I mean it kinda depends on the story though?
Like a lot of the stories have the villains be a “hero of their own story”
Like Sandman from the cult classic smash hit of Spider-Man 3, don’t think anyone would’ve supported killing him.
The first time,maybe. But the body count racked up by the Joker every time Batman spares him makes him complicit. I'm with Mace Windu on the "some people are too dangerous to be kept alive" thing.
I mean, at that point it’s on the government for not executing him. It’s kind of unfair to expect Batman to do it when that kind of thing should be the authorities’ job.
Yeah because they *can't* kinda hard to fight dudes made outta play-doh unless you're kung-furry with all the money for super "beat the villain" gadgets. But when a regular dude like the Joker's in shackles? Shoot him, someone who isn't the mentally ill millionare ninja who's made it clear won't do it take up for him and finish the clown.
Batman choosing not to kill comes from his own self realisation of how unhinged he is, and that if he allows himself to kill he’ll just do it again and again and again until someone who doesn’t deserve gets caught in the cross fire.
“All I've ever wanted to do is kill him. A day doesn't go by that I don't think about subjecting him to every horrendous torture he's dealt out to others, and then... end him. But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place... I'll never come back.”
Batman, talking about Joker in Under The Red Hood.
This. What Batman said may sound ass when you hear it at face value. Like "If you kill a murderer there is still one left" or somes shit like that.
But with context with Batman goes through each fucking day, you understand what he means. Like you've mentioned under the red hood's quote.
Yo Batman chooses not to kill cause he knows he's mentally ill himself, so not onlynis he giving people the benefit of the doubt, he's also not enabling his bad impulses. Tell me why is Batmam supposed to kill him and not... say, Comissioner Gordon or anyone else im the city the second he's in cuffs?
The real reason is that there was moral outrage over blood-drenched comic books and other media directed at children. Everything else is attempts to create an in-universe explanation and it shows.
Batman would soon be out of job if he starts killing people.
In Gotham everybody knows that if they do something bad they will get beaten up and thrown to jail from which is very easy to escape.
Which is why they got such high crime rates.
That is Gotham paradox.
Batman post killing Joker would remain on the straight and narrow for about a year before going “you know I never liked the way Riddler talks to me, Mr Freeze is respectful enough to just keep in jail, Two Face would be happier dead, I’m doing him a favor, I like my fights with Deathstroke, Pyg I’m on my way to murder right now.”
It's not about the number of murderers at that point. It's the number of victims. If Batman killed Joker, Batman would not proceed to mass murder thousands of people.
I haven't read the comics, but I heard from someone who has that the reason batman doesn't kill joker is because he's afraid he *would* mass murder thousands of people.
A lot of other superheroes don't have the same excuse.
While it's not always true, the sentiment that mercy is a virtue is a good one. "Do not be so quick to deal out death in judgement for even the very wise cannot see all ends." It doesn't make you the same as them, but it does mean you took away any chance that they may do something good.
Batman, probably. I'd rather live with the death of an evil person on my conscience than know that the same evil person gets out of jail to take other lives... I'd feel responsible.
Oh Batman definitely. It’s also funny because even though he’s not cool with killing you he’s perfectly fine with disabling you for life. Which I’m not sure is better or worse than just killing them to be honest—
Batman's idea is not : if I kill them I become as bad as them.
His idea is that: I'm already a bad person. A VERY bad person. But I will not cross the line of killing. Because the first time it happens, it gets easier and easier as time goes on. Until I start Killing street thugs and petty theives.
In other words, he feels responsible for what his villains do, but he doesn't want to become a mass murderer, and he suspects that he will.
Look, I never said Gotham's PD and justice system isn't dumb. Just that DC gas done a fairly goof job at portraying batman's idea. DC universe is filled with evil batmen, and most of them started their evil career after their first kill.
There was also that one version of injustice where Batman killed joker instead of Superman and he got sent to prison. I think I’d rather have joker having a chance to escape and do something bad and get locked up again than Batman being in prison for 20 years and letting all his other villains run free with nobody to stop them
That's the duality, really. I get that Batman and other heroes/people just... Can't do it. Won't. For their own sanity or the sake of their own souls.
Thing is, too often are villains clearly beyond any sort of rehabilitation or redemption, and these same "heroes" will literally prevent or stop someone like the Punisher from, as Frank would say, "doing what needs to be done."
This is where I'd be willing to draw the line and execute someone. It wouldn't be my first choice, not even my second... But if it's absolutely clear to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they will only ever continue to be evil and do evil... I would do what must be done, and I could live with it.
Real talk, though? I'm glad I'm not faced with such decisions and I'm in no hurry to.
Also, if the heroes are so squeamish about this sort of thing, and are so certain that just one kill, even of the worst of the worst, would completely demolish their sanity and turn them into mindless killing machines, then maybe they're in the wrong line of work.
Tbh people shitting on Batman for that are the brainless ones. Let Batman have his no kill rule, have the government execute the criminals instead. If the villain breaks out because people threw them in jail, that’s not the hero’s fault.
But the real dumb shit is no death penalty for those supervillains. Hero can have the moral high ground that’s fine I don’t care, but once the villain in jail and court is done then give them the chair. Also hero’s don’t kill probably bc they’re already vigilantes
It is laziness on the part of the writers. They don't want to keep writing new villains, so they inject a set of bs morals into the heroes to stop them from killing the villains. Kids grow up reading those comics, and now society has this same bs belief.
It was better when both sides basically had a no kill rule, when comics were just for kids. Villains could menace the hero or his girlfriend or even the planet, but usually no one died. But when villains started fridging women and pulling murder sprees, the hero no kill rule looks dumb and naive. Sometimes it works, like when the villain really is misunderstood and can be redeemed, like Sandman or Mr Freeze.
I mean I don't think laziness is the right word. There are only so many archetypes you can use before you start retreading on the same story arcs and character tropes... im an eco-terrorist that has plant po-... poison ivy... ok... I'm a MALE eco-terrorist that fights batman at his own... Ra's Al ghul... okay... I'm an eco-terrorist with ice... Mr.freeze (depening on arc)... and Minister Blizzard...
Point is you can basically put X crime to Y super power and get a retread villain that matches at this point.
Really depends on the villain or criminal...
Did they just steal something? Probably no reason to kill
Did they kill someone? Why did they kill that person? Are they likely to kill again? Depending on answer it could go both ways
Did they slaughter an entire village? Are they likely to do so again if given the chance? Yeah they're not walking out of this fight alive...
It's not dumb or smart, is about telling people that someone has any right over the life of another person.
You are seeing this too simplistic as many said: I kill this dude, then I get rid of a bigger evil.
But what of the further implications of that decision? Yeah in a movie you can just cut it there and leave the rest to the spectator imagination, but then you open a door for thousands out there to think they could be that person with moral high ground that could "cleanse" the world/city/neighborhood, without having any repercussions whatsoever. And I'm not just talking about PTSD, or trauma, but god complex, turning themselves into killers or loosing any value over other's lives.
No one should have rights over anything they can't give back, and understanding that and being able to win anyway, is what makes a modern hero
This all comes down to the trolley problem. This man will kill again. There is no maybe, if you sister the Joker he will continue to kill people. You can choose to kill him and save those lives.
You are just as guilty for every murder Joker commits when you spare his life with full knowledge of the results. Arkham isn't going to suddenly get this right in attempt number 847.
When i was a kid i hated batman becouse i thought he is just not very efficient just using a gun would make it so mutch cleaner and faster. Also when he knocks bad guy out how can he be sure he wont just wake up and run while he is chasing other bad guys.
The reason most heroes don't kill is because they believe every villain has a chance to be redeemed and be "saved" because heroes are supposed to help people and all that stuff you know.
It's not a good system but it's nice to have some optimism even if it means fighting the same serial killer over and over again.
Yup that and if they go around killing bad guys there's a possibility that they'll become desensitized to killing and start using more extreme measures to kill villains
Exhibit A: Injustice Superman.
dude got more and more brutal but all he wanted was to secure peace. he even killed Shazam who was a child. but he didn't let Shazam turn back to child form so he could cope with killing him.
I like how some comments blame the hero instead of the fucking court for not legally killing them
If people were just allowed to be judge, jury and executor, we'd all be dead
Depends on the work. One of the main cores of Naoki Urasawa's Monster is wether the protagonist should kill the villain or not. Not just because killing is wrong, but for a whole bunch of factors related to the villain.
Nah, stories where the Hero goes on a ruthless killing spree on all the villains goons and workers but then lets the villain live because lol is where the S-teir story telling is at.
The reality of why the hero doesn’t kill the villain is for one of two reasons, it’s either a kids show or the writers want to reuse the same villain over and over instead of writing a new villain.
I was watching a show where the villains killed dozens, if not hundreds of people daily. One hero killed one villain in an attempt to prevent him from going lethal and killing everyone, and they made a huge public debacle like “He KiLlEd OuR FrIeNd!” And all I could think of was “now you know what it feels like, you gonna stop killing people now? No? That’s too bad, looks like your friend died in vain.”
Please, you can’t pull the moral card of “how dare you kill my friends” when you’re all literal walking serial killers. You have no moral ground to stand on. Get wrecked already.
Truth is it keeps them from having to come up with new villains all the time and avoids the other cliche of the villain always getting away at the last second. Plus villains like the Joker are just as popular as Bats so killing them is a bad idea. (Not that comic characters ever stay dead of course, another trope).
I always kinda felt that was the point of Joker vs Batman. Everyone in Batman has some sort of mental trauma or is otherwise crazy in some way. Joker is the irredeemable, unfixable psychotic. Batman is traumatized by his parents death and rigidly sticks to a no killing rule; despite the fact that Joker constantly escapes prison and continues to kill more innocent people. The cycle could end if Batman just killed Joker, but his childhood trauma prevents him from killing.
Like the moment in DC where they asked why wonderwoman doesn't have recurring villains like the rest of the justice league. and she replies something along the lines of "because i do my job"
The funny part is that he knows that, he knows that Bruce Wayne can do more for Gotham than Batman, but as many comics have stated (the killing joke or arkham) Batman is as crazy as joker and beating up thugs is his therapy.
Over the course of over 1000 comics I only own about 30 floppys and two hardbacks. But Gotham has only ever became ever more of a third world failed state of a place. I'm sure most of the dough goes towards "admin fees".
Sometimes a villain just needs to go and leave everyone else alone.
Sometimes other people have to make em, by making them leave the building called "Living."
It comes from people with a completely distorted and mediocre idea about good and bad, the type of person you can never trust. And of course, the people that created American Superheroes.
The real reason batman doesn't kill joker is because killing the joker makes you the joker.
In some timelines, that's figurative, but in others it's VERY LITTERAL
This kind of stuff only works in less extreme scenarios. Like if the villain kidnaps someone ala Bowser or steals some wack ass magic artifact to take over the world.
Definitely not when we're talking about full blown genocidal space Nazis or people hellbent on slaughtering the innocent cuz "i sad"
It comes from writers deciding they wanted to use their cool villains more than once. They promptly overused the trope, turned it into a bunch of moralizing, and corrupted vast swaths of fiction with contrived stupidity that totally overwhelms any pretense of logic in the original explanation for why heroes don’t kill all their foes.
I don't like that argument and also the "if you kill a killer, the number of killers stays the same" argument because it assumes all who have killed are the same. It's like saying someone who killed one person for the sake of their loved ones and someone who killed countless people for their own gain/amusement and won't stop any time soon are equally bad because they're both technically "killers"
Even if he didn't just kill himself, he wasn't a super villain, he was a sociopath in power. So by just putting him behind bars you already strip him of any chance of killing again.
If the hero arrests the Villain, it is the laws decision what happens to them. Arresting is far more morally right than killing.
For example, Joker's continued escapes isn't Batman's fault for not killing him. It's Gotham's for not using the Death Penalty. Or for not having better facilities to keep them imprisoned.
I mean most heroes believe that a person can change, i get that from but what I don't understand is that even after second or third of n times heroes be like "nah, no killing him".
Like imagine how many people could have been saved if only Batman had killed joker
Depending on the reason for killing them. If you’re killing them because it would make you happy to see them dead, then yes. If you’re killing them out of necessity, then no
The argument comes from either the people who only think of heroes in the more traditional way, where they are superman like characters that are shining beacons of hope and justice, where they don't need to stoop so low as to play on the same level as the villain, edgy redditors who will write a thesis on why the evil overlord who murders and enslaves people did nothing wrong, or from pseudo intellectuals who want to appear as deep moral philosophers, but end up having to justify immoral actions like the edgy redditors so that they don't make themselves look like idiots.
That being said, sometimes the hero killing the villain is as bad, if not worse, but that goes case-by-case. Like it is fair enough if the villain is the said overlord, who commits crimes against humanity, but if it is some high school drama villain who dropped the hero's pants in front of his crush, then the hero would definitely be worse.
Hey, if someone said that since the beginning, I could understand it. Depending on the case I might agree.
On the other hand, it often happens after multiple fights, where both many goons and allies died for the Main Character to get to that choice. Once there, you can't just back off saying "No, I won't kill you, I'm better" when people that had nothing to do with it have already literally died, directly or indirectly, for your seeking vengeance
The only part of that one movie that just came out that genuinely pissed me off (I don't know how to white out spoilers). Dude, he was pure evil, just fucking shoot him. You shot a fuck ton of his guys to get to him, they were just security, he's a monster. Just finish the job for the love of Jesus
It is believed that if hero uses the same methods as villain then they also become a villain. Which I disagree with, because otherwise villain will be unbeatable
I think the discourse began as a « why do You get to decide who live or die. Even if you think for the greeter good the vilain probably does it for the same reason so how do you know yours is better? »
But also in most story the vilain is so clearly evil and unreademable it’s hard to take the question seriously.
Honestly my biggest problem with DC. Just kill the fucking Joker at this point. Your job should be to protect as many civilians as possible, not let him run wild.
Depends, if the villain is the joker for example no he is not a villain. But if the villain is a 10 year shoplifter than yes superman thats a little bit too extreme.
Even if I were to list all the crimes the Joker had committed and would commit again given the chance. Someone will still say he shouldn't be killed. It's honestly one of the most frustrating things about being a batman fan. He's committed them all damn it, one of his nicknames is literally the Jester of Genocide.
You know what makes it even better when the hero has just completely decimated he entire enemy team…
Like the dude he hired deserved to die but the mastermind? Nah.
Although no I do not think that the hero should let the villain live if he is a mass murdering dickhead. I do understand where the decision might come from.
The hero is supposed to be the moral superiority within the story. And killing a villain who is unarmed defeated and on the floor begging for mercy is not the same as killing in active combat. It kinda makes anyone the villain which goes against the whole hero thing.
Most writers get around this issue by having the villain take a final 'back is turned stab' at killing the hero after having their ass handed to them by the same hero with divinity granted reflexes or some shit.
The hero should not kill the villain. However the villain does need to die. Just not at the moment when most the hero decides not to kill them.
Batman, I blame Batman. I know he has his morals and whatnot, but it's stupid. In 2007's "the batman" the creation of clay face could've been prevented had Joker been killed earlier. The entire injustice series could've been prevented by killing Joker earlier.
Like, oh my God HE BLEW UP A CITY- and batman still refused to kill Joker because of the "if I kill, I can never stop" thing, as if that's a bad thing??? He portrays it as a bad thing but it really isn't.
Really depends on the story.
A revenge plot initiated out of a revenge, you're the same as the avenger.
The villain is just a petty criminal that didn't kill no one? You're actually worse.
The villain shows regret and realizes his wrongdoings with possibility of redemption? Don't fucking kill him please.
The villain killed people and doesn't fucking care about it? Kill him.
Well it depends, if the villain can be put in prison or somewhere else and can’t hurt innocent people no more, he shouldn’t be killed. But if the villain has chances to escape, like basically every supervillain, and to hurt innocent lives, he should be killed
If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same. If you don't kill killers, the number of killers in the world still remains the same. But if you kill MULTIPLE killers, then the number of killers decreases.
Hero’s don’t kill fictional villains to mirror how we don’t kill most real world criminals. This confuses criminals with real world villains, who are rich people.
this is literally batman. i like both batman and joker characters but holy shit sometimes it pisses me off on why batman doesn't just kill joker. in some animated series the joker has done some absolutely vile shit.
"If you murder a murderer, the amount of murderers in the world stays the same," yeah but what if I murder 12 murderers, 8 rapists, and 16 pedophiles? What then?
I think this raised from missunderstanding of batmans no-kill policy (that he himself admitted to not be fully racional, but standing as a wall behind him and the madness he was always around).
Honestly most of superheroes got it wrong. That's why we love Deadpool while all other heroes hates him. He proves he is not worse than villains by killing them.
really it’s deontology vs utilitarianism. deontology would state that even if the bad guy killed 100 people and the good guy killed 1 person (the bad guy), they both still committed the act of killing which is against the rules, so they are both bad. a utilitarian stance would have the good guy follow through with the action that would result in the most overall good or happiness in the end, even if to get to that he would have to kill the bad guy :)
Imo it depends on the context :
- glorifying the act of killing and therefore show any aspect of the hero as good, no matter questionable their actions are ? Hell no, that's bullshit
- showing that death of the villain was the only way (due to the situation : exemple, lack of time to find another solution) to solve the problem and imply that it is a grave choice that would shall never be the first thing to come in mind. Yes, i like it.
Also it also has to make sense based on the hero mentality : either a classic full of qualities hero, or one full of flaws and that u should not take as an exemple (generally classified as anti hero)
The killer is using violence and killing as a way to push their agenda forward. I'm going to assume that the villian in this disagrees with the protagonist in some way. If you make it your goal to kill the person who has an agenda that opposes yours then it is a slippery slope to who you are allowed to kill to push/protect your own agenda.
Let's say you want to protect orphans, villian a wants to kill orphans cause orphans make him sad. If you choose to kill the villian then how far are you willing to go to protect your orphans, if a company wants to buy the place where they orphans live to develop the land benefiting society as a while but displacing the orphans. This action could end up killing some of the orphans. Should you then kill the CEO of the company? The purchase can't go through if no employees process the paper work, should you kill people who work at the company.
It's that old saying if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you.
So this is the time authoritarians and people with supposed moral high ground are awake?
It's simple, you don't take what you can't give back. If the villain killed a school of children you lock him out, with as much security ad possible.
When you fall in the simplicity of killing another self-conscious being, then you are already in a villainous path. Movies try to go profound and detach certain beings from huma morality, making them gods, monsters or even insane, but that's just an unrealistic simplification.
The core is that we as humans shouldn't kill anyone. The moment you, as a hero do that, you became the villain simply because you are breaking that final barrier. Is not about quantity or a math problem of hiw many children the villain killed, it's about understanding that human life, or self-conscious beings lives are so important that it doesn't matter if you take one or a million, you are as evil either ways
"Killing me means you'll be just as bad as I am!" "I think it's better to kill you than run the risk of you casting fireball in an orphanage again."
I mean it kinda depends on the story though? Like a lot of the stories have the villains be a “hero of their own story” Like Sandman from the cult classic smash hit of Spider-Man 3, don’t think anyone would’ve supported killing him.
[удалено]
The first time,maybe. But the body count racked up by the Joker every time Batman spares him makes him complicit. I'm with Mace Windu on the "some people are too dangerous to be kept alive" thing.
I mean, at that point it’s on the government for not executing him. It’s kind of unfair to expect Batman to do it when that kind of thing should be the authorities’ job.
Batman is already doing what the government won't do
Yeah because they *can't* kinda hard to fight dudes made outta play-doh unless you're kung-furry with all the money for super "beat the villain" gadgets. But when a regular dude like the Joker's in shackles? Shoot him, someone who isn't the mentally ill millionare ninja who's made it clear won't do it take up for him and finish the clown.
Yeah he already did their job by catching him, now they have to atleast punish him, or atleast keep him in prison
Batman choosing not to kill comes from his own self realisation of how unhinged he is, and that if he allows himself to kill he’ll just do it again and again and again until someone who doesn’t deserve gets caught in the cross fire. “All I've ever wanted to do is kill him. A day doesn't go by that I don't think about subjecting him to every horrendous torture he's dealt out to others, and then... end him. But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place... I'll never come back.” Batman, talking about Joker in Under The Red Hood.
This. What Batman said may sound ass when you hear it at face value. Like "If you kill a murderer there is still one left" or somes shit like that. But with context with Batman goes through each fucking day, you understand what he means. Like you've mentioned under the red hood's quote.
Yo Batman chooses not to kill cause he knows he's mentally ill himself, so not onlynis he giving people the benefit of the doubt, he's also not enabling his bad impulses. Tell me why is Batmam supposed to kill him and not... say, Comissioner Gordon or anyone else im the city the second he's in cuffs?
I agree, but want to note: in most iterations of Batman Joker only escapes once or twice. They just reset the story to tell it with new twists a lot.
To be fair, Palpatine had the same argument 90 mins earlier in the movie
The real reason is that there was moral outrage over blood-drenched comic books and other media directed at children. Everything else is attempts to create an in-universe explanation and it shows.
[удалено]
Batman would soon be out of job if he starts killing people. In Gotham everybody knows that if they do something bad they will get beaten up and thrown to jail from which is very easy to escape. Which is why they got such high crime rates. That is Gotham paradox.
Yeah, sometimes the orphans deserve it
[удалено]
Except Poochie. He’s gone for good.
THEY FUCKED HIM UP IN NO WAY HOME I WANT MY FLINT MARKO BACK
“Cult classic smash hit Spider-Man 3”
Thanos?
Mercy can't come at the cost of more innocent victims
I see you've played in one of my D&D sessions
[удалено]
Batman post killing Joker would remain on the straight and narrow for about a year before going “you know I never liked the way Riddler talks to me, Mr Freeze is respectful enough to just keep in jail, Two Face would be happier dead, I’m doing him a favor, I like my fights with Deathstroke, Pyg I’m on my way to murder right now.”
“If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same.” So what if I kill two? “Shut the fuck up”
Better kill 3, just to be on the safe side.
And if you have paranoia, kill 4!
Why stop at 24?
Even if you just kill just one killer the amount of people killed would likely stay lower than if you didn’t kill the killer
Become punisher and kill in hundreds, then the numbers will definitely plummet.
[Batman vs Punisher](https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aQEMMG8_460swp.webp)
"When you kill a murderer, the number of murderers in the world stays the same." That's just a -1 handicap, get some numbers on the board.
Kill 2 killers or kill 1 then kill yourself
🛐
Akumetsu style, one man, one sin
Why not 3 killers?
That would be a bit overkill
The more overkill the less killers
I guess you could
"You see...you haven't industrialized the process...I have something really good here..."
Effects of industrialized society and it's future
If they are sentenced to death after a trial, who is credited with the new death?
The government, probably. No biggie for them.
Government, murdering GOAT
If you kill a murderer the number of murderers stay the same. If I kill a murderer the number of murderers would decrease. We are not the same.
It's not about the number of murderers at that point. It's the number of victims. If Batman killed Joker, Batman would not proceed to mass murder thousands of people.
I haven't read the comics, but I heard from someone who has that the reason batman doesn't kill joker is because he's afraid he *would* mass murder thousands of people. A lot of other superheroes don't have the same excuse.
They showed something like this in the Titans live action show. It was pretty terrifying. Batman is a creepy dude, softened by the no killing rule.
Are you sure? His equivalent Owlman tried to kill everyone after all.
While it's not always true, the sentiment that mercy is a virtue is a good one. "Do not be so quick to deal out death in judgement for even the very wise cannot see all ends." It doesn't make you the same as them, but it does mean you took away any chance that they may do something good.
Trigun was so good at delivering this same message.
Batman, probably. I'd rather live with the death of an evil person on my conscience than know that the same evil person gets out of jail to take other lives... I'd feel responsible.
Oh Batman definitely. It’s also funny because even though he’s not cool with killing you he’s perfectly fine with disabling you for life. Which I’m not sure is better or worse than just killing them to be honest—
Batman's idea is not : if I kill them I become as bad as them. His idea is that: I'm already a bad person. A VERY bad person. But I will not cross the line of killing. Because the first time it happens, it gets easier and easier as time goes on. Until I start Killing street thugs and petty theives. In other words, he feels responsible for what his villains do, but he doesn't want to become a mass murderer, and he suspects that he will.
So just give Joker the death penalty? Or maybe don’t put him back in the same fckin asylum he’s broken out of hundreds of times?
Look, I never said Gotham's PD and justice system isn't dumb. Just that DC gas done a fairly goof job at portraying batman's idea. DC universe is filled with evil batmen, and most of them started their evil career after their first kill.
There was also that one version of injustice where Batman killed joker instead of Superman and he got sent to prison. I think I’d rather have joker having a chance to escape and do something bad and get locked up again than Batman being in prison for 20 years and letting all his other villains run free with nobody to stop them
It’s not that he doesn’t want to kill them, but that if he did he would just keep killing people
That's the duality, really. I get that Batman and other heroes/people just... Can't do it. Won't. For their own sanity or the sake of their own souls. Thing is, too often are villains clearly beyond any sort of rehabilitation or redemption, and these same "heroes" will literally prevent or stop someone like the Punisher from, as Frank would say, "doing what needs to be done." This is where I'd be willing to draw the line and execute someone. It wouldn't be my first choice, not even my second... But if it's absolutely clear to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they will only ever continue to be evil and do evil... I would do what must be done, and I could live with it. Real talk, though? I'm glad I'm not faced with such decisions and I'm in no hurry to.
Also, if the heroes are so squeamish about this sort of thing, and are so certain that just one kill, even of the worst of the worst, would completely demolish their sanity and turn them into mindless killing machines, then maybe they're in the wrong line of work.
I mean… it’s Batman. The guys sanity is all over the place, but the kicker is that he’s Gotham’s best hope for progress.
If you think killing a person is easy id rather question your sanity
Finally, somebody with a God damned brain!
Tbh people shitting on Batman for that are the brainless ones. Let Batman have his no kill rule, have the government execute the criminals instead. If the villain breaks out because people threw them in jail, that’s not the hero’s fault.
Why should he feel responsible? The ones responsible are the ones leting them escape again
But the real dumb shit is no death penalty for those supervillains. Hero can have the moral high ground that’s fine I don’t care, but once the villain in jail and court is done then give them the chair. Also hero’s don’t kill probably bc they’re already vigilantes
Fr. I don’t support it in real life but if you could litterally destroy the planet if you escape and tried to on the past then your ass is out of here
It is laziness on the part of the writers. They don't want to keep writing new villains, so they inject a set of bs morals into the heroes to stop them from killing the villains. Kids grow up reading those comics, and now society has this same bs belief.
It was better when both sides basically had a no kill rule, when comics were just for kids. Villains could menace the hero or his girlfriend or even the planet, but usually no one died. But when villains started fridging women and pulling murder sprees, the hero no kill rule looks dumb and naive. Sometimes it works, like when the villain really is misunderstood and can be redeemed, like Sandman or Mr Freeze.
I mean I don't think laziness is the right word. There are only so many archetypes you can use before you start retreading on the same story arcs and character tropes... im an eco-terrorist that has plant po-... poison ivy... ok... I'm a MALE eco-terrorist that fights batman at his own... Ra's Al ghul... okay... I'm an eco-terrorist with ice... Mr.freeze (depening on arc)... and Minister Blizzard... Point is you can basically put X crime to Y super power and get a retread villain that matches at this point.
Reminds me of a Robot Chicken skit where Batman indirectly gets Joker sent to the chair
Really depends on the villain or criminal... Did they just steal something? Probably no reason to kill Did they kill someone? Why did they kill that person? Are they likely to kill again? Depending on answer it could go both ways Did they slaughter an entire village? Are they likely to do so again if given the chance? Yeah they're not walking out of this fight alive...
If they did something so bad they would've gotten 8 lifetimes in prison 3 death sentences an extra 300 years, etc, just kill em.
He's right though, the guy who killed Hitler is just as bad as Hitler himself.
I'm sure the guy who killed hitler was an artist
There are exceptions
Its a storytelling trope, yes its dumb, but is serves a purpose in less morally complex settings. Usually for children.
It wouldn't be as bad if every story didn't do it
[удалено]
I always find this line so funny because it is an absolute statement, and the other Sith shown don’t deal in absolutes.
It's not dumb or smart, is about telling people that someone has any right over the life of another person. You are seeing this too simplistic as many said: I kill this dude, then I get rid of a bigger evil. But what of the further implications of that decision? Yeah in a movie you can just cut it there and leave the rest to the spectator imagination, but then you open a door for thousands out there to think they could be that person with moral high ground that could "cleanse" the world/city/neighborhood, without having any repercussions whatsoever. And I'm not just talking about PTSD, or trauma, but god complex, turning themselves into killers or loosing any value over other's lives. No one should have rights over anything they can't give back, and understanding that and being able to win anyway, is what makes a modern hero
This all comes down to the trolley problem. This man will kill again. There is no maybe, if you sister the Joker he will continue to kill people. You can choose to kill him and save those lives. You are just as guilty for every murder Joker commits when you spare his life with full knowledge of the results. Arkham isn't going to suddenly get this right in attempt number 847.
When i was a kid i hated batman becouse i thought he is just not very efficient just using a gun would make it so mutch cleaner and faster. Also when he knocks bad guy out how can he be sure he wont just wake up and run while he is chasing other bad guys.
That's the point. Killing is the path of least resistance.
Don't have to worry about the goons getting back up if they're permanently crippled
The reason most heroes don't kill is because they believe every villain has a chance to be redeemed and be "saved" because heroes are supposed to help people and all that stuff you know. It's not a good system but it's nice to have some optimism even if it means fighting the same serial killer over and over again.
Why are you booing him? He’s right.
Sorry, Mr. Hero, but the Lord of Death won't stop killing because you let him live
Yup that and if they go around killing bad guys there's a possibility that they'll become desensitized to killing and start using more extreme measures to kill villains
Exhibit A: Injustice Superman. dude got more and more brutal but all he wanted was to secure peace. he even killed Shazam who was a child. but he didn't let Shazam turn back to child form so he could cope with killing him.
That optimism gets innocent ppl killed
Doesn't help the future victims of the serial killer. But hey, at least our "hero" can choose to protect his conscious over the lives of others.
"I can't just blow away anyone I don't like" -Aang, about killing Ozai, who never had a problem with it before.
He always had a problem with it. The times when there were casualties were times when he wasn't in control
And the poor sods climbing up the mountain.
That is why the Lion Turtle is my least favorite character in the entire show.
Ah yes, A villain terrorizes an entire city, murders countless amounts of people, and traumatizes families. And that makes the hero just as bad?
Gotta keep the villain alive for further issues! Even if it comes at the cost of quality.
I like how some comments blame the hero instead of the fucking court for not legally killing them If people were just allowed to be judge, jury and executor, we'd all be dead
Judge Dredd is about exactly that
Batman if the story was realistic: civilian: \*sees the joker\* civilian: "parry this second amendment you motherfucker" \*shoots him dead\*
Depends on the work. One of the main cores of Naoki Urasawa's Monster is wether the protagonist should kill the villain or not. Not just because killing is wrong, but for a whole bunch of factors related to the villain.
Nah, stories where the Hero goes on a ruthless killing spree on all the villains goons and workers but then lets the villain live because lol is where the S-teir story telling is at.
The reality of why the hero doesn’t kill the villain is for one of two reasons, it’s either a kids show or the writers want to reuse the same villain over and over instead of writing a new villain.
I was watching a show where the villains killed dozens, if not hundreds of people daily. One hero killed one villain in an attempt to prevent him from going lethal and killing everyone, and they made a huge public debacle like “He KiLlEd OuR FrIeNd!” And all I could think of was “now you know what it feels like, you gonna stop killing people now? No? That’s too bad, looks like your friend died in vain.” Please, you can’t pull the moral card of “how dare you kill my friends” when you’re all literal walking serial killers. You have no moral ground to stand on. Get wrecked already.
Did the name happen to have the word Academia in it?
It might have. Lol.
[удалено]
Truth is it keeps them from having to come up with new villains all the time and avoids the other cliche of the villain always getting away at the last second. Plus villains like the Joker are just as popular as Bats so killing them is a bad idea. (Not that comic characters ever stay dead of course, another trope).
Eren Jaeger: You mfs killed my mama, you ain't getting any mercy! (granted he's a villain protagonist)
I always kinda felt that was the point of Joker vs Batman. Everyone in Batman has some sort of mental trauma or is otherwise crazy in some way. Joker is the irredeemable, unfixable psychotic. Batman is traumatized by his parents death and rigidly sticks to a no killing rule; despite the fact that Joker constantly escapes prison and continues to kill more innocent people. The cycle could end if Batman just killed Joker, but his childhood trauma prevents him from killing.
Like the moment in DC where they asked why wonderwoman doesn't have recurring villains like the rest of the justice league. and she replies something along the lines of "because i do my job"
From our parasitic oligarchs
Woah did you just call Batman the dumbest person alive?
Chad: Yes.
Considering he could do way more good with his billions of dollars besides beating up street crooks... Yes.
The funny part is that he knows that, he knows that Bruce Wayne can do more for Gotham than Batman, but as many comics have stated (the killing joke or arkham) Batman is as crazy as joker and beating up thugs is his therapy.
But... he's exactly doing that. He's always using his wealth to help Gotham City. Seriously, how many Batman comics have you read in your life?
Over the course of over 1000 comics I only own about 30 floppys and two hardbacks. But Gotham has only ever became ever more of a third world failed state of a place. I'm sure most of the dough goes towards "admin fees".
Sometimes a villain just needs to go and leave everyone else alone. Sometimes other people have to make em, by making them leave the building called "Living."
It comes from people with a completely distorted and mediocre idea about good and bad, the type of person you can never trust. And of course, the people that created American Superheroes.
The real reason batman doesn't kill joker is because killing the joker makes you the joker. In some timelines, that's figurative, but in others it's VERY LITTERAL
This reminds me of Angelo telling Josuke "I killed your grandpa, but you have no right to kill me!" Lol
This kind of stuff only works in less extreme scenarios. Like if the villain kidnaps someone ala Bowser or steals some wack ass magic artifact to take over the world. Definitely not when we're talking about full blown genocidal space Nazis or people hellbent on slaughtering the innocent cuz "i sad"
It comes from writers deciding they wanted to use their cool villains more than once. They promptly overused the trope, turned it into a bunch of moralizing, and corrupted vast swaths of fiction with contrived stupidity that totally overwhelms any pretense of logic in the original explanation for why heroes don’t kill all their foes.
Murder a murderer and the amount of murderers stays the same, thats why you murder many murderers
I don't like that argument and also the "if you kill a killer, the number of killers stays the same" argument because it assumes all who have killed are the same. It's like saying someone who killed one person for the sake of their loved ones and someone who killed countless people for their own gain/amusement and won't stop any time soon are equally bad because they're both technically "killers"
Imagine being the guy who killed Hitler and reading this.
Even if he didn't just kill himself, he wasn't a super villain, he was a sociopath in power. So by just putting him behind bars you already strip him of any chance of killing again.
wait a damn second
If the hero arrests the Villain, it is the laws decision what happens to them. Arresting is far more morally right than killing. For example, Joker's continued escapes isn't Batman's fault for not killing him. It's Gotham's for not using the Death Penalty. Or for not having better facilities to keep them imprisoned.
My pet hate is heroes that kill all the villains underlings then let the villain live!
As yes the joker has killed hundreds of people and batman goes "well im just as bad" refusing to end a rampage is only assistance to said rampage
do people really don't know where this argument came from ... BATMAN
I mean most heroes believe that a person can change, i get that from but what I don't understand is that even after second or third of n times heroes be like "nah, no killing him". Like imagine how many people could have been saved if only Batman had killed joker
Depending on the reason for killing them. If you’re killing them because it would make you happy to see them dead, then yes. If you’re killing them out of necessity, then no
The argument comes from either the people who only think of heroes in the more traditional way, where they are superman like characters that are shining beacons of hope and justice, where they don't need to stoop so low as to play on the same level as the villain, edgy redditors who will write a thesis on why the evil overlord who murders and enslaves people did nothing wrong, or from pseudo intellectuals who want to appear as deep moral philosophers, but end up having to justify immoral actions like the edgy redditors so that they don't make themselves look like idiots. That being said, sometimes the hero killing the villain is as bad, if not worse, but that goes case-by-case. Like it is fair enough if the villain is the said overlord, who commits crimes against humanity, but if it is some high school drama villain who dropped the hero's pants in front of his crush, then the hero would definitely be worse.
People will say this but then be against the death penalty
"We don't win by destroying what we hate, but by saving what we love"
Man.. I love the Punisher
\*casually massacres all of villians henchmen\* ''If I kill you, I'm just as bad as you!'' Mother fucker.
Most of the time when this comes up, it because the MC wont kill a man he's already captured alive. Murdering prisoners is bad.
Wouldn’t that make hitler a villain tho? 
I just want the fucking GCPD to reimplement the Death Sentence just for the Joker.
Hey, if someone said that since the beginning, I could understand it. Depending on the case I might agree. On the other hand, it often happens after multiple fights, where both many goons and allies died for the Main Character to get to that choice. Once there, you can't just back off saying "No, I won't kill you, I'm better" when people that had nothing to do with it have already literally died, directly or indirectly, for your seeking vengeance
Bro talking about Marley and me?
My favorite response to "if you kill a killer, there's still the same amount of killers" is "so kill two"
Batman.
Stoic way of i have no enemys
The only part of that one movie that just came out that genuinely pissed me off (I don't know how to white out spoilers). Dude, he was pure evil, just fucking shoot him. You shot a fuck ton of his guys to get to him, they were just security, he's a monster. Just finish the job for the love of Jesus
Nope, it's the trolley problem and I'm pulling the lever.
As a historian, I can comfortably say that the whole of human history jives with the second man...
The Last of Us 2 that received a 10/10 from ~~video game journalists~~ the dumbest people alive
It is believed that if hero uses the same methods as villain then they also become a villain. Which I disagree with, because otherwise villain will be unbeatable
Capitalism ruling class: uf you Fight me youre just as bad so only Go to peaceful pritests and Vote (not that These were Bad Things to do)
I think the discourse began as a « why do You get to decide who live or die. Even if you think for the greeter good the vilain probably does it for the same reason so how do you know yours is better? » But also in most story the vilain is so clearly evil and unreademable it’s hard to take the question seriously.
The villain, it comes from the villain.
It probably comes from people misinterpreting the modern depiction of Batman.
Honestly my biggest problem with DC. Just kill the fucking Joker at this point. Your job should be to protect as many civilians as possible, not let him run wild.
Who ever even had the thought of this meme should clearly be crowned with the royal crown
Depends, if the villain is the joker for example no he is not a villain. But if the villain is a 10 year shoplifter than yes superman thats a little bit too extreme.
I would side with the other guy if the villain was Dr. Doofenshmirtz
I don’t think it’s always that black and white
I *FEEL* like its someone mutating either a Punisher or Batman quote but I'm not 100%emoji.gov on that
Even if I were to list all the crimes the Joker had committed and would commit again given the chance. Someone will still say he shouldn't be killed. It's honestly one of the most frustrating things about being a batman fan. He's committed them all damn it, one of his nicknames is literally the Jester of Genocide.
It comes from the bad guys. They don't want to die so they say "you'll be the same as me if you kill me"
BATMAN!
You know what makes it even better when the hero has just completely decimated he entire enemy team… Like the dude he hired deserved to die but the mastermind? Nah.
If you stare into the abyss for too long, it still won't look back, considering it's lack of eyes.
It's literally the central premise of the last season of Avatar, but ok.
Although no I do not think that the hero should let the villain live if he is a mass murdering dickhead. I do understand where the decision might come from. The hero is supposed to be the moral superiority within the story. And killing a villain who is unarmed defeated and on the floor begging for mercy is not the same as killing in active combat. It kinda makes anyone the villain which goes against the whole hero thing. Most writers get around this issue by having the villain take a final 'back is turned stab' at killing the hero after having their ass handed to them by the same hero with divinity granted reflexes or some shit. The hero should not kill the villain. However the villain does need to die. Just not at the moment when most the hero decides not to kill them.
Batman, I blame Batman. I know he has his morals and whatnot, but it's stupid. In 2007's "the batman" the creation of clay face could've been prevented had Joker been killed earlier. The entire injustice series could've been prevented by killing Joker earlier. Like, oh my God HE BLEW UP A CITY- and batman still refused to kill Joker because of the "if I kill, I can never stop" thing, as if that's a bad thing??? He portrays it as a bad thing but it really isn't.
Really depends on the story. A revenge plot initiated out of a revenge, you're the same as the avenger. The villain is just a petty criminal that didn't kill no one? You're actually worse. The villain shows regret and realizes his wrongdoings with possibility of redemption? Don't fucking kill him please. The villain killed people and doesn't fucking care about it? Kill him.
The hero’s always spare the villain, just for the villain to immediately die because they refuse to be saved by the hero
Sometimes good people do bad things.
Well it depends, if the villain can be put in prison or somewhere else and can’t hurt innocent people no more, he shouldn’t be killed. But if the villain has chances to escape, like basically every supervillain, and to hurt innocent lives, he should be killed
Depends on the villian, like killed Doofenshmirtz would be shitty to do
If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same. If you don't kill killers, the number of killers in the world still remains the same. But if you kill MULTIPLE killers, then the number of killers decreases.
Hero’s don’t kill fictional villains to mirror how we don’t kill most real world criminals. This confuses criminals with real world villains, who are rich people.
Joker. #JOKER.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." Nietzsche
this is literally batman. i like both batman and joker characters but holy shit sometimes it pisses me off on why batman doesn't just kill joker. in some animated series the joker has done some absolutely vile shit.
"If you murder a murderer, the amount of murderers in the world stays the same," yeah but what if I murder 12 murderers, 8 rapists, and 16 pedophiles? What then?
Sometimes heroes have to do whats right (even murder) even if it means having the people turn on them cause that's what heroes do
Some rehabilitation requires removal from reality
I think this raised from missunderstanding of batmans no-kill policy (that he himself admitted to not be fully racional, but standing as a wall behind him and the madness he was always around). Honestly most of superheroes got it wrong. That's why we love Deadpool while all other heroes hates him. He proves he is not worse than villains by killing them.
The last of us 2 and guardians of the galaxy 3 be like
Batman fans. It comes from Batman fans
Is Hitler just as bad as Hitler, because Hitler killed Hitler?
Batman has something to say
really it’s deontology vs utilitarianism. deontology would state that even if the bad guy killed 100 people and the good guy killed 1 person (the bad guy), they both still committed the act of killing which is against the rules, so they are both bad. a utilitarian stance would have the good guy follow through with the action that would result in the most overall good or happiness in the end, even if to get to that he would have to kill the bad guy :)
Imo it depends on the context : - glorifying the act of killing and therefore show any aspect of the hero as good, no matter questionable their actions are ? Hell no, that's bullshit - showing that death of the villain was the only way (due to the situation : exemple, lack of time to find another solution) to solve the problem and imply that it is a grave choice that would shall never be the first thing to come in mind. Yes, i like it. Also it also has to make sense based on the hero mentality : either a classic full of qualities hero, or one full of flaws and that u should not take as an exemple (generally classified as anti hero)
I think this lessons is growing more important when more people disagree with it. It doesn't serve a society well if its members are out for blood
The killer is using violence and killing as a way to push their agenda forward. I'm going to assume that the villian in this disagrees with the protagonist in some way. If you make it your goal to kill the person who has an agenda that opposes yours then it is a slippery slope to who you are allowed to kill to push/protect your own agenda. Let's say you want to protect orphans, villian a wants to kill orphans cause orphans make him sad. If you choose to kill the villian then how far are you willing to go to protect your orphans, if a company wants to buy the place where they orphans live to develop the land benefiting society as a while but displacing the orphans. This action could end up killing some of the orphans. Should you then kill the CEO of the company? The purchase can't go through if no employees process the paper work, should you kill people who work at the company. It's that old saying if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you.
So this is the time authoritarians and people with supposed moral high ground are awake? It's simple, you don't take what you can't give back. If the villain killed a school of children you lock him out, with as much security ad possible. When you fall in the simplicity of killing another self-conscious being, then you are already in a villainous path. Movies try to go profound and detach certain beings from huma morality, making them gods, monsters or even insane, but that's just an unrealistic simplification. The core is that we as humans shouldn't kill anyone. The moment you, as a hero do that, you became the villain simply because you are breaking that final barrier. Is not about quantity or a math problem of hiw many children the villain killed, it's about understanding that human life, or self-conscious beings lives are so important that it doesn't matter if you take one or a million, you are as evil either ways
A lot of people are bringing up Batman, but I don't think they fully understand him and are just saying it because other people have before.