How do you feel about Batman's no killing rule?

[Weiss]

Well you got two answers.

One is that he doesn't kill because otherwise you can't use the supervillain who just starred in a billion dollar movie.

The other is that he doesn't have the responsibility of taking lives because it makes the unintentional fascist undercurrent to the character creep up just a little more.

 

[Clefargle]

It's fine as long as the villains aren't aware he won't kill them

 

[SamAlbro]

It's not Batman's responsibility to kill his villains. Especially considering he's already technically operating outside the law.

That the Joker hasn't just been put on Death Row is at the fault of the Gotham City criminal justice system. Hell, Joker might be the one instance where police brutality is totally justified and yet no cop in Gotham has the balls to just put two in the back of his head and dump him in the river.

Click to shrink...

Joker's a terrorist, so technically it's the Federal courts fault.


EDIT: Of course, because of the Justice League's ARGUS backing, Batman is technically a Federal Agent.

 

[Blue Skies]

How do they even send these criminals to court?
Wouldn't Batman be breaking a shitload of civil rights procedures in capturing these guys?

 

[Garlador]

Batman's best portrayals are not about stopping crime, but rehabilitating the broken, disturbed, and sick, because he knows he's JUST LIKE THEM. He KNOWS that donning a costume and spending his nights fighting crime isn't healthy, but he doesn't want to KILL the villains, because most of them aren't beyond saving. That was the strength of the animated series incarnation; he empathized with his villains.

("Bruce, you never give up on me, do you..."
"And I never will.")

("Why do you do it? Why risk your butt for someone who's never given you anything but trouble?"
"I had a bad day too once.")

That said, I may have a fondness for many heroes who occasionally kill, but "Batman" shouldn't kill. ...

Even one of my favorite DC characters proved that.

 

[The Adder]

He KNOWS that donning a costume and spending his nights fighting crime isn't healthy

Click to shrink...

I'm not a fan of this notion. There are a lot of things about the way that Bruce goes about his heroing that makes it incredibly unhealthy. The level of obsessiveness and the way he lets it consume his life.

But costumed heroics is a decades old, proud tradition in the DCU. Putting on a costume and fighting crime on DC's Earth isn't something just anyone does, but it isn't something only the broken do either.

 

[Rotobit]

Batman's best portrayals are not about stopping crime, but rehabilitating the broken, disturbed, and sick, because he knows he's JUST LIKE THEM. He KNOWS that donning a costume and spending his nights fighting crime isn't healthy, but he doesn't want to KILL the villains, because most of them aren't beyond saving. That was the strength of the animated series incarnation; he empathized with his villains.

("Bruce, you never give up on me, do you..."
"And I never will.")

("Why do you do it? Why risk your butt for someone who's never given you anything but trouble?"
"I had a bad day too once.")

That said, I may have a fondness for many heroes who occasionally kill, but "Batman" shouldn't kill. ...

Even one of my favorite DC characters proved that.

Click to shrink...

Yup this, Batman is a very empathetic character so it bums me out when there are depictions where he's just a murder man.

Dunno if I subscribe to the idea of him feeling as sick as the villains he faces, though. I've always viewed it more as "Gotham and the majority of its police force won't give these people the chance they need, I need to intervene before things get that bad." In most depictions, officers besides Jim Gordon (maybe) would shoot Joker on sight. People misjudging Gotham as just-your-average city where Bruce Wayne can casually pay for free housing and build mental health clinics are kinda missing the point.

 

[Acquiesc3]

It's stupid.

 

[UltimateHigh]

its one of the things that defines him, and that's good.

he shouldn't be turned into some vigilante murderer.

but comics are a never-ending merry-go-round that can't let go of it's villains, which ya know, makes rehabilitation and any sort of closed character arc seemingly impossible.

 

[Garlador]

Yup this, Batman is a very empathetic character so it bums me out when there are depictions where he's just a murder man.

Dunno if I subscribe to the idea of him feeling as sick as the villains he faces, though. I've always viewed it more as "Gotham and the majority of its police force won't give these people the chance they need, I need to intervene before things get that bad." In most depictions, officers besides Jim Gordon (maybe) would shoot Joker on sight. People misjudging Gotham as just-your-average city where Bruce Wayne can casually pay for free housing and build mental health clinics are kinda missing the point.

Click to shrink...

I'm not a fan of this notion. There are a lot of things about the way that Bruce goes about his heroing that makes it incredibly unhealthy. The level of obsessiveness and the way he lets it consume his life.

But costumed heroics is a decades old, proud tradition in the DCU. Putting on a costume and fighting crime on DC's Earth isn't something just anyone does, but it isn't something only the broken do either.

Click to shrink...

I think I may have sanded off the edges of the nuance of Batman's character by saying he's "unwell", just like his villains, or that he only fights crime out of mental trauma... which isn't altogether true, but not entirely false. Countless costumed heroes were given amazing super powers, and "with great power comes great responsibility". Batman is just a dude with no powers at all. He's trained hard and is smart and has money, but none of that is the big "imbued with great power" moment that usually transforms an average citizen into a demi-god of heroism. And, unlike most superheroes who became heroes simply because it was the right thing to do, his entire crime-fighting career is based on childhood trauma and the guilt and pain of losing his parents.

But even he knows his methods are also not healthy.

Batman can't "turn it off" and that's what makes him so driven, dangerous, and also self-destructive.

It gets to the point in the animated series (particularly in Batman Beyond) where even he acknowledges this, to the point he

It's also why there are some real good episodes dedicated to exploring whether Batman should be an inmate in Arkham Asylum along with all the other costumed criminals.

 

[The Adder]

Countless costumed heroes were given amazing super powers, and "with great power comes great responsibility". Batman is just a dude with no powers at all. He's trained hard and is smart and has money, but none of that is the big "imbued with great power" moment that usually transforms an average citizen into a demi-god of heroism

Click to shrink...

A good chunk of the original JSA were just dudes, is the thing. That's what I meant by it being a long and proud tradition. Plenty of other currently operating heroes just have tech or combat training and their wits, and I don't just mean the BatFamily.

"He goes out in a costume and fights crime without super powers" being indicative of his trauma isn't just missing the context of the world he lives in, it's missing a lot of the texture of what makes Batman in particular interesting from a psychological standpoint.

It's not that Bruce turns his vast fortune towards costumed crime fighting, plenty of millionaires and billionaires in DC have done that. As have average Joes like Ted Grant.

It's that Bruce doggedly pursues a childhood dream that he knows to be impossible, often to his own detriment.

Batman doesn't exist to fight injustice.

He exists to stop injustice. Period.

 

[Garlador]

A good chunk of the original JSA were just dudes, is the thing. That's what I meant by it being a long and proud tradition. Plenty of other currently operating heroes just have tech or combat training and their wits, and I don't just mean the BatFamily.

"He goes out in a costume and fights crime without super powers" being indicative of his trauma isn't just missing the context of the world he lives in, it's missing a lot of the texture of what makes Batman in particular interesting from a psychological standpoint.

It's not that Bruce turns his vast fortune towards costumed crime fighting, plenty of millionaires and billionaires in DC have done that. As have average Joes like Ted Grant.

It's that Bruce doggedly pursues a childhood dream that he knows to be impossible, often to his own detriment.

Batman doesn't exist to fight injustice.

He exists to stop injustice. Period.

Click to shrink...

Right. He's a walking contradiction, wanting to bring about the impossible, but not stopping until the impossible happens.

"I see now there's a need for what you do. But I'm still going to work towards a city that doesn't need Batman."
"Me too."

 

[Wag]

It defines the character and it's one of the things that makes him most interesting.

If someone doesn't like it, I'm not sure why they'd even consider themselves a Batman fan.

Click to shrink...

I don't get it either.

If Batman killed he wouldn't be Batman. That's the whole point.

 

[squeakywheel]

When your cockroach problem keeps happening, sometimes you ought to exterminate unless you really like 'em. What bugs me is whatever state Gotham is in has no death penalty.

 

[MikeBreezy92]

Back when Arrow season 1 was new I found it refreshing that he killed a lot of the villains.

Then season 2 IMMEDIATELY changed him to a Batman style no-killing philosophy. Thankfully he would make exceptions on occasion, but it was still disappointing.

Click to shrink...

Well about that....

Spoiler: Spoilers for Arrow

So yeah. Season 5 was all about that. Oliver's penchant for killing in Season 1 almost killed everyone he loved (tbh it should have) but yeah. Arrow actually has a pretty nuanced look at how killing isn't really a end all answer. Killing Ra's and Dhark just ended up with more villains (Talia in S5 and Baby Dhark in Legends caused a lot of problems.) Not killing Chase actually was the better option since the entire point was to get Oliver to ruin his life. So people in the thread going killing is better in the "it gets rid of your enemies" sense is kinda wrong.

 

[Gundam]

how does it make more sense with superman?? It's even less realistic with him! He's so powerful that accident must happen all the time with him

Click to shrink...

Superman is more often portrayed as a true paragon of good, it's more in line with who he is as a character imo.

 

[psynergyadept]

It's noble I guess....

if it were me I'd be clapping folks like the Joker a long time ago.

 

[The Adder]

Superman is more often portrayed as a true paragon of good

Click to shrink...

So is Bruce.
You're mistaking "good" for "nice" here.

 

[Gundam]

So is Bruce.
You're mistaking "good" for "nice" here.

Click to shrink...

Youre mistaking what I'm saying.

Superman is more often portrayed [compared to Batman] as a true paragon of good.

I feel like "yo Batman you're actually kind of messed up" is much more common than with Superman

 

[Dennis8K]

I don't want to see a Batman that kills. Except maybe in super rare cases where it is necessary to save a lot of people.

Batman that kills is just another edgy Punisher-type character.

Batman has a strong code and conscience and while it may require some suspension of disbelief it is also what makes him interesting.

 

[DragonSJG]

Ok, I see people quoting the animated series and I agree with it fully. Harley's Holiday is one of my favorite episodes and I love that depiction of Batman.
I need to clarify something. I'm not saying Batman should be like the Punisher and kill at first instinct. I was saying it can be flawed in difficult situations and there can be times when it has to be lenient

 

[The Adder]

Ok, I see people quoting the animated series and I agree with it fully. Harley's Holiday is one of my favorite episodes and I love that depiction of Batman.
I need to clarify something. I'm not saying Batman should be like the Punisher and kill at first instinct. I was saying it can be flawed in difficult situations and there can be times when it has to be lenient

Click to shrink...

The only argument for Batman to kill is when he can't take someone in without further casualties without killing them whereas he could if he did kill them. In any other situation it is on the authorities or the justice system over to which Batman hands his capture to, if they feel justified in doing so, end that person's life.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I'm so confused right now..... Wasn't most of ERA against the death penalty?
yet almost everyone here seem to be ok with a billionare vigilante acting as cop/judge/executioner?
On Mentally ill people no less!

Click to shrink...

I dont think anyone here is against the idea of using deadly force against an active threat like armed gunmen or evil geniuses with super powers.

also we dont have asylums that have escapees getting out every month.

 

[Garlador]

Youre mistaking what I'm saying.

Superman is more often portrayed [compared to Batman] as a true paragon of good.

I feel like "yo Batman you're actually kind of messed up" is much more common than with Superman

Click to shrink...

There's a reason Batman admits this too.

 

[rein]

Are the Arkham games canon?

I think it's a naive rule, not everyone can be rehabilitated (especially in Gotham).

 

[Akela]

So Batman is famous for his absolute refusal to kill, no matter the situation. While good in principle, there are times when I feel this rule can be absolutely ridiculous. Like in Arkham Knight Shadow War, one option has him refusing to kill Ra's despite the man being a zombie at this point and not really living, which results in the death of an actual human being. So I feel like this rule has flaws in situations and was wondering, what do you think?

Click to shrink...

I remember watching The Dark Knight and it's sequel and didn't even know about this "rule" until much later on. If "no killing" is supposed to be the cornerstone of his character then they certainly seam to forget about that in the films. I mean in basically every fight scene he beats up bad guys to the point where they might as well be dead, and certainly would be dead if this was real life. He's certainly not a pacifist.

Edit: about that rule...

 

[Falchion]

It's dumb considering he has probably killed thousands of people with CTE from those punches to the face or internal bleeding.

 

[Soj]

I remember watching The Dark Knight and it's sequel and didn't even know about this "rule" until much later on. If "no killing" is supposed to be the cornerstone of his character then they certainly seam to forget about that in the films. I mean in basically every fight scene he beats up bad guys to the point where they might as well be dead, and certainly would be dead if this was real life. He's certainly not a pacifist.

Edit: about that rule...

Click to shrink...

The movies are a terrible representation of the character across the board.

It's funny, Youtube kill count videos are exactly how Zack Snyder rationalized his awful take on Batman.

 

[deimosmasque]

Why don't cops just shoot criminals who have killed someone . Don't they realize that every death that person causes after that is their fault?

 

[Calvarok]

its just his way of trying to feel like he's not just a glorified cop. he still is.

having an explicit rule that's phrased that way is the hallmark of a psychopath.

 

[Pau]

I'm not a fan of this notion. There are a lot of things about the way that Bruce goes about his heroing that makes it incredibly unhealthy. The level of obsessiveness and the way he lets it consume his life.

But costumed heroics is a decades old, proud tradition in the DCU. Putting on a costume and fighting crime on DC's Earth isn't something just anyone does, but it isn't something only the broken do either.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for this post. This is one of the most annoying takes on Bruce.

 

[VeryHighlander]

It's the best part about Batman imo

 

[sfedai0]

If he kills, hes out of a job.

 

[The Vathlonian]

Its perfect. it's really only movies that have pushed this idea so hard that killing the bad guy rights the wrong. When in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Killing the villain is such a lazy ending. I see Batman as someone who is trying to help his city but not at the cost of his soul. Killing isn't what he's there for. Once you rationalize killing one irredeemable asshole it gets too easy to rationalize the next one. Then you end up like The Punisher or Arrow where you have a higher body-count than the criminals you're chasing because there is no shortage of seemingly irredeemable assholes. I wouldn't want a police officer out there delivering final justice at his whim and I don't want Batman doing it either. Save it for the courts.

 

[regenhuber]

IMO it's just a sensible way to make the show go on.

In most Batman media there will be a point where Batman could totally kill the villain.
If he did it, they would have to come up with new villains all the time.

we all need the "Batman vs Joker" eternal rivalry in our lives.

 

[YourFriendLevi]

He wants to fight Gotham's corruption, plus killing someone means he believes some people are incapable of rehabilitation. He wants to believe in the justice system and that there's an inherit good in people. Not to mention he'd become the most wanted character in Gotham if he was executing civilians instead of leaving them in a position to be apprehended by authorities.

I loved the end of Arkham City where you could see there was this sort of devastation when he couldn't save the Joker from himself.

I also love that Telltale Bruce Wayne puts mental health and law reform at the top of his priority list.

 

[Darkspellmaster]

Bruce first and foremost is a detective. He's not like Steve rRogers, and doesn't rely solely on hunches. The best writers realize and remember that he solves crimes and mysteries, so him killing people makes no sense. His goal is two fold.

1. To ensure that no other child has to go though what he did.

2. To get help for those that desperately needed it. See Harvey, Selena, Ivy, Harley, Penguin, Edward, for example of characters that got reformed by the system.

In several incarnations we see him actively helping others who are former henchmen of career criminals and the mob. One episode of BtAs had it where Dick is mad at him for beating up a guy in front of his kid. By the end we learn that the guy stuck with being in jail, met with Bruce's friend that works there as a social worker and therapist and he turned his life around because he didn't want his kid to see him as a bad guy. And, when he was out of jail, Bruce's company hired him as a night guard and is paying for classes for him so he can eventually move up in the ranks as a manager for the security team.

That is who Bruce is. Even Joker, he feels for him and wants him to get better.

There was the whole first victimthing in the comics and the take away from bruce was he needed to make sure that citizens had a way to get compensated for Batman's actions, and I think he set up a fund to help pay for damages.

How can he help others if he's killing them? Too many people only look at him in one way and totally miss the nuance of his character.

 

[Min]

Do the comics ever go into the hypocrisy of this mainly self-serving creed? I feel him not killing people is mostly self-service and makes both his vigilantism and billionaire tycoon status justifiable and philanthropic.

 

[Weiss]

Do the comics ever go into the hypocrisy of this mainly self-serving creed? I feel him not killing people is mostly self-service and makes both his vigilantism and billionaire tycoon status justifiable and philanthropic.

Click to shrink...

They haven't because making one of pop culture's most beloved characters into a mentally deranged One Percenter wouldn't fly well.

 

[Min]

They haven't because making one of pop culture's most beloved characters into a mentally deranged One Percenter wouldn't fly well.

Click to shrink...

I'd think there'd be a few issues where someone turns an inward eye on the comic's history.

 

[Pau]

Do the comics ever go into the hypocrisy of this mainly self-serving creed? I feel him not killing people is mostly self-service and makes both his vigilantism and billionaire tycoon status justifiable and philanthropic.

Click to shrink...

One of his kids calls him out on the no-kill rule. Bruce knows it's self-serving, and he's (somewhat) okay with other people killing in particular contexts.

Too many people only look at him in one way and totally miss the nuance of his character.

Click to shrink...

I'm going to guess that most people don't even know about this because it's not entertaining enough to put into the movies and video games, and they have no context for the character beyond that.

I don't know what people expect. Hollywood isn't going to make a movie about Bruce setting up his charities, hiring the low-level mooks he encounters, making sure that Gotham's public institutions run, etc. Even the comics only show it every now and then because that's not the genre.

 

[Weiss]

I'd think there'd be a few issues where someone turns an inward eye on the comic's history.

Click to shrink...

You might as well as why nobody figures out Clark Kent is Superman because of the glasses.

 

[Kurdel]

Batman's best portrayals are not about stopping crime, but rehabilitating the broken, disturbed, and sick, because he knows he's JUST LIKE THEM. He KNOWS that donning a costume and spending his nights fighting crime isn't healthy, but he doesn't want to KILL the villains, because most of them aren't beyond saving. That was the strength of the animated series incarnation; he empathized with his villains.

("Bruce, you never give up on me, do you..."
"And I never will.")

("Why do you do it? Why risk your butt for someone who's never given you anything but trouble?"
"I had a bad day too once.")

That said, I may have a fondness for many heroes who occasionally kill, but "Batman" shouldn't kill. ...

Even one of my favorite DC characters proved that.

Click to shrink...

All of this.

The notion that he doesn't kill is why I like him.

I also loved his reaction when Swamp Thing used him to find and get revenge on his fathers killer in The Brave and the Mold Batman annual

 

[SavoyPrime]

I know it's tradition. But I always thought it was pretty dumb. He keeps himself a necessary figure in Gotham though by doing what he does. Capture them. They go to Arkham. Break out. Rinse and repeat. If he kills them, I guess he would run out of villains and actually clean up Gotham. Then he would be forced to live his billionaire lifestyle 24/7. Woe is him lol