Should Batman kill the Joker?

[thwhtGuardian]

How is it bad writing? So you're saying none of the batman rogues should be mass murders or written that way? Would you like the comics to have a more jovial batman 66 vibe to it? It's not bad writing to evolve the villains and up the ante of threat batman has to face against.

So the only two options are campy and unrealistically uber grim and gritty? That's a pretty big false dichotomy as there are miles between those two opposites and all of them are not only creatively viable but have worked fine in the past.

But more to the point, no, I don't think the Joker or any other of Batman's (or any other super hero's) should be mass murders. The concept just doesn't fit with the idea of a perpetually ongoing series as it would force the hero to either kill his villains thus ending a fun tradition of reoccurring villains or else been seen as criminally ineffectual (which heroes like Batman have become when viewed realistically) neither of which are very interesting story wise.

[colossus34]

But more to the point, no, I don't think the Joker or any other of Batman's (or any other super hero's) should be mass murders. The concept just doesn't fit with the idea of a perpetually ongoing series as it would force the hero to either kill his villains thus ending a fun tradition of reoccurring villains or else been seen as criminally ineffectual (which heroes like Batman have become when viewed realistically) neither of which are very interesting story wise.

So Batman should exist in a vacuum where mass murderers don't exist and the modern problems like genocide or psycho killers aren't a problem he should encounter? Sounds like you have a very dated view of the Batman mythos, maybe it's not about locking down Batman stories to fit into a narrow view of what constitutes acceptable perpetual stories and maybe just maybe the antiqued notion of Batman's no kill policy is what needs to be updated...

[thwhtGuardian]

So Batman should exist in a vacuum where mass murderers don't exist and the modern problems like genocide or psycho killers aren't a problem he should encounter? Sounds like you have a very dated view of the Batman mythos, maybe it's not about locking down Batman stories to fit into a narrow view of what constitutes acceptable perpetual stories and maybe just maybe the antiqued notion of Batman's no kill policy is what needs to be updated...

He can encounter them about as often as any other protector of justice in a major city does...not very often and they certainly shouldn't be reoccurring. And that's not about having a dated view of Batman, but rather the nature of an on going story; if you keep upping the ante while maintaining the same solution you create serious issues in the fabric of the narrative which cannot be kept together in the long term...hence the discussion we're having now.

[electr1cgoblin]

So Batman should exist in a vacuum where mass murderers don't exist and the modern problems like genocide or psycho killers aren't a problem he should encounter? Sounds like you have a very dated view of the Batman mythos, maybe it's not about locking down Batman stories to fit into a narrow view of what constitutes acceptable perpetual stories and maybe just maybe the antiqued notion of Batman's no kill policy is what needs to be updated...

Oh, by all means, let's let our adversaries dictate and define our morality. . .

Good heavens, it's depressing to read this thread. Not killing is not the only defining characteristic of Batman, but it is one of the most seminal. Allow him to kill and you start down that long, dreary road toward making him exactly like a dozen other 'heroes'. And I'm not even saying that it's wrong to want someone to ace the Joker, I'm just saying it's wrong to want BATMAN to do it because it homogenizes him, which I guess is what all of our society is about now, making everyone the same and negating individuality.

All characters are not simply reeds in the moral weed; they do not all bend to whatever modernity dictates (though to be honest, most seem to, and it's a pity).

Question for you: what other defining characteristics should we change about Batman? And when they are changed, how exactly is he "Batman" anymore?

[Agent Z]

Oh, by all means, let's let our adversaries dictate and define our morality. . .

Good heavens, it's depressing to read this thread. Not killing is not the only defining characteristic of Batman, but it is one of the most seminal. Allow him to kill and you start down that long, dreary road toward making him exactly like a dozen other 'heroes'. And I'm not even saying that it's wrong to want someone to ace the Joker, I'm just saying it's wrong to want BATMAN to do it because it homogenizes him, which I guess is what all of our society is about now, making everyone the same and negating individuality.

All characters are not simply reeds in the moral weed; they do not all bend to whatever modernity dictates (though to be honest, most seem to, and it's a pity).

Question for you: what other defining characteristics should we change about Batman? And when they are changed, how exactly is he "Batman" anymore?

How many DC heroes actually kill on a regular basis?

[electr1cgoblin]

How many DC heroes actually kill on a regular basis?

I wasn't thinking of DC heroes, actually...but Wolverine, Punisher, Deadpool, Ghost Rider, etc.

[Liquid]

Yes. Because I'm of him appearing as the big bad of stories anymore. Make some new villains or use the ones that don't get used that often.

[Agent Z]

I wasn't thinking of DC heroes, actually...but Wolverine, Punisher, Deadpool, Ghost Rider, etc.

Yeah Marvel characters. DC still has enough heroes who don't kill on a regular basis.

And being a killer doesn't mean that's your only response to every enemy. It's not the killing that's the problem, but how often and who is killed.

[Liquid]

Batman villains are hard to create, so they can't just kill off whoever. Joker I think has had a good run and he should be put to rest. Endgame was a good last story.

[colossus34]

All characters are not simply reeds in the moral weed; they do not all bend to whatever modernity dictates (though to be honest, most seem to, and it's a pity).

Question for you: what other defining characteristics should we change about Batman? And when they are changed, how exactly is he "Batman" anymore?

You talk about "defining" characteristics and yet his none killing "rule" wasn't even a part of the origin or original bronze age Era. I'd say the silly 60s batman and conservative comics code is more responsible for it then any true in character reason. Sure batman shouldn't outright kill everyone punisher style but honestly what harm would it do to his character to show he's conflicted but feels morally justified in preventing joker from murdering people?

Once again you sound like the same redundant fans who feel batman god forbid kills a mass murderer and now he is somehow set on some path of evil, vindictive violence when this is ludicrous assumption to make. Writing batman being conflicted over it and exploring the various dimensions of it already elevate his character and motives well beyond any cookie cutter copycat batman who do the same thing.

[Xero Kaiser]

Well, it's not just Batman's fault. Really, it's the whole city's. Why aren't the courts at fault? The judges and jury who sentence him? Shouldn't he have received the death penalty about 50 times by now? Is it because he's criminally insane? Obviously in comics "criminally insane" is totally different. Even though he's in Arkham, everybody knows that he is well aware of his actions and how bad they are. Is it because he's in a state that doesn't allow the death penalty? Seeing as the huge amounts of killing he's done, and considering many of his acts would probably even be categorized as terrorism, he's certainly liable for the death penalty on a federal level if the state won't do it.

I agree. It really makes everyone involved look hopelessly naive at best and dangerously incompetent at worst.

I have no problem with dark/gritty/whatever stories. Hell, I love Warhammer, Berserk, Mortal Kombat...all that stuff. But it seems like the stories the writers are telling are at odds with the message they're trying to send. If you want to show the villains, "that our way works" then show the reader that your way works. Have the heroes stop the villains before they go on some mass killing spree/wipe out entire countries/blow up planets with relative impunity. No, I don't want Adam West Batman back, but supervillains in general cause so much death and destruction while suffering little to no consequences that it makes the good guys look like minor inconveniences rather than Super Heroes.

[Guy1]

Well, it's not just Batman's fault. Really, it's the whole city's. Why aren't the courts at fault? The judges and jury who sentence him? Shouldn't he have received the death penalty about 50 times by now? Is it because he's criminally insane? Obviously in comics "criminally insane" is totally different. Even though he's in Arkham, everybody knows that he is well aware of his actions and how bad they are. Is it because he's in a state that doesn't allow the death penalty? Seeing as the huge amounts of killing he's done, and considering many of his acts would probably even be categorized as terrorism, he's certainly liable for the death penalty on a federal level if the state won't do it.

They were going to execute him in Devil's Advocate. Batman's immediate response was to run around the city trying to find a way to save him. In the end, it turned out that the crime that got Joker put on Death Row wasn't committed by him, so they let him live instead of just killing him anyway for all of the other deaths he's caused. Batman for some reason treated this as a victory.

[colossus34]

They were going to execute him in Devil's Advocate. Batman's immediate response was to run around the city trying to find a way to save him. In the end, it turned out that the crime that got Joker put on Death Row wasn't committed by him, so they let him live instead of just killing him anyway for all of the other deaths he's caused. Batman for some reason treated this as a victory.

Wow never read that story but I find it cringe worthy that the writers had batman spend the entire issue diligently finding ways to exonerate the joker from the death penalty.

[thwhtGuardian]

You talk about "defining" characteristics and yet his none killing "rule" wasn't even a part of the origin or original bronze age Era. I'd say the silly 60s batman and conservative comics code is more responsible for it then any true in character reason. Sure batman shouldn't outright kill everyone punisher style but honestly what harm would it do to his character to show he's conflicted but feels morally justified in preventing joker from murdering people?

Once again you sound like the same redundant fans who feel batman god forbid kills a mass murderer and now he is somehow set on some path of evil, vindictive violence when this is ludicrous assumption to make. Writing batman being conflicted over it and exploring the various dimensions of it already elevate his character and motives well beyond any cookie cutter copycat batman who do the same thing.

It's easy, just don't make Joker a mass murderer, and boom no dilemma. You wanna see Batman go after a mass murderer, then make it a new, disposable villain.

[Lee Stone]

Batman can't set himself above the law... even though he skirts along the edges of it, he still operates within the legal system... That's the way it has to be.