Can Batman be able to operate if he broke his no killing rule

[theoneandonly]

One of the most stringent codes that batman and the bat family follow is the no killing principle.What would have been the consequences if he didn't adhere to such a code? Would he be turned into a punisher type vigilant who takes Jo prisoners and mostly operates alone instead of creating a family? Would he have eventually gained the cops and other heroes tolerance if not support or would he have been hunted down? Can a batman killing inspire more fear than a non killing one or would he lose the mythical element and just solve problems with brute force which would make scum fear his brutality but not have the mythical fear that he inspires? Would he be able to keep himself functioning or would he turn into a sociopath who doesn't have any feelings left and just lives for his next mission or kill?

[mathew101281]

No I don't, because I think Gordon would take him down if he became a killer. It always been implied that Gordon knows Bruce is Batman, and has allowed him some free reign in the city. I doubt that would be the case if he became a killer.

[Darkseid Is]

We'd have no Joker, no Two-Face, no Riddler, no Bane, no Penguin, no Mister Freeze. He'd have a rogues gallery as memorable as the Punisher's.

[WontonGirl]

I think it just depends on who it would be.

I mean, it wouldn't be one of the main rogues like The Joker, Penguin, Riddler, Ivy or Freeze. Or even Bane. So I don't know.

If he killed a mobster or a criminal drug kingpin, well, if Gordon finds out, he's going to jail. And I think the JL would probably turn against him and/or judge him for it too.

[Carabas]

We'd have no Joker, no Two-Face, no Riddler, no Bane, no Penguin, no Mister Freeze. He'd have a rogues gallery as memorable as the Punisher's.

We'd have no Joker and no Al Ghûls. Most of the others would be just fine.

[dietrich]

One of the most stringent codes that batman and the bat family follow is the no killing principle.What would have been the consequences if he didn't adhere to such a code? Would he be turned into a punisher type vigilant who takes Jo prisoners and mostly operates alone instead of creating a family? Would he have eventually gained the cops and other heroes tolerance if not support or would he have been hunted down? Can a batman killing inspire more fear than a non killing one or would he lose the mythical element and just solve problems with brute force which would make scum fear his brutality but not have the mythical fear that he inspires? Would he be able to keep himself functioning or would he turn into a sociopath who doesn't have any feelings left and just lives for his next mission or kill?

A batman that kills inspires more fear than one who is known to not kill I doubt many criminals are put off crime because of fear of beat down. Heck it doesn't even work with a great deal of children.

I doubt Gordon would have his back if he killed. The people killed by his more violent rogues would still be around but we would have lost some of his more enjoyable characters Joker, Bane and Ra's trump the likes f Riddler and Penguin any day imo.

[Agent Z]

We'd have no Joker and no Al Ghûls. Most of the others would be just fine.

Not necessarily. Joker and the al Ghuls would still be around but likely not used as much and we'd avoid the stories in which they slaughter people by the boat load while Bruce glares at them impotently as they laugh at his weakness. They'd also be more focused on trying to kill Bruce rather than messing with his head or offering to rule the world together.

[Carabas]

Not necessarily. Joker and the al Ghuls would still be around but likely not used as much and we'd avoid the stories in which they slaughter people by the boat load while Bruce glares at them impotently as they laugh at his weakness. They'd also be more focused on trying to kill Bruce rather than messing with his head or offering to rule the world together.

Maybe.

It still would be a vast improvement.

[Agent Z]

Maybe.

It still would be a vast improvement.

No arguments there.

[Frontier]

Not necessarily. Joker and the al Ghuls would still be around but likely not used as much and we'd avoid the stories in which they slaughter people by the boat load while Bruce glares at them impotently as they laugh at his weakness. They'd also be more focused on trying to kill Bruce rather than messing with his head or offering to rule the world together.

I think this is kind of ignoring the fact that he stops them either way and that I doubt they would be anymore concerned about trying to kill him then they already are.

Just look at how many times Joker's "died" or Ra's has needed the Pit, with dubious involvement from Batman. Then things go back to how they usually are.

So...really not much of a difference.

[Agent Z]

I think this is kind of ignoring the fact that he stops them either way and that I doubt they would be anymore concerned about trying to kill him then they already are.

Just look at how many times Joker's "died" or Ra's has needed the Pit, with dubious involvement from Batman. Then things go back to how they usually are.

So...really not much of a difference.

Yeah he stops them but only after they've racked up a body count that would make most war criminals sick.

Neither of them puts any actual effort into trying to kill him. The Joker is more interested in pushing his buttons and is only emboldened by the knowledge that Bruce won't kill him. The al Ghuls see Bruce as a potential heir not an enemy.

[Frontier]

Yeah he stops them but only after they've racked up a body count that would make most war criminals sick.

They would probably still rack up a body count before he's able to kill them. And then they'll come back and do it again, because that's just what they do .

Neither of them puts any actual effort into trying to kill him. The Joker is more interested in pushing his buttons and is only emboldened by the knowledge that Bruce won't kill him. The al Ghuls see Bruce as a potential heir not an enemy.

Joker would probably still push his buttons even if Bruce was willing to kill him, if only because he knows he won't die.

Batman killing Ra's would probably make him more suitable an heir to the Al Ghul name in their mind, since that's come up before as far as the whole succession thing is concerned.

[JAG2045]

No I don't, because I think Gordon would take him down if he became a killer. It always been implied that Gordon knows Bruce is Batman, and has allowed him some free reign in the city. I doubt that would be the case if he became a killer.

Exactly, look at Hush when Batman is thinking of killing the Joker and Gordon says that if he goes through with it that he would lead the charge to hunt him down and that he would just be another criminal in his eyes

[Carabas]

Exactly, look at Hush when Batman is thinking of killing the Joker and Gordon says that if he goes through with it that he would lead the charge to hunt him down and that he would just be another criminal in his eyes

I do not think that Gordon actually has the means of making Batman's life difficult. Even if he does severely suspect that he is Bruce Wayne.

[Rogue Star]

One of the most stringent codes that batman and the bat family follow is the no killing principle.What would have been the consequences if he didn't adhere to such a code? Would he be turned into a punisher type vigilant who takes Jo prisoners and mostly operates alone instead of creating a family? Would he have eventually gained the cops and other heroes tolerance if not support or would he have been hunted down? Can a batman killing inspire more fear than a non killing one or would he lose the mythical element and just solve problems with brute force which would make scum fear his brutality but not have the mythical fear that he inspires? Would he be able to keep himself functioning or would he turn into a sociopath who doesn't have any feelings left and just lives for his next mission or kill?

No. He'd be a massive hypocrite then. He'd have to shut his own operation down.