Results 1 to 15 of 34

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Astonishing Member Electricmastro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,671

    Default How against are you regarding Batman using deadly force?

    When Batman fights criminals, I’m not necessarily saying he has to kill them to defeat them, but in regards to using deadly force and self-defense in such a way that may possibly be necessary when dealing with especially dangerous and hostile criminals so as to attempt to defend himself, the society he protects, and serve justice to the best of his ability, even at the risk of, if only accidentally, leading to the criminal’s death, then what would your thoughts be on that?
    Last edited by Electricmastro; 05-24-2020 at 10:58 PM.

  2. #2
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,852

    Default

    Usually, writers manage to avoid those situations, or if they come up, his response is controlled and nuanced enough to avoid actually killing them, or the story cashes in on the drama of saving them, or blows by it just insisting he succeeded.

    There have been times where various media have shown him going through extremely dubious “less than lethal”/“genuinely lethal, but he has a backup plan” strategies: Arkham Origins has him flat out stop Bane’s heart before resuscitating him afterwards, the Dark Knight Trilogy had him make hard choices that resulted in deaths (leaving Ra’s on the train, tackling Two-Face off the roof to save Gordon’s son, flat out shooting Talia’s truck), and Under the Hood had him slicing open Jason’s neck to rescue Joker (the movie version realized blocking his gun barrel would make more sense given their history.)

    If he has a specific person to safe that requires more dramatic action, he should take it, but I’ll be honest - unless a writer has a plan to tackle a resulting death as a years long storyline detail and issue and avoid going for anything cheap with an actual death.
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  3. #3
    Mighty Member Bat-Meal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,686

    Default

    As a general rule I prefer that he not go over-the-top because I prefer to see him as more of a hero than anti-hero - Red Hood, and occasionally Batwoman, are the black-sheep of the Batfamily who take things further from time to time.

    I'm not overly fussed though, as it depends on the artistic direction that's been taken with the character and setting. As long as they keep it consistent and don't make me hate him, I'm pretty happy.

    But if he does get excessive, there has to be a good reason, not simply to look 'badass' - because that just makes him a psycho IMO.

  4. #4
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,398

    Default

    Batman is the one superhero with whom a non-negotiable "no killing rule" still makes sense. He thinks being a killer, even for a 'good cause' makes him no better than Joe Chill. Ultimately, his goal is to be an agent for the justice system, not judge, jury and executioner - the one thing that sets him apart from being a full-blown 'vigilante'. His working with Commissioner Gordon and the GCPD also makes a lot more sense if he's not a killer. You can buy the GCPD working with a costumed crime-fighter in a world full of superheroes - not so much them working with a guy who's a murderer several times over.

    The extent to which I'm okay with Batman causing deaths is if they are a result of collateral damage. Or if he fails to save someone. At most, if he chooses not to save someone. Or if he acts in a way to save other innocent lives. But he shouldn't actively try to kill anyone.

    Then again, there can always be exceptions, as long as the story is compelling.

  5. #5
    Extraordinary Member Restingvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    9,574

    Default

    I'm listing canon that I know

    Batman knows how to use firearms and he taught the same to Robin so they know the power of the weapon of the enemies, but refuses to use it since it's the weapon that killed his parents. It's personal.

    However, that doesn't mean he won't be tempted from time to time. Such as when he used Joe Chill's gun to hunt The Reaper since he couldn't beat him with his training, though he decided against it in the end, or actually shooting Darkside since the fate of the universe is at stake.

    Batman is also very emotional when it comes to people closest to him. He's always tempted to finish off his enemy whenever his lovers or family's life is on the line.
    He actually wanted to kill Joker after Jason died and only stopped by Superman and the fact that their chopper was heading towards the ocean anyway.
    He's about to shoot Alexander Luthor, beat up Lex Luthor without holding back, and leave KG Beast with only a really slim chance of survival, all of them when Dick almost died.
    He wanted to kill Joker when he thought he shot Tommy Elliot and remembering everything he did, to Jason, Barbara, and Sarah Essen, only stopping after Jim, who suffered as much as he did in the hands of Joker, stopped him.
    He left Mad Hatter to drown for torturing and killing his love interest Natalya Trusevich and only came back after Alfred begged him.

    He locked KGBeast to die the first time because he couldn't beat him, and though he came back on second thought, it's explained as him still emotional over Jason. That he no longer cares.

    All of those make sense to me. So emotional compromise is the main reason. Running out of option is another.

    He will not gleefully shoot or kill people.
    Batman Returns throwing that huge circus guy strapped with dynamite to the sewers is a big no.
    Batman Begins he will capture Ra's instead of leaving him in a runaway train and expose his crime

    He will not deliberately kill people if he can avoid it.
    Batman Forever throwing coins to distract Two-Face he will do, but he will catch his foot with his grapple before Harvey hits the bottom, similar to how he saved Joker at the end of The Dark Knight. Although he may run out of grapples after saving Robin and Dr. Chase Meridian.
    The Dark Knight assuming he's wounded and without grapple, it's acceptable to push Harvey off since James Jr.'s life is on the line.

  6. #6
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    I'm not against it. It's just a relic from the old Comics Code. I mean, I'm not saying Batman should kill, I'm saying I wouldn't give a fudge.

  7. #7
    Ultimate Member Riv86672's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    11,141

    Default

    Batman shouldn’t kill.

  8. #8
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    I'm not against it. It's just a relic from the old Comics Code. I mean, I'm not saying Batman should kill, I'm saying I wouldn't give a fudge.
    Batman abandoned the use of guns and I believe killing in general before the Comics Code even came into effect.

    He was going on weird adventures with Robin fairly quickly in his career.

Posting Permissions

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