Joker war

[Frontier]

The only reason Batman doesn’t kill is the Joker is then writers would be required to come up with new villains. That Batman doesn’t kill a maniac like the Joker makes no sense. When books were aimed at children I could understand but not now. This is adult material so let him get his hands dirty. It doesn’t make him less a hero. It just shows he has a breaking point.

Creating new villains is hard.

It's not about making sense in the normal sense but a matter or principle. If Batman broke his principles he would probably break himself as a hero or what he perceives Batman to be.

[Stanlos]

Thing is "the book" allows for lethal force under certain circumstances (for cops, anyway). Batman is way further than that (at times) in his non-killing mentality. And also, I don't like Gordon shaping Bruce to that degree. Bruce should be Batman for a good while (months at least, and maybe a couple years) before he and Gordon are that close, before he has that degree of respect for him. So if Batman was killing then, they wouldn't have progressed to that friendship if Gordon was so very against it. Not to mention that Batman does 406 things every night that are completely against "the book."

I really am A-okay with heroes never killing because they always find another way to win. I don't care if it's unrealistic. But they have taken Bruce really to the point of ridiculousness because of the need for grittiness and bloodshed in the comic. Where he won't kill an actively murdering person even to save multitudes of innocents, and so the innocents die. That's not heroic. I understand if someone just can't do it, but that's not a thing that deserves praise as valuing life or something. Really, he's sometimes been to such an extreme degree about it that it's just another manifestation of his emotional/mental unhealthiness to me.

I understand the no-killing thing. People should not go around killing folks. It is as simple as that. I could see bending a bit in self-defense; but with people on the BatGodPrepTime train is there ever really a time when his back will be against the wall like that? Readers will rend the story to shreds (just look at WW219--and she ha d the wisdom of Athena, saw with a God's eyes, AND has the Lasso of Truth and fans still rejected the circumstances). Batman isn't even law enforcement. How can he just go around offing villains and yet not be a villain himself? Maybe Zack Snyder was on to something with the Batmurder train in BVS.

[Jman27]

Creating new villains is hard.

It's not about making sense in the normal sense but a matter or principle. If Batman broke his principles he would probably break himself as a hero or what he perceives Batman to be.

more so fan reception is poor

[Frontier]

more so fan reception is poor

Well, fans are definitely difficult to please and accept something new, but you very rarely reach the level of zeitgeist needed to make a villain lasting.

I'm not even sure if Punchline will work out in the long run.

[Tzigone]

Well, fans are definitely difficult to please and accept something new, but you very rarely reach the level of zeitgeist needed to make a villain lasting.

I'm not even sure if Punchline will work out in the long run.

I think part of it is that, in modern eras, very often villains are created with a purpose. Bane breaks the Bat, the Reach invade earth, etc. Instead of just as good, regular, ongoing/reusable villains with powersets designed to be difficult to the hero. So it's sometimes like once that one story is done, there really isn't much left for the villain to do (at least, not that isn't less impressive than the first showing - which honestly can be an issue for some new heroes, too). Another thing is, of course, that fans have been reading a long time (which goes to issues with their fanbase and distribution models), and so it's hard to come up with something that isn't a variation on what we've seen before. With new eyes and broader audiences, it's easier, I think. And yes, a lot of us are stuck in our ways. Lastly is the trend for "sympathetic" villains with tragic backstories. It was new once. It isn't anymore (again on long-time audiences) and for me, personally, sympathy for the villain only lasts a short while before I don't feel it anymore. They've done too many horrible things. So their "hook" is gone for me.

[maninthemacintosh1606]

I actually think Batman's 'rule' of not killing people is more about him than anything, it is about his psychology, it isn't about anything external to that - everything that he says or could be said to justify it (morality, not breaking the law, or specifically something worse taking Joker's place, etc) is just rationalisation; like, Batman tells himself he doesn't kill people and therefore it is a line in the sane more or less arbitrarily drawn but for his own psyche, something that signifies he is on the side of the Good no matter what he has to do or go through, no matter that he is a vigilante acting outside of the law yet he ostensibly believes he is serving the law, he has to hold on to it as something that psychologically allows him to not fall apart. Does that take away from the straightforward black and white idea of Batman being a hero? I'm not sure about that. I think it fits with Batman's entire view of the world - with all that, he is committed to abstract ideas, as though he is serving a Platonic notion of the Good, overall he is not a utilitarian despite at time the means justifying the ends, so committing himself to a categorical imperative that is extreme to the point of near-lunacy totally makes sense, to a degree...

That said, re: the conclusion of Joker War: bringing in Harley the way they did, there should have been much more of a payoff - the Joker should have died imo, and actually circumstantially forcing Batman to really have to make an impossible decision or something along those lines would have worked better imo.

[Aramis]

Again, I think the problem is not Batman not killing. It's his rule. I disagree with it, but it's understandable. It's his perception of the world. His whole self would be destroyed if he kills, even if the victim is a maniac massive serial killer dressed as a clown, because he whole-heartly believes in it.

Killing innocents is bad. Killing criminals instead of putting them behind bars is a grey area, but I think the latter is preferable. However, Joker is not just "a criminal". At this point, he's a nuclear weapon turned into a clown.

The real problem is Batman saving criminals from certain death, and worse than all, him not allowing others to do whatever they want with the clown. I can somehow understand him forbidding Damian to kill because it's his son, and it's a kid. But what right does he have forbidding Jason, Helena, Kate.. OR EFFING HARLEY to kill Joker? They are adults, and they are not killing innocent people, but just the Joker.

[cranger]

but just the Joker.

If Joker was killed, another villain would be moved to the top of the list who is just as bad and with Joker gone the discussion would move to them, it would not stop.

[phonogram12]

If Joker was killed, another villain would be moved to the top of the list who is just as bad and with Joker gone the discussion would move to them, it would not stop.

Truth. There's no way they'd follow up a character like The Joker with one that they wouldn't make at least twice as threatening.

[The tall man]

Again, I think the problem is not Batman not killing. It's his rule. I disagree with it, but it's understandable. It's his perception of the world. His whole self would be destroyed if he kills, even if the victim is a maniac massive serial killer dressed as a clown, because he whole-heartly believes in it.

Killing innocents is bad. Killing criminals instead of putting them behind bars is a grey area, but I think the latter is preferable. However, Joker is not just "a criminal". At this point, he's a nuclear weapon turned into a clown.

The real problem is Batman saving criminals from certain death, and worse than all, him not allowing others to do whatever they want with the clown. I can somehow understand him forbidding Damian to kill because it's his son, and it's a kid. But what right does he have forbidding Jason, Helena, Kate.. OR EFFING HARLEY to kill Joker? They are adults, and they are not killing innocent people, but just the Joker.

Are any of them even capable of killing Joker? Batman is the best of them and as we saw in joker war Bats was constantly outmaneuvered by Joker and needed the entire family's help to stop him. Killing Joker is not some an easy thing to accomplish. Besides if some family members/Harley wants him dead so badly then they should go do it themselves, don't look to Batman to do it so the blood will be on his hands. The hell with what Bruce wants, go kill Joker and deal with the consequences whatever they may be. But like I said it's not so easy to kill Joker, the guy is not just some dumb clown, he has a brain in that head and he uses it.

[Fergus]

Are any of them even capable of killing Joker? Batman is the best of them and as we saw in joker war Bats was constantly outmaneuvered by Joker and needed the entire family's help to stop him. Killing Joker is not some an easy thing to accomplish. Besides if some family members/Harley wants him dead so badly then they should go do it themselves, don't look to Batman to do it so the blood will be on his hands. The hell with what Bruce wants, go kill Joker and deal with the consequences whatever they may be. But like I said it's not so easy to kill Joker, the guy is not just some dumb clown, he has a brain in that head and he uses it.

Dick Grayson killed the Joker so yeah Huntress or kate are up to the task. It's only Joker's plot armour as a valuable IP that has stopped Jason putting a bullet between his eyes not his ingenuity.

[Stanlos]

Dick Grayson killed the Joker so yeah Huntress or kate are up to the task. It's only Joker's plot armour as a valuable IP that has stopped Jason putting a bullet between his eyes not his ingenuity.

Wow! That is an interesting point.

And it begs a follow-up: does the same apply to Batman? He has been swatted by the likes of Darkseid, Etrigan, Mongul, and Superman and only one story showed being on the precipice of death thereafter. Isn't the brand precisely why the only normal human squad of vigilantes wades through machine gun fire and not get hit once because they did a backhandspring?

[prepmaster]

Wow! That is an interesting point.

And it begs a follow-up: does the same apply to Batman? He has been swatted by the likes of Darkseid, Etrigan, Mongul, and Superman and only one story showed being on the precipice of death thereafter. Isn't the brand precisely why the only normal human squad of vigilantes wades through machine gun fire and not get hit once because they did a backhandspring?

Heroes dont get killed and are often not humiliated by villains because we follow the stories where heroes are the main protagonists and we root for them to defeat more powerful foes and do awesome stuffs to overcome challenges like being outnumbered in a fight. In Deathstroke comics, Batman got stomped by Slade. Also a story where a human gets beaten up by God-like characters is not as interesting as a story where a human outsmarts them. Batman comics is not comepletely grounded but dominated by realistic elements more than fantastical elements. Batman is comics peak human, which means he is supposed to be in the level of world best athletes but his reaction speed, endurance, strength and other physical abilites would be considered superhuman in real world.

[Stanlos]

Heroes dont get killed and are often not humiliated by villains because we follow the stories where heroes are the main protagonists and we root for them to defeat more powerful foes and do awesome stuffs to overcome challenges like being outnumbered in a fight. In Deathstroke comics, Batman got stomped by Slade. Also a story where a human gets beaten up by God-like characters is not as interesting as a story where a human outsmarts them. Batman comics is not comepletely grounded but dominated by realistic elements more than fantastical elements. Batman is comics peak human, which means he is supposed to be in the level of world best athletes but his reaction speed, endurance, strength and other physical abilites would be considered superhuman in real world.

So....everyone has plot armour depending on whose book it is? I am not sure I understand how Batman is peak human and at the same time superhuman. Or is that how the lot armour works? He can get hit by Darkseid because he is both human and superhuman at the same time for plot purposes?

[prepmaster]

So....everyone has plot armour depending on whose book it is? I am not sure I understand how Batman is peak human and at the same time superhuman. Or is that how the lot armour works? He can get hit by Darkseid because he is both human and superhuman at the same time for plot purposes?

comics book peak human standards =/= real world peak human standards. The guy came back from having a broken back. Its still comics peak human because comics superhumans dont need to recover from injury in months. Batman with his standard gears is comics peak human while Batman with prep & armour could be considered comics superhuman.