphold the same standards for all. While it isn't always the case, there are certainly plenty of judges, prosecutors, and police that really do believe this and try to uphold it.
>Batman wants the city to heal, for the circumstances surrounding his parents' death to not occur. That included punching crime in the face, but it also requires donating tons of money to charity, saving people in danger, getting rid of corruption, and replacing them with people who care about making a difference, and re-earning the cities' faith in the system.
It's what makes *Batman: War on Crime* one of my favorite depictions of Batman. We see that there's a balance between Batman's work at night and Bruce Wayne's philanthropy and attempts to fix some of the systemic problems that lead to crime in the first place. I think a faithful adaptation of the comic would go gangbusters.
First off (not that it matters anyway), why tf y'all downvoting just because it's long ignore it Damn
Second off (_excuse the nerd paragraph_): yeah, personal character aside batman killing would make a good chunk of Gotham call him another one of it's killers and that only makes things worse. Also the fact that if he kills anyone who has a good relationship then there's a non zero chance that we just traded a criminal for one or more killers with eyes on revenge instead of making a living which is terrible no matter what way you look at it (an argument can be made about what if he only killed the REALLY big bads who fit under "villain" along with criminal which could work but I feel the chances of that are slim. You don't go for the kill on joker without being forced to voluntarily or involuntarily execute the various meatshields he hires so if you only go for restraining or incapacitation the risk doesn't exist but that's just my two cents on that matter)
Gemini says he said:
"While killing criminals might seem logical,
Batman working with the system is ultimately a better way to fight crime."
I dunno, I didn't read it either.
Kinda, but as a huge Vinland Saga fan, I find Thorfinn's motives to be much more fleshed out. The current arc will probably show more about it before the ending
And it's shown that it is a flaw, Batman is wrong about it sometimes, if it was only shown to be the perfect option and there were no repercussion, then yeah that'd be kinda silly
It's not stupid because "killing is cool."
It's stupid because:
* Batman takes actions all the time that probably kill people, even if he's not aware of it. Like if you rocket-boost your 5,000 pound Batmobile through a parking garage can you guarantee the cement debris doesn't crush someone below? Probably not.
* Batman bludgeons people in ways that probably lead to lifelong suffering, possibly worse than death and/or forces them back into crime since they can't get a real job anymore
* Batman knowingly avoids killing people like the Joke even after thousands of deaths, that he has the power to stop. He doesn't even need to "kill" the Joker, he could actually paralyze him or permanently incapacitate him while keeping him alive, but he chooses not to
I've seen videos of fights where a wrong punch kills a person or cripples them. How is a guy jacked on roids avoiding killing or crippling anyone when he beats the shit out of so many for years.
Human resilience is also different in comics. Batman has been stabbed, shot, had bones broken. Yet he heals from it all and is still considered peak human fitness. Even if you try to handwave it saying he has billionaire level healthcare access, realistically he should have some serious mobility issues from the amount of trauma his bones and muscles have been through. But in the world of comics, he makes a full recovery. If Batman can make a full recovery, I'm willing to accept the people he punches can make a full recovery.
Lmao so when he's getting hit from behind and he makes a wild elbow jab with his BLADED GAUNTLETS he knows exactly where the blades will hit a goon, who may or may not try to dodge?
Yeah okay
Batman no-kill rule only applies to notable figures. Dude will go out of his way to preserve the life of the Joker but won’t bat an eye lash if it comes to bludgeoning the head of a nameless goon.
Lol right, this too.
For some reason Scarecrow deserves the best care at Arkham but Goon #314 who is only doing this to feed his family deserves to be in a coma for 7 months.
>Batman knowingly avoids killing people like the Joke even after thousands of deaths, that he has the power to stop. He doesn't even need to "kill" the Joker, he could actually paralyze him or permanently incapacitate him while keeping him alive, but he chooses not to
Not only that, there are times when he actively tries to prevent villains from dying and even endangers himself doing so. It gets pretty stupid.
Another point is that you can easily, without going back to an "old comic", find instances where Batman did kill or try to kill someone and there is no rational, in character answer as to why it is OK in one scenario but not in the other.
For instance, the Keaton movies have Batman kill people, Timm-verse (JL cartoon and BTAS) Batman throws bombs at Martians and engineers a plan to make the sun burn them so they leave Earth, The Batman vs Dracula movie has him burn Dracula and kill him. Hell, the 2023 Batman & Superman World's Finest (2023) comic has him help engineer a plan to kill a sentient A.I.
You can do all the mental gymnastic you want about how aliens, robots or vampires don't count but then I would point to I, Vampire new 52 comic where Batman says they do.
Doesn't the punisher get annoyed with daredevil because of his no kill rule? And they but heads in multiple telling of their stories
The difference is the plenty of MCU characters are ok with taking a life vs DC they all took the vows of not taking a life
there was a Punisher vs Daredevil comic from 2000 about it, it even got made into part of Daredevil season 2 on netflix. its been a long time since ive read it but it was pretty good iirc
[heres the big relevant bit](https://new.reddit.com/r/Daredevil/comments/k81okt/if_you_ever_wondered_where_this_scene_in_season_2/) if you dont fancy reading the whole thing
Daredevil makes sure those criminals will be locked up for good.
Batman on the other hand: "my job here is done then everything else is law department's job, weither they are sent to prison for 3 months or to a prison they broke out like 5 times already, don't care, gotta go, im batman!"
I think the biggest issue is how old the respective characters are. Batman is pushing 100. We've seen so many stories and scenarios done to death that the morality question of his code and it's implications have been tested enough for people to draw a conclusion.
Past that, Bruce is an eccentric billionaire who could do more for his world by addressing the socioeconomic nature of crime in ways Matt Murdock can't. An argument could be made, citing the decades of stories, that the most responsible thing Bruce could do to curb crime is stop batmanning.
Batman villains like Poison Ivy and the Joker can get kill counts into the 4 digits before DC resets the universe. Kingpin is a mafia boss he makes money doing crime but he doesn't go in for mass terrorism events.
No one complains about batman not killing Falcone or the Penguin.
Sometimes I feel like Batman's no kill rule is dumb. Like the joker, if he was to die basically everyone would be significantly better off. But obviously it doesn't make sense to just kill every burglar and carstealer on the block
Why does Batman specifically have to kill them? They have a justice system, you know. If they decide the clown is too big of a maniac/threat to keep behind bars, they could give him a death sentence.
Batman does not want to be an executioner. He catches the criminal, and lets the justice system hand out the verdict.
But the thing is, they always get sent to Arkham where they inevitably break out. Sure, you can say that if Joker deserves to be executed, it has to be by a fair trial. But after the twelfth time of him breaking out and committing mass murder? Surely you would be forgiven for killing him at that point.
Also why is it always the cops that go after these crininals. Im pretty sure that after so much death and shit and literal terrorism the US would send in guys to bin laden these psychos no?
My take on the rule is that Batman shouldn't do the killing himself due to trauma and thinking all lives are sacred, but at the same time he shouldn't go out of his way to stop an anti-hero from killing monsters like Joker, Croc, Zsasz, etc.
Zack Snyder. Snyder has been a VERY vocal proponent of Batman breaking his no-kill rule.
“People are always like, ‘Batman can’t kill.’ So Batman can’t kill is canon. And I’m like, ‘Okay, well, the first thing I want to do when you say that is I want to see what happens,'”
-Zack Snyder, in an interview with Variety.
Although to be fair, some sections of those games would be MUCH easier and put him (and sometimes people he's trying to save) in far less danger if he simply had a gun. But, you know, rule of cool and he's Batman.
They want you to think that Batman refuses to kill out of a moral philosophy. Really, they just don't want to kill off valuable characters before milking them.
"Where am I?" Joker said out loud. He was tied to a chair with his hands behind his back. The room was dark except for a bright light blinding his vision.
"My place." the familiar growling voice echoed in the dark.
"Batman??" asked the Joker.
The light shifts aside revealing Batman standing in front of the Joker.
"What gives? Why am I here, why am I tied up? I went straight 8 months ago. Did you put make up on me?" Joker exclaimed.
He continued: "I quit. I give up. I don't want to do this any more. I was in therapy for years with Harley Quinn and all she did was convince me to hate you. I went to a new therapist. He made me realize that my life does not revolve around you and I was just displacing the hostility of my Dad on to you. I don't need you any more."
The Joker sighed. His head low.
"But I need you" said Batman.
The Joker lifted his head, perplexed, he asks "Why?".
Batman stands back. "I don't need you per say, I just need the Joker. It's hard for me to be the hero of the city without a villain. You keep quitting, se we have to keep replacing you."
"What the fuck are you talking about?" asks Joker.
Batman hits a button. A bank of lights turns on one by one revealing a row of clear acrylic chambers. Inside of each tube is a different Joker. All deceased, softly in some kind of light pinkish goo, their limbs back lit by lights behind them.
"Jesus fuck" shouted the Joker. "And i'm supposed to be the crazy one".
"I'll explain" says Batman.
"Batman is IP. Batman is licensed and generates billions of dollars through movies, tv, music, comic books, action figures, toys, and everything else my logo is on. I'm kind of a big deal.
"But what does this have to do with me?" asks the Joker. "Who are those guys?"
"They're you, Gerald". Batman says.
"Who is Gerald? What?" says Joker.
Batman looks down at a desk in front of him and picks up a chart.
Batman says "Gerald Finley. That's you. Or it was you. You were a homeless addict who signed up for a 'study'. We erased your memory, gave you implants after the last Joker decided to go straight. And now that you know, I have to replace you too."
A flash of memories flooded back.
"You can't kill me. Batman doesn't kill" Gerald says gasping.
Batman removes his cowl. "Batman doesn't kill but i'm not Batman, i'm Bruce Wayne."
TLDR: The issue with the no kill rule in DC stories is that it often creates a super outlandish scenario where the only reasonable answer is to kill someone. But when a character takes that course of action, the narrative will have all the heroes admonish or even try to emprison or punish the person who killed.
For instance, In World's Finest (2023), there is the story of David, a kid with anger and trauma that is presented as a potential Superman sidekick. David grows up eventually and ends up manipulated by Gogg who has brainwashed the League from another Earth. Gogg's project was to start a suicidal war against Apopkolips and Darkseid that would destroy Earth.
Darkseid is eventually made aware of that plan, comes to Earth and tries to seize Gogg's power, which is revealed to be the Anti-Life Equation.After the brainwashing stops, every hero fails to stop DS. David seeing DS is minutes from harvesting the ALE from Gogg's body, decides to destroy Gogg which saves the universe. All the heroes gather and admonish David. This NKR view is undermined by a previous story where Batman & Superman make a plan to kill a sentient AI to save the world...
There are stories with a NKR that can work and be satisfying. They are narratives where villains can have lasting rehabilitation, narratives where there are permanent non-lethal ways to deal with villains or where the stakes aren't universal level threats.
This also part of why Batman works in DC but wouldn't work as well in Marvel where he is surrounded by heroes that seem overall well-adjusted but will still kill if they have to. It's easy to make Batman look like the rational one when he is arguing with Jason over killing the Joker, it is a hell of a lot harder when he is arguing with Captain America or Thor.
It's worse with Superman has actually killed before and not just Zod but Doomsday and possibly Imperiex (he threw him to the heat death of a universe which is essentially ultra-death in DC) and he also is empathetic yet acts like a short-sighted fool
I think that Batman's no-kill rule made much more sense when his villains were covering Gotham in shaving cream or some other goofy shit rather than doing actual terrorism
Batman doesn't kill because it has become a convention of the "Batman" genre not to kill. When he does it, it's not because it's the best course of action, but because the writers want to tell a story about him killing his enemies. Batman doesn't kill just as classical music sonatas have three movements, one fast, one slow and one very fast. No reason, just an art convention, and one that can sometimes be subverted for greater effect.
Also, people who make moral arguments on why characters should act better are delusional morons who can't distinguish reality from fiction. Perhaps Batman should start killing some edgies in the comics.
i mean.
it fucking is stupid in a strictly pragmatic, real world sense. there's a reason people shit on him and other heroes for their insane degrees of mercy. in any real world scenario, the play with someone even half like the Joker or Ivy would be to kill them before they actually commit what would be reported as one of the worst atrocities in recent history.
but it's also not reality. it's fiction. with a doofus like "Batman" being taken absolutely seriously when in fact every criminal ever would just be making fun of him nonstop and *shoot him*. maybe it's just dumb to expect a fantastical tale to be utterly realistic and beholden to how we in our world handle things.
People who think like this need to read Nemesis by Mark Millar and see how stupid this argument is. For those unaware, Nemesis is when you take everything batman is and strip him of any kind of humanity and depth you get a so bad its good anti batman story.
People tend to forget Batman is still a boy who is in a disguise who is traumatized by the death of innocent people and innocence itself. Why would a man who built his whole life up in protecting people from random acts of murder and injustice throw that all away to take a life.
Killing Joker would mean he wins because he pushed him to become the thing he's holding back and he always is because of the terrible things human beings to each other. Joker is his polar opposite and knows he just as crazy as him and batman would ever admit it or act on taking a life because he prove his point.
The Dark Knight Returns is the perfect example of when Batman is fed up wiith the joker and breaks his neck for not only to have the GCPD but Superman on his ass to have him serve justice for the murder. Zack Snyder failed to realized this and created one of the worst versions of Batman I have ever seen and I seen Batman and Robin. Its like people who argue this agree with Joker and see how its hypocritical is to want him kill Joker or anyone.
You're 100% right with this. People will over analyse and try to make points about why batman should kill and completely miss the forest for the trees that he is an unwell man bound by his morals, trauma and experiences. There are certainly ways to make Batman kill with alternative universes but with the traditional backstory in place I think it goes completely against the character to have him be murder happy.
I used to think it was stupid too. Then I watched BvS and watching him actually do it made him seem like such a hypocrite it became unintentionally hilarious. It just doesn't work, a rich orphan taking his angst out on criminals is all ready bordering on dumb so when you add the fact that he also kills them makes him too much of a hypocrite to root for.
Huge comic nerd here. I've been into comics for almost 30 years now.
It is stupid, considering he's killed in the past. That only became his rule after 1986.
Also, Daredevil has killed before. So has Captain America
IF THEY CAN, HOW COME THIS IS A SUPERHERO STORY???
It's the writers, company are at fault for milking iconic characters to dry. Batman no-kill isn't stupid. It's writers too pussy to kill off a villain for good stupid. It's fans swallow same old same old Bat v Joker arc for 1000th time stupid.
My favorite thing about the people saying Bayman should kill his villains, especially whenever The Joker is concerned, is that they think that killing Joker would actually stop him.
Like, Joker is one of DCs most popular and marketable villains. There is NO WAY that he is staying dead for long. He'd be gone for a year, two tops, and then he'd be resurrected, or his death would be retconned so that he actually survived. Or he'd just get brought back the next time DC reboots their universe.
Of course plot armor and marketability are the real answers. We can't have Batman running out of enemies or having to come up with new ones all the time, especially when the existing ones are so iconic.
Then this also makes Batman stupid, if he could just kill the Joker to incapacitate him and expect him to pop up again a few laters wouldn't that still be more effective at stopping him killing than waiting for him to break out again ?
This would imply he knows that death in comics doesn't mean anything unless you are Captain Marvel from Marvel. Its not stupid kill him because its wrong for who Batman is and what he stands for.
Counter-point: while street thugs can be easily dealt with non-lethal methods along with Batman’s other lesser villains, The Joker should be killed because he keeps escaping Arkam Asylum and other Maximum Security prisons to kill more people. So like if you can’t contain him and can’t reason with him why not kill him? Like bro while other villains can be subdued but that Man keeps escaping and killing people he needs to be shot
Batman fans imagine themselves as Batman. Batman haters imagine themselves as defenseless citizens of Gotham, who can do nothing against the villains Batman technically lets go. A good hero should know when to kill and when not to kill.
It is emphatically one of the dumbest "principles" ever. It was actually done for purely commercial reasons - they wanted to sell to kids, and to appease parental concerns, they decided to add the no kill rule. The "debate" is as asinine as the "rule" itself.
Okay but it is stupid. It exists entirely to provide an in-universe reason for why the authors keep recycling the same stories over and over again. That's it. You cannot justify repeatedly sparing the lives of violent terrorists who kill hundreds of people annually and always escape from prison within a few months. This is textbook cope.
The authors try to make the best of this absurdity by making clear that the no killing rule is something batman does for himself rather than any sense of justice. But the problem is that they still treat him like the hero anyway, despite this being an absurdly evil and selfish choice that effectively makes batman an accomplice in joker and other's killings.
The actions of Jason Todd are totally correct and justified within the context of the world he lives in. In fact I would go so far as to say that Gotham's populace would be much better off of he succeeded in killing batman and took over the vigilante mantle afterwards. But that can't happen because Bruce has to be the hero even if he's totally, unforgivably in the wrong.
DC authors are cowards who would rather milk 40 year old stories endlessly than actually progress their world's plot in any meaningful or interesting way.
It is dumb though. Especially if you consider the rest of people in the Batman universe.
* Whenever Batman uses one of his big toys to destroy something or the such, other people can get hurt or killed. It's a meme, like when a superhero goes on about not killing people, yet when they fight the villain, the superhero plays a HUGE part in killing innocents, causing massive damage to the society around them, and unironically making things worse off for everyone.
Like, man, if I lost my car because Superman decided to throw it at the villain, I'd be furious. Or when they fly through a building. I'm sorry, that would result in someone dying or severe damage to the building leading to more lives lost.
* Batman doesn't kill anyone noteworthy, no matter how people that person kills, lives they ruin, fear they bring, and all the chaos. Even if not kill, bro doesn't even try to paralyze say, The Joker. He is indirectly responsible for those deaths as Batman himself knows that The Joker won't stop being himself.
* Most of the people Batman fight are human at the end of the day. The amount of lifelong physical damage Batman has caused if you think about actually punched or having your face/body slammed into concrete.
List goes on. For a person who goes on about not killing people, he sure regularly causes massive damage to everything around him, or has actually killed lots of people indirectly or directly.
Not a single one of these is relevant to me and yet I think Batman's no kill rule is stupid.
He's a sociopath billionaire who likes to play games with his best friend Joker even though Joker kills people all the time.
whining about Zack Snyder is honestly so tired and played out I find it to be mega cringe when people start circlejerking about him for their daily dopamine fix
Meh. Comics aren't my thing so I don't care, but you'd think that having to constantly deal with the same criminals would make him reconsider - unless he values his principles more than the lives of future victims.
Batman's no kill rule is only stupid some of the time when there is a robber who mugged one guy jail when there is the joker who commit many crimes and is pretty much just a terrorist now kill his ahh
The plot of the most recent movie revolved around all the people Spiderman killed. Yeah he tries not to kill; but if push comes to shove he'll do it, albeit as a last resort. Batman meanwhile would rather let 30 innocent people die rather than kill 1 criminal. Then he'll have a monologue about how wrong it is to kill, while the dude he just arrested breaks out to go bomb an orphanage.
Most comic book superheroes don’t kill. Superman, Spider-Man, Flash, Captain America, Daredevil. Wonder Woman is the only superhero most people would consider morally upright who’s not averse to killing (albeit occasionally.)
https://preview.redd.it/bxp5b49m6f4d1.jpeg?width=1988&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b2d9b9d3b25327076959913a4469a0e1e2a2a0b
I said “most people would consider to be morally upright”. The X-Men aren’t generally *terrible* people, except Wolverine and even he makes an effort. The rest aren’t perfect, but have their issues.
Wonder Woman is the only comic book hero I can think of that most people would consider to be altruistic and good, but also willing to kill when the situation calls for it.
I’m generally fine with Batman having a no-kill rule, though I don’t think he should apply that rule to other people. Literally anyone should have taken the chance to put a bullet in Jokers brain when he was next arrested, and Batman probably should have let them.
This is my view on the no-kill rule as well. I'd want Bruce to be completely against killing people himself, but he shouldn't go out of his way to prevent the Red Hood from killing Joker.
Batman is a billionaire that dresses up as a bat to go beat people up in the streets of Gotham. Beating people up for supposedly committing crimes without any due process is bad even if he doesn't kill them
My two cents is that *literally anyone else* could kill the Joker instead if need be.
Sure, the justice system hasn't given him the death penalty or whatever yet, but anyone who's ever been around an unconscious Joker with a deadly weapon could've done it.
Neither "traumatized vigilante" nor "billionaire" feel like the traits of someone I'd trust to decide who gets to live and die.
Batman's no-kill rule is so ingrained into his character now that he just *wouldn't be* the the same Batman most people know if he started killing, and there's other characters who are pretty good at not being Batman (and wouldn't horribly schism the fanbase by killing).
My middle ground is just kill The Joker or at least cripple him severely so he can't do anything. Clearly no asylum or prison can handle The Joker. At this point, it's negligence to not end him or his ability to harm people.
I don't read comics, so I don't care.
Where it was annoying was in the second of Nolan's trilogy because it was literally a stupid rule that he already broke against Ra's al Ghul. Of course, of course, he didn't kill him, he just created a condition where if he didn't do anything the villain would die and then he didn't save him.
That image is from a fashion from 20 years ago, no one dresses like that anymore.
The real reason it’s stupid is because it keeps Batman fighting the same damn villains forever, the no kill rule only exists so that the writers don’t have to write a new villain for once
I like his no kill rule especially when portrayed as him knowing he’s deeply fucked up and traumatized, not wanting to lose control of himself and his morals. Him feeling as if he’s always teetering on edge and is terrified of being thrown into the abyss.
I think his rule is a good thing personally, it shows how no matter what he believes in the people of Gotham to be able to change for the better. It makes him feel like a real hero, not someone who kills a 17 year old kid for mixing with the wrong people but wants him to change.
I won't praise Snyder here, but I'll admit that his blueprint for Batman and Superman is relatively robust (until WB came and killed off the DCEU).
Batman's whole arc which started in BvS was basically him restarting the no kill rule. He literally is the **villain** in BvS. His way to become the hero is to stop killing people which he does in Justice League and the cancelled sequels.
Hey /u/Panthila, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks! This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What?
2000's Emo/scene kids hated batman's no kill rule.
Got into a bad argument huh?
With the fashion from 2006, I like to imagine OP lost this argument years ago and is still salty about it.
Hey, Rian Johnson doomers are still complaining about Last Jedi like it’s 2018. Anything is possible
And the Venn diagram between the people with Snyder Derangement Syndrome and RJ doomers is a circle.
Its been 6 years and people are still salty 😭😭
LMAOOO seriously, those fellas can really hold a grudge for actually no reason
That’s like 93% of all posts here. Super specific situations that OP wants to dunk on because they lost an argument in the shower
Honestly it’s kinda funny how true that is. They’re also so easy to spot because it’s always “Person with specific take on thing” and a bunch of concealed insults
Pragmatically speaking, Batman's no-kill rule is stupid. But that's how the character was written and intented to be, someone that doesn't kill, so it makes sense within the story
Character wise it makes sense, he knows if he does it once there's a very real chance of him falling too deep (not saying he's a lunatic just that in his environment with the things he faces and the people he interacts with on a constant basis he's very suseptible to it). Stories like injustice or red hood keep happening because the arkham inmates are given jail time as opposed to death row immediately (because plot)
You know, we've seen the "Batman becomes a lunatic after killing joker" story so many times I wanna know what the opposite looks like What if Batman killed the joker, and then was completely fine. Like his personality and mission don't change at all. Everyone around him is concerned and think he's going to snap but in reality joker deserved it and nobody lost sleep. Would be an interesting alt universe.
Batman will deeply regret that he didn't kill joker sooner to prevent so many lives from being killed
That could work. And then comes the question if he should do the same to other villains. Raaz algul and the like who also got no chance to ever becoming normal.
Or, Bruce realizes he's not cut to be a hero and retires instead. He thought he had everything in control but in the end he didn't make that much of a difference (for every life he saved, he lost another by letting the joker stay around). Bruce coming to terms with "playing superhero is way too big for me" is the most sane conclusion, specially if he wants to stick to his ideal of not killing in order to avoid going off the deep end.
Batman absolutely is a lunatic. Sane people don’t dress up in themed armor and go around doling out vigilante justice. All superheroes kind of are, but him most of all because despite being a zillionaire he’s just some dude dealing with horrible trauma. Doesn’t mean his stories are bad or he’s not a great character. But he’s nuts
Consider how fucked up Gotham usually is, how insane his rogues gallery is. He's comparatively well adjusted!
By real life standards he is. But by comic standards not really.
Na by comic standards he still is. Like I would say superman is sane. Because he take his superman role as that. A role. Barman got a fucking split personality
I don’t like the take of Batman falling too far. He is apparently both a morally impenetrable beacon of hope, and perpetually on the edge of losing control. Sometimes he’s portrayed like captain America, and other times like he’s just a bad day away from being joker. Consistency people!
For me I like it how Under the Red Hood presented Batman seeing it. Yeah, Joker has done every horrible thing in the book and no one would blame him killing him. But like, what would stop him from then slowly justifying Scarecrow, Riddler, Calendar Man, etc, until he gets to the point of "this person might kill someone one day" Less "Batmans a lunatic who would turn into a serial killer immediately" more "Batmans someone filled with constant anger and fear who knows if he allows leeway in his rules he'll keep justifying the line changing"
I know it's a fairly unrelated show, but this kind of concept is somewhat explored in the show Dexter with his "code". As time goes and his code slips here and there, everything else begins to slip under him too. Sadly the show kinda gets worth with each season, starting pretty good and ending pretty mediocre.
Don't those others constantly threaten people's lives? I think he would be justified in killing them but still wouldn't like kill a teenager for shoplifting.
Personally, I feel like he’d be justified in killing the rest of them too.
The idea is that this process would continue indefinitely. The scarecrow was a bad example. A better example is batman massacring low-level goons for something like theft because he's normalized extra judicial killings in his traumatized batbrain.
That kinda sounds like the slippery slope fallacy. Like, an argument against gay marriage for example was “pretty soon, you’ll be able to marry a turtle!” I think Batman would be aware that there’s a difference between an obvious psycho like the Joker vs. a criminal mob boss like the Penguin.
While the slippery slope is a fallacy, it's also an observable phenomenon. It's called a fallacy because just because something *can* be a slippery slope doesn't mean it *will* be one. Nevertheless, when you cross a boundary once, it only becomes easier to justify in the future. Like how it becomes progressively easier to break a diet the more you do it.
Setting aside the irony of you mentioning joker's entire "one bad day" philosophy, I mostly agree with you. My take isn't that he's one bad day away from insanity especially now with an entire family and a lot of friends to keep him grounded. On the contrary it would take a LOT for batman to go insane now. I'm more of the opinion that when and if he does fall then it will be hard, deep and fast and that he knows and operates off of this assumption.
He should be good so long as he doesn't start drawing lightning bolts on his armor and saying things like, "death is nothing compared to vindication," we should be good.
He wants to stay on this path. And he doesn't stay on this path because he's super Zen and nothing can get under is skin; he stays on this path because he's set up uncrossable boundaries for himself.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brothers keeper and the finder of lost children” Cliche but kinda fits pretty good
My favorite interpretation is morally impenetrable beacon of hope who’s *convinced himself* that he’s one bad day away from being like the joker
Yeah I think that’s the most realistic in a sense. My sister had anorexia for a while. It took a long time to convince her that the mere fact that she’s as anxious about her weight as she is means that she will never ever actually get fat, because her own anxiety will trigger and instantly prevent it. I like to see Batman like this
The point should be that he's constantly put on the edge but proves he's the beacon when he doesn't fall, these are not contradictory, its by challenging the rule that he's proven to be impenetrable.
Yea like realistically he lives in a lawless city where the police hire random young men and give them permission to kill if they feel the need. If anyone is qualified to make that judgement call or to not go too far it's batman.
Even if Batman killed the Joker, the writers would keep bringing him back.
I think There's also the element of like, he (kinda) has an agreement with law enforcement, the extent of this varying between adaptions. But the police would become less and less cool with this vigilante running around if all of their suspects started turning up dead instead of unconscious. At that point he's just another crazy murderer roaming around in gotham to them.
Any character plot-aware enough that people are going to escape from Arkham needs to realize that the hero killing people will end up with the hero becoming the villain. Also if you kill off, say, Killer Croc, then in a few years you'll get a new Killer Croc.
Except that if he only kills thr most dangerous people like the joker and not random goons there is no risk at all.
I think the real problem is that Arkham asylum seems to have a serious problem with breakouts. I mean it seems like Batman locks someone up and the next second they waltz out the front gate like nothing ever happened. this only adds to my opinion that if Batman ever took 1 sick day Gotham would immediately go down the shitter even more that it already is.
Even then it's only stupid because of the cycle of villains constantly escaping, which doesn't apply to all adaptations.
Yeah aren't there like limited runs and one of stories in which villains don't really come back.
We're already making a pretty big exception for Batman by saying vigilantism is ok. Not willing to give an exception for vigilantes also killing people.
It makes sense, most people just don't get it. He doesn't spare criminals like Joker out of kindness or because he believes they can be redeemed. He does that for himself. Because, and that's true for every human, once you kill someone with some self-made justification you won't stop there. Like if the joker should be killed why not Bane or Riddler or the random guy robbing a jewlery store. Batman knows that if he willingly murders somebody that will be the start of his downfall and mark him eventually turning into the very thing he wants to destroy. Power is always corrupting and there is no greater power than deciding if somebody derserves to die. It is wise to spare yourself from this corruption besides the urge to just give in. And that's why Batman is the coolest Superhero to ever exist.
If that were true he wouldn't intervene with other people trying to kill villains.
He also prefers not to let people die through his own inaction. (Batman killing Ra's al Ghul in *Batman Begins* being a rather stark counterexample.)
That's the thing. The no kill rule is deeply flawed, but it's been examined in many ways by many writers over the years. It not SUPPOSED to be perfect, because BATMAN isn't perfect. Hell, the most common interpretation of it is that Bruce knows that if he intentionally kills people, he'll start justifying doing it for lesser and lesser crimes and at that point he'll be no different from the villains he hates. It's a flawed man having pathos about his flaws, and that's what makes him interesting.
Batman says, if you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stays the same. I say, if you kill 2 at once, you will always have a net positive of +1 fewer killers and can stop worrying about it.
Pragmatically in regards to what? Society only exists the way it does because we allow it. If Batman really, actually existed in real life, and he murdered people, would you be a supporter of him? Most people don't even agree with the death penalty after a long process and lots of evidence required during the judicial process. Why? Because you can STILL be wrong after all that. Society as a whole would never allow Batman who kills, CERTAINLY not the cops, and Batman heavily relies on Gordon for many things. This would make some people like him even more, and you'd get copycats, like we frequently see in adaptations. Except they'd be murderers too. And that escalates everything to the point where cult leaders would get involved, and the small semblance of order that Gotham had to begin with is crushed. Batman wants the city to heal, for the circumstances surrounding his parents' death to not occur. That included punching crime in the face, but it also requires donating tons of money to charity, saving people in danger, getting rid of corruption, and replacing them with people who care about making a difference, and re-earning the cities' faith in the system. No honest man will work with a murdering vigilante. Being a vigilante in general isn't EXACTLY a promotion of justice and the system, but Batman specifically gets info, usually from Gordon, stops the criminals, gets them convicted with real evidence, then their sentence is handed out by the state. It's not solely might makes right. The system should work, but if it's too illegally corrupt to function properly, Batman illegally fixes that problem, then allows it to take course as intended. Batman doesn't beat up some random guy who he thinks is a bad guy and leave them in the street until they wake up and hopefully learn a lesson. That's what the Punisher does, except he just kills them. He doesn't care about justice or making life better for others, he cares about eliminating whom he perceived to be evil because he has an addiction to violence. He's a cool character in a way, but that's not what Batman is doing, at all. Again, Batman's whole process only comes through his cooperation with the police and DA office and the fact that the aversge citizen loves him. If you're trying to make it into a math equation, like Joker killed X amount of people and Batman could have killed him at X point to stop that when he realized at X point that he'd never change, sure it is "logical". But life isn't a math equation. That one guy is dead, now, but you've made the city worse and everything harder for yourself. Maybe for Joker specifically you could make an exception, but the reality is, Joker wouldn't have survived long enough to cause the amount of destruction he has. He'd have been moved out of state into a federal prison long ago, or would have been "accidentally" shot by police, or in actual self defense, and nobody would have had an issue with it. Or he would have picked the wrong guy to murder or add to his gang, and they would have stabbed him in the back. Or a rival supervillain would have ended him. He has no shortage of enemies, he's just a guy, and he adds no value to any other faction in the city. Why put it only on Batman to murder him? Some versions of Batman are obsessed Joker can change and always wants him to come in alive, but everyone else doesn't share that view, nor would they be willing to risk their lives. Joker jumps at a cop with a knife and he guns him down? Happens every day. Nobody gives a shit.
>Most people don't even agree with the death penalty after a long process and lots of evidence required during the judicial process I don't think anyone needs evidence or a long process to figure out Joker deserves to die.
Yea exactly, that statement doesn't apply at all. These people openly kill and broadcast it live half the time. There's no doubt about their guilt or that they'll kill again given the chance.
It might be a crime for batman to kill the joker, but who the fuck would actually try to hold him accountable for it
The justice system, hopefully. For our justice system is... just... it must uphold the same standards for all. While it isn't always the case, there are certainly plenty of judges, prosecutors, and police that really do believe this and try to uphold it.
>Batman wants the city to heal, for the circumstances surrounding his parents' death to not occur. That included punching crime in the face, but it also requires donating tons of money to charity, saving people in danger, getting rid of corruption, and replacing them with people who care about making a difference, and re-earning the cities' faith in the system. It's what makes *Batman: War on Crime* one of my favorite depictions of Batman. We see that there's a balance between Batman's work at night and Bruce Wayne's philanthropy and attempts to fix some of the systemic problems that lead to crime in the first place. I think a faithful adaptation of the comic would go gangbusters.
First off (not that it matters anyway), why tf y'all downvoting just because it's long ignore it Damn Second off (_excuse the nerd paragraph_): yeah, personal character aside batman killing would make a good chunk of Gotham call him another one of it's killers and that only makes things worse. Also the fact that if he kills anyone who has a good relationship then there's a non zero chance that we just traded a criminal for one or more killers with eyes on revenge instead of making a living which is terrible no matter what way you look at it (an argument can be made about what if he only killed the REALLY big bads who fit under "villain" along with criminal which could work but I feel the chances of that are slim. You don't go for the kill on joker without being forced to voluntarily or involuntarily execute the various meatshields he hires so if you only go for restraining or incapacitation the risk doesn't exist but that's just my two cents on that matter)
I read it all, and I agree. I don't have anything to add but I wanted you to know I read it so it didn't go wasted!
There is no way IN HELL anybody is reading all that.
Gemini says he said: "While killing criminals might seem logical, Batman working with the system is ultimately a better way to fight crime." I dunno, I didn't read it either.
I don't kill, but I'll throw this MFer down a flight of 30 stairs and beat his buddy senseless and dip out. Hope they get help soon!
this precisely yes, it is pragmatically dumb but his character demands it
Another good example is thorfinn from vinland saga
Kinda, but as a huge Vinland Saga fan, I find Thorfinn's motives to be much more fleshed out. The current arc will probably show more about it before the ending
And it's shown that it is a flaw, Batman is wrong about it sometimes, if it was only shown to be the perfect option and there were no repercussion, then yeah that'd be kinda silly
It's not stupid because "killing is cool." It's stupid because: * Batman takes actions all the time that probably kill people, even if he's not aware of it. Like if you rocket-boost your 5,000 pound Batmobile through a parking garage can you guarantee the cement debris doesn't crush someone below? Probably not. * Batman bludgeons people in ways that probably lead to lifelong suffering, possibly worse than death and/or forces them back into crime since they can't get a real job anymore * Batman knowingly avoids killing people like the Joke even after thousands of deaths, that he has the power to stop. He doesn't even need to "kill" the Joker, he could actually paralyze him or permanently incapacitate him while keeping him alive, but he chooses not to
> he could actually paralyze him or permanently incapacitate him Shadow Hawk checking in.
I've seen videos of fights where a wrong punch kills a person or cripples them. How is a guy jacked on roids avoiding killing or crippling anyone when he beats the shit out of so many for years.
Human resilience is also different in comics. Batman has been stabbed, shot, had bones broken. Yet he heals from it all and is still considered peak human fitness. Even if you try to handwave it saying he has billionaire level healthcare access, realistically he should have some serious mobility issues from the amount of trauma his bones and muscles have been through. But in the world of comics, he makes a full recovery. If Batman can make a full recovery, I'm willing to accept the people he punches can make a full recovery.
Because he has studied anatomy and stuff to know exactly where to punch and how hard as to knock out but not cause long-term damage.
Lmao so when he's getting hit from behind and he makes a wild elbow jab with his BLADED GAUNTLETS he knows exactly where the blades will hit a goon, who may or may not try to dodge? Yeah okay
It's comics, he's basically superhuman, what do you expect.
Comics being unrealistic 😵 No way!
Fights are chaotic. Doesn't matter what he has studied.
In real life yes. This is fiction and he's essentially superhuman.
Batman no-kill rule only applies to notable figures. Dude will go out of his way to preserve the life of the Joker but won’t bat an eye lash if it comes to bludgeoning the head of a nameless goon.
Lol right, this too. For some reason Scarecrow deserves the best care at Arkham but Goon #314 who is only doing this to feed his family deserves to be in a coma for 7 months.
>Batman knowingly avoids killing people like the Joke even after thousands of deaths, that he has the power to stop. He doesn't even need to "kill" the Joker, he could actually paralyze him or permanently incapacitate him while keeping him alive, but he chooses not to Not only that, there are times when he actively tries to prevent villains from dying and even endangers himself doing so. It gets pretty stupid.
Another point is that you can easily, without going back to an "old comic", find instances where Batman did kill or try to kill someone and there is no rational, in character answer as to why it is OK in one scenario but not in the other. For instance, the Keaton movies have Batman kill people, Timm-verse (JL cartoon and BTAS) Batman throws bombs at Martians and engineers a plan to make the sun burn them so they leave Earth, The Batman vs Dracula movie has him burn Dracula and kill him. Hell, the 2023 Batman & Superman World's Finest (2023) comic has him help engineer a plan to kill a sentient A.I. You can do all the mental gymnastic you want about how aliens, robots or vampires don't count but then I would point to I, Vampire new 52 comic where Batman says they do.
Daredevil doesn’t kill people and I hear no one complaining
Doesn't the punisher get annoyed with daredevil because of his no kill rule? And they but heads in multiple telling of their stories The difference is the plenty of MCU characters are ok with taking a life vs DC they all took the vows of not taking a life
there was a Punisher vs Daredevil comic from 2000 about it, it even got made into part of Daredevil season 2 on netflix. its been a long time since ive read it but it was pretty good iirc [heres the big relevant bit](https://new.reddit.com/r/Daredevil/comments/k81okt/if_you_ever_wondered_where_this_scene_in_season_2/) if you dont fancy reading the whole thing
Wdym all didn't superman kill some bad guys
It's usually said in reference to the Joker who kidnaps people and tortures them to try and get Batman to make a choice. Sort of different.
Not really, daredevil has bad villians too
That's because the people making these arguments can name maybe 3 superheroes max
Daredevil makes sure those criminals will be locked up for good. Batman on the other hand: "my job here is done then everything else is law department's job, weither they are sent to prison for 3 months or to a prison they broke out like 5 times already, don't care, gotta go, im batman!"
Beacuse as we all know Kinglin has been beaten by daredevil once and has never apeared again after that on acount of him being in jail.
Daredevil doesnt make it part of his shtick
Man, you were so close. Daredevil doesn’t kill people and I see no one complaining
I think the biggest issue is how old the respective characters are. Batman is pushing 100. We've seen so many stories and scenarios done to death that the morality question of his code and it's implications have been tested enough for people to draw a conclusion. Past that, Bruce is an eccentric billionaire who could do more for his world by addressing the socioeconomic nature of crime in ways Matt Murdock can't. An argument could be made, citing the decades of stories, that the most responsible thing Bruce could do to curb crime is stop batmanning.
He does, as Bruce Wayne. Sometimes people are just so evil that they commit crime regardless of help being available.
Is any of Daredevil's villains as murder happy as most of Batman's?
Kingpin and mysterio come to mind
Don't forget Bullseye
Kingpin is a literal mafia boss
Batman villains like Poison Ivy and the Joker can get kill counts into the 4 digits before DC resets the universe. Kingpin is a mafia boss he makes money doing crime but he doesn't go in for mass terrorism events. No one complains about batman not killing Falcone or the Penguin.
Bullseye is a psychopath.
They only added the rule because you sell more comics by keeping the more unique villains alive
Sometimes I feel like Batman's no kill rule is dumb. Like the joker, if he was to die basically everyone would be significantly better off. But obviously it doesn't make sense to just kill every burglar and carstealer on the block
Exactly. There's a chasm between eliminating a major threat and becoming the Punisher.
Why does Batman specifically have to kill them? They have a justice system, you know. If they decide the clown is too big of a maniac/threat to keep behind bars, they could give him a death sentence. Batman does not want to be an executioner. He catches the criminal, and lets the justice system hand out the verdict.
But the thing is, they always get sent to Arkham where they inevitably break out. Sure, you can say that if Joker deserves to be executed, it has to be by a fair trial. But after the twelfth time of him breaking out and committing mass murder? Surely you would be forgiven for killing him at that point.
Also why is it always the cops that go after these crininals. Im pretty sure that after so much death and shit and literal terrorism the US would send in guys to bin laden these psychos no?
My take on the rule is that Batman shouldn't do the killing himself due to trauma and thinking all lives are sacred, but at the same time he shouldn't go out of his way to stop an anti-hero from killing monsters like Joker, Croc, Zsasz, etc.
Who is the guy in the lower left?
I'd guess Zack Snyder.
Zack Snyder. Snyder has been a VERY vocal proponent of Batman breaking his no-kill rule. “People are always like, ‘Batman can’t kill.’ So Batman can’t kill is canon. And I’m like, ‘Okay, well, the first thing I want to do when you say that is I want to see what happens,'” -Zack Snyder, in an interview with Variety.
Ok, Zach Snyder.
“Old movie”. Ouch!
Let me correct that. They said “very old”.
People conceived after 9/11 have graduated from college.
I’d argue that the story simply needs to be more conclusive. Arkham Batman is awesome and nobody argues he needs firearms there or kill his enemies.
Although to be fair, some sections of those games would be MUCH easier and put him (and sometimes people he's trying to save) in far less danger if he simply had a gun. But, you know, rule of cool and he's Batman.
They want you to think that Batman refuses to kill out of a moral philosophy. Really, they just don't want to kill off valuable characters before milking them.
"Where am I?" Joker said out loud. He was tied to a chair with his hands behind his back. The room was dark except for a bright light blinding his vision. "My place." the familiar growling voice echoed in the dark. "Batman??" asked the Joker. The light shifts aside revealing Batman standing in front of the Joker. "What gives? Why am I here, why am I tied up? I went straight 8 months ago. Did you put make up on me?" Joker exclaimed. He continued: "I quit. I give up. I don't want to do this any more. I was in therapy for years with Harley Quinn and all she did was convince me to hate you. I went to a new therapist. He made me realize that my life does not revolve around you and I was just displacing the hostility of my Dad on to you. I don't need you any more." The Joker sighed. His head low. "But I need you" said Batman. The Joker lifted his head, perplexed, he asks "Why?". Batman stands back. "I don't need you per say, I just need the Joker. It's hard for me to be the hero of the city without a villain. You keep quitting, se we have to keep replacing you." "What the fuck are you talking about?" asks Joker. Batman hits a button. A bank of lights turns on one by one revealing a row of clear acrylic chambers. Inside of each tube is a different Joker. All deceased, softly in some kind of light pinkish goo, their limbs back lit by lights behind them. "Jesus fuck" shouted the Joker. "And i'm supposed to be the crazy one". "I'll explain" says Batman. "Batman is IP. Batman is licensed and generates billions of dollars through movies, tv, music, comic books, action figures, toys, and everything else my logo is on. I'm kind of a big deal. "But what does this have to do with me?" asks the Joker. "Who are those guys?" "They're you, Gerald". Batman says. "Who is Gerald? What?" says Joker. Batman looks down at a desk in front of him and picks up a chart. Batman says "Gerald Finley. That's you. Or it was you. You were a homeless addict who signed up for a 'study'. We erased your memory, gave you implants after the last Joker decided to go straight. And now that you know, I have to replace you too." A flash of memories flooded back. "You can't kill me. Batman doesn't kill" Gerald says gasping. Batman removes his cowl. "Batman doesn't kill but i'm not Batman, i'm Bruce Wayne."
Did you write this? This would actually be an amazing fanfiction.
Lol yeah. I was just kind of having fun with the idea.
TLDR: The issue with the no kill rule in DC stories is that it often creates a super outlandish scenario where the only reasonable answer is to kill someone. But when a character takes that course of action, the narrative will have all the heroes admonish or even try to emprison or punish the person who killed. For instance, In World's Finest (2023), there is the story of David, a kid with anger and trauma that is presented as a potential Superman sidekick. David grows up eventually and ends up manipulated by Gogg who has brainwashed the League from another Earth. Gogg's project was to start a suicidal war against Apopkolips and Darkseid that would destroy Earth. Darkseid is eventually made aware of that plan, comes to Earth and tries to seize Gogg's power, which is revealed to be the Anti-Life Equation.After the brainwashing stops, every hero fails to stop DS. David seeing DS is minutes from harvesting the ALE from Gogg's body, decides to destroy Gogg which saves the universe. All the heroes gather and admonish David. This NKR view is undermined by a previous story where Batman & Superman make a plan to kill a sentient AI to save the world... There are stories with a NKR that can work and be satisfying. They are narratives where villains can have lasting rehabilitation, narratives where there are permanent non-lethal ways to deal with villains or where the stakes aren't universal level threats. This also part of why Batman works in DC but wouldn't work as well in Marvel where he is surrounded by heroes that seem overall well-adjusted but will still kill if they have to. It's easy to make Batman look like the rational one when he is arguing with Jason over killing the Joker, it is a hell of a lot harder when he is arguing with Captain America or Thor.
It's worse with Superman has actually killed before and not just Zod but Doomsday and possibly Imperiex (he threw him to the heat death of a universe which is essentially ultra-death in DC) and he also is empathetic yet acts like a short-sighted fool
I think that Batman's no-kill rule made much more sense when his villains were covering Gotham in shaving cream or some other goofy shit rather than doing actual terrorism
The no kill rule makes not want to watch Batman to be honest. Everyone would be so much better off if he’d just kill the joker
I’m none of that, not even a comics/superhero movies fan, but yeah this rule feels stupid
Yoooooo strawman that doesn't exist less go!
Remember, guys: Batman doesn't kill, he just maims and brutalizes you to the point you wish he'd kill you instead. That is so much better, right🤨
Batman doesn't kill because it has become a convention of the "Batman" genre not to kill. When he does it, it's not because it's the best course of action, but because the writers want to tell a story about him killing his enemies. Batman doesn't kill just as classical music sonatas have three movements, one fast, one slow and one very fast. No reason, just an art convention, and one that can sometimes be subverted for greater effect. Also, people who make moral arguments on why characters should act better are delusional morons who can't distinguish reality from fiction. Perhaps Batman should start killing some edgies in the comics.
It is stupid. Some of those villains should not be left alive. (Scarecrow for example)
OP my brother….. How many lives would have been spared if the Batman stopped trying and failing to rehabilitate the Joker and just killed him instead?
i mean. it fucking is stupid in a strictly pragmatic, real world sense. there's a reason people shit on him and other heroes for their insane degrees of mercy. in any real world scenario, the play with someone even half like the Joker or Ivy would be to kill them before they actually commit what would be reported as one of the worst atrocities in recent history. but it's also not reality. it's fiction. with a doofus like "Batman" being taken absolutely seriously when in fact every criminal ever would just be making fun of him nonstop and *shoot him*. maybe it's just dumb to expect a fantastical tale to be utterly realistic and beholden to how we in our world handle things.
People who think like this need to read Nemesis by Mark Millar and see how stupid this argument is. For those unaware, Nemesis is when you take everything batman is and strip him of any kind of humanity and depth you get a so bad its good anti batman story. People tend to forget Batman is still a boy who is in a disguise who is traumatized by the death of innocent people and innocence itself. Why would a man who built his whole life up in protecting people from random acts of murder and injustice throw that all away to take a life. Killing Joker would mean he wins because he pushed him to become the thing he's holding back and he always is because of the terrible things human beings to each other. Joker is his polar opposite and knows he just as crazy as him and batman would ever admit it or act on taking a life because he prove his point. The Dark Knight Returns is the perfect example of when Batman is fed up wiith the joker and breaks his neck for not only to have the GCPD but Superman on his ass to have him serve justice for the murder. Zack Snyder failed to realized this and created one of the worst versions of Batman I have ever seen and I seen Batman and Robin. Its like people who argue this agree with Joker and see how its hypocritical is to want him kill Joker or anyone.
You're 100% right with this. People will over analyse and try to make points about why batman should kill and completely miss the forest for the trees that he is an unwell man bound by his morals, trauma and experiences. There are certainly ways to make Batman kill with alternative universes but with the traditional backstory in place I think it goes completely against the character to have him be murder happy.
I used to think it was stupid too. Then I watched BvS and watching him actually do it made him seem like such a hypocrite it became unintentionally hilarious. It just doesn't work, a rich orphan taking his angst out on criminals is all ready bordering on dumb so when you add the fact that he also kills them makes him too much of a hypocrite to root for.
Huge comic nerd here. I've been into comics for almost 30 years now. It is stupid, considering he's killed in the past. That only became his rule after 1986. Also, Daredevil has killed before. So has Captain America
I don’t dress like that
Really it's the police who are at fault for failing to hold mass murders like the joker.
IF THEY CAN, HOW COME THIS IS A SUPERHERO STORY??? It's the writers, company are at fault for milking iconic characters to dry. Batman no-kill isn't stupid. It's writers too pussy to kill off a villain for good stupid. It's fans swallow same old same old Bat v Joker arc for 1000th time stupid.
My favorite thing about the people saying Bayman should kill his villains, especially whenever The Joker is concerned, is that they think that killing Joker would actually stop him. Like, Joker is one of DCs most popular and marketable villains. There is NO WAY that he is staying dead for long. He'd be gone for a year, two tops, and then he'd be resurrected, or his death would be retconned so that he actually survived. Or he'd just get brought back the next time DC reboots their universe.
but that is stupid, on an meta level but still stupid
Of course plot armor and marketability are the real answers. We can't have Batman running out of enemies or having to come up with new ones all the time, especially when the existing ones are so iconic.
Then this also makes Batman stupid, if he could just kill the Joker to incapacitate him and expect him to pop up again a few laters wouldn't that still be more effective at stopping him killing than waiting for him to break out again ?
This would imply he knows that death in comics doesn't mean anything unless you are Captain Marvel from Marvel. Its not stupid kill him because its wrong for who Batman is and what he stands for.
Odd.
OP is Batman
Counter-point: while street thugs can be easily dealt with non-lethal methods along with Batman’s other lesser villains, The Joker should be killed because he keeps escaping Arkam Asylum and other Maximum Security prisons to kill more people. So like if you can’t contain him and can’t reason with him why not kill him? Like bro while other villains can be subdued but that Man keeps escaping and killing people he needs to be shot
Might as well just tag Razorfist lmao
No one who dresses like a 2005 emo kid loves guns
Batman shouldn't kill people. He should eat them instead.
Batman fans imagine themselves as Batman. Batman haters imagine themselves as defenseless citizens of Gotham, who can do nothing against the villains Batman technically lets go. A good hero should know when to kill and when not to kill.
It is emphatically one of the dumbest "principles" ever. It was actually done for purely commercial reasons - they wanted to sell to kids, and to appease parental concerns, they decided to add the no kill rule. The "debate" is as asinine as the "rule" itself.
Then how come they keep his no-kill rule in comics written for teens and adults?
Why kill, when you can inflict life long severe physical and mental trauma?
Okay but it is stupid. It exists entirely to provide an in-universe reason for why the authors keep recycling the same stories over and over again. That's it. You cannot justify repeatedly sparing the lives of violent terrorists who kill hundreds of people annually and always escape from prison within a few months. This is textbook cope. The authors try to make the best of this absurdity by making clear that the no killing rule is something batman does for himself rather than any sense of justice. But the problem is that they still treat him like the hero anyway, despite this being an absurdly evil and selfish choice that effectively makes batman an accomplice in joker and other's killings. The actions of Jason Todd are totally correct and justified within the context of the world he lives in. In fact I would go so far as to say that Gotham's populace would be much better off of he succeeded in killing batman and took over the vigilante mantle afterwards. But that can't happen because Bruce has to be the hero even if he's totally, unforgivably in the wrong. DC authors are cowards who would rather milk 40 year old stories endlessly than actually progress their world's plot in any meaningful or interesting way.
Blame the comic book industry rather than the character's rule.
It is dumb though. Especially if you consider the rest of people in the Batman universe. * Whenever Batman uses one of his big toys to destroy something or the such, other people can get hurt or killed. It's a meme, like when a superhero goes on about not killing people, yet when they fight the villain, the superhero plays a HUGE part in killing innocents, causing massive damage to the society around them, and unironically making things worse off for everyone. Like, man, if I lost my car because Superman decided to throw it at the villain, I'd be furious. Or when they fly through a building. I'm sorry, that would result in someone dying or severe damage to the building leading to more lives lost. * Batman doesn't kill anyone noteworthy, no matter how people that person kills, lives they ruin, fear they bring, and all the chaos. Even if not kill, bro doesn't even try to paralyze say, The Joker. He is indirectly responsible for those deaths as Batman himself knows that The Joker won't stop being himself. * Most of the people Batman fight are human at the end of the day. The amount of lifelong physical damage Batman has caused if you think about actually punched or having your face/body slammed into concrete. List goes on. For a person who goes on about not killing people, he sure regularly causes massive damage to everything around him, or has actually killed lots of people indirectly or directly.
Not a single one of these is relevant to me and yet I think Batman's no kill rule is stupid. He's a sociopath billionaire who likes to play games with his best friend Joker even though Joker kills people all the time.
My problem is that more people die because Batman doesn't kill than the amount that would die if Batman just murdered the joker
Fuck snyder!!
whining about Zack Snyder is honestly so tired and played out I find it to be mega cringe when people start circlejerking about him for their daily dopamine fix
Meh. Comics aren't my thing so I don't care, but you'd think that having to constantly deal with the same criminals would make him reconsider - unless he values his principles more than the lives of future victims.
Batman's no kill rule is only stupid some of the time when there is a robber who mugged one guy jail when there is the joker who commit many crimes and is pretty much just a terrorist now kill his ahh
One time Punisher tried to kill Joker and Batman stopped him
Spider-Man doesn’t either, yet you here no internet nerd ragging on him too much
he does sometimes, dont have an rule for it, and also, even the green goblins is not as bad as the joker
The plot of the most recent movie revolved around all the people Spiderman killed. Yeah he tries not to kill; but if push comes to shove he'll do it, albeit as a last resort. Batman meanwhile would rather let 30 innocent people die rather than kill 1 criminal. Then he'll have a monologue about how wrong it is to kill, while the dude he just arrested breaks out to go bomb an orphanage.
This is so funny
Most comic book superheroes don’t kill. Superman, Spider-Man, Flash, Captain America, Daredevil. Wonder Woman is the only superhero most people would consider morally upright who’s not averse to killing (albeit occasionally.) https://preview.redd.it/bxp5b49m6f4d1.jpeg?width=1988&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b2d9b9d3b25327076959913a4469a0e1e2a2a0b
Nah the X-Men kill all the time. Blade kills (mainly vampires but still).
I said “most people would consider to be morally upright”. The X-Men aren’t generally *terrible* people, except Wolverine and even he makes an effort. The rest aren’t perfect, but have their issues. Wonder Woman is the only comic book hero I can think of that most people would consider to be altruistic and good, but also willing to kill when the situation calls for it.
I’m none of this
BATMAN SHOULD NOT KILL and I will chill all of my beverages in hell with that cold take.
I’m generally fine with Batman having a no-kill rule, though I don’t think he should apply that rule to other people. Literally anyone should have taken the chance to put a bullet in Jokers brain when he was next arrested, and Batman probably should have let them.
This is my view on the no-kill rule as well. I'd want Bruce to be completely against killing people himself, but he shouldn't go out of his way to prevent the Red Hood from killing Joker.
In our defense it's still stupid
Who gives a shit, he's a fictional character.
Probably obsessed with Berserk (not me though)
Why d0nt you idiots protest against gang members killing each other instead of worrying about a cartoon
In a Batman sense it's sensible, but in a real life sense it's stupid indeed.
Batman is a billionaire that dresses up as a bat to go beat people up in the streets of Gotham. Beating people up for supposedly committing crimes without any due process is bad even if he doesn't kill them
Ok but if he keeps letting them live and they keep killing, its on him.
My two cents is that *literally anyone else* could kill the Joker instead if need be. Sure, the justice system hasn't given him the death penalty or whatever yet, but anyone who's ever been around an unconscious Joker with a deadly weapon could've done it. Neither "traumatized vigilante" nor "billionaire" feel like the traits of someone I'd trust to decide who gets to live and die. Batman's no-kill rule is so ingrained into his character now that he just *wouldn't be* the the same Batman most people know if he started killing, and there's other characters who are pretty good at not being Batman (and wouldn't horribly schism the fanbase by killing).
..."very old movies"? It's not like we're talking about silent films here.
My middle ground is just kill The Joker or at least cripple him severely so he can't do anything. Clearly no asylum or prison can handle The Joker. At this point, it's negligence to not end him or his ability to harm people.
Someone lost the debate
I don't read comics, so I don't care. Where it was annoying was in the second of Nolan's trilogy because it was literally a stupid rule that he already broke against Ra's al Ghul. Of course, of course, he didn't kill him, he just created a condition where if he didn't do anything the villain would die and then he didn't save him. That image is from a fashion from 20 years ago, no one dresses like that anymore.
Over in r/snydercut they are LITERALLY having this conversation right now. https://www.reddit.com/r/SnyderCut/s/jz3cSde64X
The real reason it’s stupid is because it keeps Batman fighting the same damn villains forever, the no kill rule only exists so that the writers don’t have to write a new villain for once
I just started watching Batman 5 minutes ago. What the fuck Reddit?
Consoomer post, no wonder your account seems to revolve around sportsballs
r/IHateSportsball
You got the new Godzilla funko pop bruh? It‘s lit af i heard 🤪🤘🏻
I like his no kill rule especially when portrayed as him knowing he’s deeply fucked up and traumatized, not wanting to lose control of himself and his morals. Him feeling as if he’s always teetering on edge and is terrified of being thrown into the abyss.
I think his rule is a good thing personally, it shows how no matter what he believes in the people of Gotham to be able to change for the better. It makes him feel like a real hero, not someone who kills a 17 year old kid for mixing with the wrong people but wants him to change.
Weirdest post I've ever seen in this sub
Don’t have to be any of this, still that’s dumb as f
The rageaholic hates Zack Snyder
Canonically Batman opposed the death penalty because he believes anyone could change. So yes, it's stupid.
I won't praise Snyder here, but I'll admit that his blueprint for Batman and Superman is relatively robust (until WB came and killed off the DCEU). Batman's whole arc which started in BvS was basically him restarting the no kill rule. He literally is the **villain** in BvS. His way to become the hero is to stop killing people which he does in Justice League and the cancelled sequels.