Should Superhero Writers Simply Stop Bringing Up The 'No Kill' Rule?

[lancerman]

I disagree with you because we do in fact execute mass murderers without due process if they merit it. Exhibit A: Bin Laden. That was a straight up assassination. Then there are all the drone strikes we have. Etc. Your also comparing Joker to a run of the mill murderer. We are talking about a guy with a body count in the thousands who has repeatedly escaped Justice and in the context of that world Batman is the only one capable of dealing with him in a way that could actually solve the problem. The institution is too flawed and it keeps putting him in a mental institution with lacks security, and no regular person is capable of catching Joker. So it goes from Batman, to the crappy Gotham system. I get the sentiment of a criminal who commits one l

It's in no way the same thing as saying a criminal gets off on a technicality. It would more be like a terrorist masterminds an attack that kills hundreds. Our Seals catch him. He goes through a court system, he is placed in a facility where his followers have no issue breaking him out. He escapes and commits another killing spree. That cycle repeats about a hundred times. At some point the people who get him before he goes through the system have the opportunity to decide to just bypass every regular form of due process to save lives. That's a little different than killing one guy who got off on a technicality. And the Joker is more akin to that example.

And it's one thing to say, oh you are the one taking it too seriously when it's just a throwaway line in a comic book. When you have whole Batman stories that center around the Joker trying to push him to that breaking point and he ends up not because of some crappy reasoning.

I have no problem with then saying it's just some mental hang-up Batman has, and that he just can't handle doing it. That's fine with me. Atleast it's more realistic than some of the reasonings they come up with to make it righteous that he's knowingly letting a mass murderer free to kill another day. Or even do what they did in the old days where Batman thwarts Joker and in the final confrontation he seemingly falls to his death and there is no closure. That is perfectly acceptable.

But in the context of everything that goes on on in those stories, when they force that issue in your face, and there are plenty of stories that make "why doesn't Batman kill the Joker" a big part of the story, and then you get a bunch of nonsensical ramblings that don't work when you put any thought into, it's just annoying and needlessly tears down the logic and distracts from the story.

And the Joker specifically has been used many times for this. We have a whole video game where the main premise is Joker commits a tragedy and Superman decides to kill him, and then the result is that world becomes an alternate universe where the heroes are tyrants. Thats a little bit more than just using it to build dramatic tension in a story.

It's just not well thought out logic that distracts from the story. And there is a reason why so many fans of Batman always ask why he just doesn't kill the Joker.

[lancerman]

Yes, that's right. So stop.

You know what you made your points in this thread and nobody told you to stop. It's actually getting really annoying and self righteous that you think you can tell people what is an acceptable way to debate fiction. Since people have started writing, nay telling stories, other people have analyzed the implications of the messages in those stories. I never told you how to talk about the subject matter in this thread, which was specifically created to discuss this very topic. If you disagree with me, that's fine, I have no problem with that. But this is the second time you specifically tried to tell to stop debating a point because the stories are fake, as though that dismisses any attempts to critique the handling of the subject matter. Nobody told you how to conduct yourself in this thread. Seriously get over yourself.

[Spike-X]

I'm saying it because every time you use the worlds 'Joker' or 'Batman' in the same sentence as 'real world', you make yourself look silly.

It's. A freakin'. COMICBOOK.

[Paradox]

That's my contention, too. I don't think they ought to bring it up because it's a given and kind of lazy writing to explore such a thing that's been explored several times before.

lancerman disagrees, of course, because he disagrees with the "answer" they come up with....AND NO ONE CARES ABOUT THAT. It's not an important part of storytelling. Stop thinking about what's "real". These are fantasy. Reality is whatever the writer decides it is.

[Paradox]

And exactly how many of these "Joker must be killed" stories have you been "forced" to read? It's not like it's a running theme. Has the Nu DC suddenly made that the central point or something?

[ed2962]

Because 'I survived a stint on Joker's crew' is probably a badge of honor in the Gotham underworld. There's a story there that ought to be written.

That could be a fun idea. A couple of thugs in the prison yard swapping stories, "You used to work for that overweight dandy the Penguin? No wonder yer so soft! Lemme tell ya, man...I used to work for the Joker! Ya never knew if he was gonna give ya a bonus or acid if the face!"

[lancerman]

I'm saying it because every time you use the worlds 'Joker' or 'Batman' in the same sentence as 'real world', you make yourself look silly.

It's. A freakin'. COMICBOOK.

That is not an excuse to say you can't analyze the logic in the themes of comic books. People do it in fiction all the time. There are college classes and majors dedicated to that. There are books that just do that. Most of the conversation on this site does that. Because there is an inherent understanding that a story make some type of sense. And again in modern comics that try to deal with serious issues and heavier themes it opens itself up more to heavier critiques. When Marvel does a super hero story about security vs freedom, the logic and actions of the characters are free game for discussion. Same here.

And this part of the response is also for Paradox. When you say no one cares, no you don't care. You are both in a thread that was created by someone else to talk about this subject. The Batman forums frequently have frequent discussions about this topic. I know other parts of this board do to. And it's not just Batman fans, Man of Steel caused dozens of huge threads about Superman killing Zod. And some people used the "it's not real" excuse to avoid critique on the logic behind it. You're right it's not real so nobody is getting hurt by critiquing the logic used in these stories. And the idea that nobody cares is funny just based on the sheer amount of times someone makes threads talking about whether heroes should or shouldn't kill.

And Paradox if you've ever read a handful of Joker stories from the modern era, it would be very hard to find one that doesn't I use that theme. It's even used mainstream. The Dark Knight Returns (probably the best use of it because it just comes down to Batman not being able to do it), The Dark Knight , Injustice, Kingdom a Come (the whole set up of the book was based on Superman throwing a hissy fit about nobody having a problem that another hero killed Joker), Hush, Under the Hood, the Arkham games, Death in the Family (in that one he actually decided to kill the Joker). Hell before the reboot the entire point of Red Hood existing was to offer the alternative of Batman's no kill rule. So was Azbats to an extent. Oh and most of these are Pre reboot. Nobody's forced to read anything, but when you say it's not a running theme, I very much disagree.

[cranger]

It is still pretty silly to focus so much on Joker and how from a character perspective it would be best for Batman to break his no kill code to murder him in cold blood because, for some reason, he is the only person in the entire DCU that must also play the role of executioner. Joker is far from the only villain Batman has tangled with more than once who has killed. If Joker is worth killing, aren't any of the villains, not just Batman's, who are willing to murder? Or, what is the threshold? How many murders can a villain commit before Batman is allowed to kill them?

Besides, if this kind of thing bugs you then just remember that these are the comic book universes where pretty much major cities are destroyed weekly, police forces are decimated daily, and the world is wiped out and restored yearly, yet everyone just keeps on keeping on.

[lancerman]

It is still pretty silly to focus so much on Joker and how from a character perspective it would be best for Batman to break his no kill code to murder him in cold blood because, for some reason, he is the only person in the entire DCU that must also play the role of executioner. Joker is far from the only villain Batman has tangled with more than once who has killed. If Joker is worth killing, aren't any of the villains, not just Batman's, who are willing to murder? Or, what is the threshold? How many murders can a villain commit before Batman is allowed to kill them?

Besides, if this kind of thing bugs you then just remember that these are the comic book universes where pretty much major cities are destroyed weekly, police forces are decimated daily, and the world is wiped out and restored yearly, yet everyone just keeps on keeping on.

The only thing that bothers me about it is that they constantly bring it up and use pseudo fake logic that doesn't hold up to scrutiny because they feel the need to justify the moral decisions of a character. It wasn't an issue when it wasn't brought up.

[cranger]

The only thing that bothers me about it is that they constantly bring it up and use pseudo fake logic that doesn't hold up to scrutiny because they feel the need to justify the moral decisions of a character. It wasn't an issue when it wasn't brought up.

Which is why I do not care for deconstruction in mainstream superhero comics.

[PretenderNX01]

Eh, even if you finally go an execute a villain they just come back from the dead later on.

[Biff Pow!]

Asking why Batman doesn't kill the Joker is like asking why the Simpsons haven't aged in 25 years. These are classic, unchanging characters, always going through the same motions with slight (hopefully entertaining) variations.

The Joker's high body count is due to the ongoing, unchanging nature of comics, not Batman letting him run free. DC can help this problem by not overusing the Joker, but also fans should not over think it too much.

[chamber-music]

I think they should focus more on having villains survive through their own power, skill, and ingenuity, rather than being ineffectual punching bags.

I agree.

The 'no kill rule' seems to be less of a issue in Marvel I think. Many Marvel heroes have killed.

Most superheroes would be charged with manslaughter due to all the deaths they are usually involved in

[Agent Z]

It is still pretty silly to focus so much on Joker and how from a character perspective it would be best for Batman to break his no kill code to murder him in cold blood because, for some reason, he is the only person in the entire DCU that must also play the role of executioner. Joker is far from the only villain Batman has tangled with more than once who has killed. If Joker is worth killing, aren't any of the villains, not just Batman's, who are willing to murder? Or, what is the threshold? How many murders can a villain commit before Batman is allowed to kill them?

Besides, if this kind of thing bugs you then just remember that these are the comic book universes where pretty much major cities are destroyed weekly, police forces are decimated daily, and the world is wiped out and restored yearly, yet everyone just keeps on keeping on.

The Joker isn't the only one who has these types of stories, he's just the one were it's most consistent.

[lancerman]

Which is why I do not care for deconstruction in mainstream superhero comics.

I don't even mind deconstruction if it makes sense. This is clearly deconstruction for the sake of it, and there's never been a good answer to it.