How against are you regarding Batman using deadly force?

[Restingvoice]

Yeah, and those Nazi killing pages I had posted earlier were probably the first time he had been willing to use especially deadly force in a long time, which was quite a change in direction I’m sure. It was also around that time he had been willing to:

Shoot an arrow through a vampire’s heart (Detective Comics #455, January 1976):

Oh yeah. The vampire one. After it's been established he doesn't kill, Batman has no problem with undead since they're already dead.

He did get tricked once when a vampire sire looks like an innocent little boy and stopped Andrew Bennet from killing him.

[Wrestler]

Not against at all. If he had killed Joker or Two-Face already, he would have avoided hundreds or thousands of other murders. He knows they will get locked in Arkham, but he knows they will escape, they always does. He is not so much of a problem solver, he acts when they act. They kill, he goes, beats them up, they get arkham time, escapes and the cycle continues. It feels to me he doesn't kill because of what happened to his parents, at the end, he does what it's best for him because of a fact that happened to him when he was a kid, not what's best for Gotham or the World.

[Bad Witch]

I'm not against batman killing but it has to be used right in the right story. If it's just him killing for killings wake in a bad run than no. It has to be done right.

[John Venus]

Regarding vampires, zombies or getting involved in war time situations. My main issue is that they never delve into the obvious internal conflict that would arise from it. He just does it like any other action hero would even though it contradicts the no-kill rule. Maybe show him weighing the situation, considering alternatives then deciding to off the vampire/zombie/whatever and later on swearing it will be the last time he does this.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Batman is already a walking, talking civil rights violation. Even if people can't cite the exact statutes, we all know this.

Batman killing, or allowing people to die when he could easily save him, would take suspension of disbelief too far, IMO.

I'd rather they just stop pointing out the practical effects of his non kill rule. I'm tired of heroes always catching shade.

[SiegePerilous02]

Batman is already a walking, talking civil rights violation. Even if people can't cite the exact statutes, we all know this.

Batman killing, or allowing people to die when he could easily save him, would take suspension of disbelief too far, IMO.

I'd rather they just stop pointing out the practical effects of his non kill rule. I'm tired of heroes always catching shade.

I feel like they could stand to tone down the violence Batman dishes out, I vastly prefer a Batman who is more controlled and doesn't pursue extreme violence unless absolutely necessary. that includes some of his intimidation techniques. I'd also like them to have the villains break out less frequently and leave much less of a trail of bodies in their wake. Remember when the Joker used to be clever and need to bump off people left and right?

All of which would be far preferable to having Batman start killing. I feel like any uncomfortable readings of the character that we get in post-Frank Miller land would be even worse if he stared killing the mental patients or throwing them into his on Bat-Gulag because he doesn't trust the authorities to keep them contained. It wouldn't stop criticisms of the character, it might make them worse.

I too do grow tired of the "superheroes, especially Batman, would not solve anything in real life" stance. Like no ****, that's why it's fantasy. But the comics could stop feeding into it with the pretentious deconstructive takes that don't actually solve anything. Unless you're gonna have Batman start considering lethal force, don't have other characters keep bringing it up. It's not a revolutionary observation at this point.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I'd just like to point out the obvious too.

If Batman killed, we'd still have Joker, Scarecrow and the rest around. Batman willing to kill just means that whatever villain gets killed, would just get a contrived resurrection in a year, at most.

I'd rather writers stop acting like a huge body count gives drama and stop invoking the elephant in the room.

[Ascended]

I think Batman is probably one of the few heroes at DC where a hard-line stance against lethal force still makes any sense. And in the modern age, I think he's about the only guy who hasn't broken that rule. Him and Barry Allen maybe.

I have no problem with heroes in general using lethal force, but I don't want Bruce to. The logical choice would be to kill the Joker and Two-Face and the other lunatics before they can commit more mass murders, that'd be the better option. But I like the fact that Bruce just can't bring himself to do it. Considering that DC writes him now as an obsessive compulsive, emotionally (if not physically) abusive control freak with virtually no redeeming qualities of any kind, the fact that he refuses to be a killer is one of the few things about Batman that can be respected....even if Gotham would be a lot better off if he did.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think Batman is probably one of the few heroes at DC where a hard-line stance against lethal force still makes any sense. And in the modern age, I think he's about the only guy who hasn't broken that rule. Him and Barry Allen maybe.

I have no problem with heroes in general using lethal force, but I don't want Bruce to. The logical choice would be to kill the Joker and Two-Face and the other lunatics before they can commit more mass murders, that'd be the better option. But I like the fact that Bruce just can't bring himself to do it. Considering that DC writes him now as an obsessive compulsive, emotionally (if not physically) abusive control freak with virtually no redeeming qualities of any kind, the fact that he refuses to be a killer is one of the few things about Batman that can be respected....even if Gotham would be a lot better off if he did.

Yeah, I might be more open to Batman using lethal force if necessary if they were going to significantly tone down everything else, but I don't trust or expect DC to do it.

But then, I'm in a "f*** it, burn the Bat-Continuity to the ground and start over so we can get a new Batman without baggage" mode right now. I can't think of much worth holding onto anymore currently.

[Ascended]

But then, I'm in a "f*** it, burn the Bat-Continuity to the ground and start over so we can get a new Batman without baggage" mode right now. I can't think of much worth holding onto anymore currently.

Other than all the kids?

I admit, there isn't much happening with Bruce that I'm overly interested in; the marriage to Selina, Alfred dead.....I got nothing against a "next phase of life" direction, and I'm enjoying what Bendis is doing with Superman, which is along those same lines, but what I'm hearing isn't clicking for me with Batman. Though I haven't read much of Tynion's new run so maybe he could change my mind....but I figured I'd wait for reviews and trade wait.

But I'd rather not lose Damian, Tim, Jason, Kate, Cass, or adult Dick Grayson.

[SiegePerilous02]

Other than all the kids?

I admit, there isn't much happening with Bruce that I'm overly interested in; the marriage to Selina, Alfred dead.....I got nothing against a "next phase of life" direction, and I'm enjoying what Bendis is doing with Superman, which is along those same lines, but what I'm hearing isn't clicking for me with Batman. Though I haven't read much of Tynion's new run so maybe he could change my mind....but I figured I'd wait for reviews and trade wait.

But I'd rather not lose Damian, Tim, Jason, Kate, Cass, or adult Dick Grayson.

It's not even just recent events; there isn't much in post-COIE-to-present canon for Bruce that I would lose much sleep over being tossed out and getting a fresh start. I don't want to be miserable while I'm reading Batman himself, and I'm not especially interested in the rest of the Bat-clan enough to make a reboot not seem at least a little appealing. There is a lot of stuff with Dick, Kate, Damian (at least Morrison and Seeley's Damian) and the Birds of Prey cast that I love, but we're so far removed from it that there isn't much to immediately look forward to anyway.

Maybe they could do partial "Bat-family canons are the same, Bruce's canon is rebooted and he was never an extreme *******" reboot, but they've never been good at those

[Swallowtail]

It's not even just recent events; there isn't much in post-COIE-to-present canon for Bruce that I would lose much sleep over being tossed out and getting a fresh start. I don't want to be miserable while I'm reading Batman himself, and I'm not especially interested in the rest of the Bat-clan enough to make a reboot not seem at least a little appealing. There is a lot of stuff with Dick, Kate, Damian (at least Morrison and Seeley's Damian) and the Birds of Prey cast that I love, but we're so far removed from it that there isn't much to immediately look forward to anyway.]
Maybe they could do partial "Bat-family canons are the same, Bruce's canon is rebooted and he was never an extreme *******" reboot, but they've never been good at those

Conceptually very difficult to do, likely it just removes a bunch of people's favourites and send us spiralling back into the umpteenth Year One retread. It doesn't solve your essential problem of "Batman is a jerk". Only good writing that is invested in doing so is going to fix that. But lifting what seems to be an editorially mandated restriction on when and how certain characters are used might help, as would the various writers of the Batbooks just talking to each other, which might remove some of the unfortunate implications.

[babyblob]

Why is Batman the only hero we debate the no kill rule with? Other heroes have mass murdering villains. Some of those villains are world or even cosmic threats yet we dont debate the no kill rule with them.

My problem with heroes killing is it is lazy writing more often then not. Cant find a way to beat a villain? Just kill him. Need a cheap hook for an emotional story, have a hero who has a no kill rule struggle with the idea of killing a foe.

[SiegePerilous02]

Conceptually very difficult to do, likely it just removes a bunch of people's favourites and send us spiralling back into the umpteenth Year One retread. It doesn't solve your essential problem of "Batman is a jerk". Only good writing that is invested in doing so is going to fix that. But lifting what seems to be an editorially mandated restriction on when and how certain characters are used might help, as would the various writers of the Batbooks just talking to each other, which might remove some of the unfortunate implications.

We wouldn't need a Year One retread. We all know the origins by now, they could take a BTAS approach and just set it somewhat early on in Batman's career and go forward. No origins necessary.

Batman being written as a jerk would still be a problem, so we ultimately need to make sure writers are on board with not writing him that way. But doing that in mainstream canon as is does require ignoring a lot of terrible OOC moments for him that added up, and some fans and writers simply don't want to let that go. I'd prefer no baggage at all.

I personally don't care about ditching the various spin-off characters since I don't care for most of them anyway, but thankfully I have no power to do that. I'm just bitching

[Ascended]

Maybe they could do partial "Bat-family canons are the same, Bruce's canon is rebooted and he was never an extreme *******" reboot, but they've never been good at those

Uh, you're killing me man. You know DC could never do something like that and make it anything other than terrible.

Why not just have writers stop handling Bruce like the worst human ever and pretend everything else didn't happen?

I gotta say, I'd rather have Nightwing than a rebooted, nicer Batman. If my choices are "Bruce is a douche but we have Nightwing" or "Bruce is back to his Bronze Age coolness and Dick is de-aged" I'll suffer the Bat-ass and keep adult Nightwing.

Why is Batman the only hero we debate the no kill rule with? Other heroes have mass murdering villains. Some of those villains are world or even cosmic threats yet we dont debate the no kill rule with them.

Superman gets it a lot too. And I think they're about the only heroes at DC left who still have no-kill codes (even if Superman breaks that rule a lot more often than people realize).

Barry doesn't kill (outside of that one time in pre-Crisis) but it doesn't seem to be a "code" for him so much as it's just he doesn't want to and hasn't been put in a situation where it's his only option.