Now, I've not read too much Batman, so I can't speak to much to the comics. But I've played Arkham Asylum and, honestly, five hours in I quit. It was a great game. So why did I stop? In the beginning of the game Batman states that the Joker has never let Batman catch him so easily (almost word for word). So not only has the Joker been caught and escaped but this has happened enough times to allow Batman to assess a pattern. Now, if the Joker is anything like any other depiction of the Joker (I assume he is), every time he escapes he kills hundreds of people (in an attempt to kill thousands more). I mean the reason I stopped playing Asylum is because I kept seeing dead guards all over the place and I couldn't help but think... "This is my fault (as Batman)". Really drew me out of the game. Now I don't have an issue with, say, Nolan's Batman, because it's never established that super villains escape out of Arkham, so we assume they don't. But in the Batman universes where super villains escape Arkham numerous times, is it really okay for Batman to not kill them? I get that it's his sense of justice, but is his ego so big as to think that his own moral compass is worth the lives of hundreds of people if not more people? Hundreds of guards with (albeit virtual) friends and family. I don't agree with the death penalty... In our universe. But in a universe with super villains that have proven time and time again that they are well beyond redemption, why not kill them? It just stops me from 'getting into' Batman mediums (games, tv series, etc.). Does anyone agree with me, or am I wrong about this? Maybe I've missed/misunderstood something. So what do you think?

It's not Batman's responsibility to do anything, really. He has no real legal authority, he just chooses to try and clean up the streets. It's Gotham's poor legal system and Arkham's poor security that's to blame.

Hm, I agree. Gotham's legal system sucks. Still, it could be argued (as it is with most superheroes) those with the power to do something have the responsibility to do something. All I know is, if I were in Batman's boots, I think I'd kill any super villain I could get my hands on (the one's that have proven they can't be helped and pose a constant threat to the city). The small time thugs can go to prison. If you can kill one malicious life to save virtually thousands of innocent ones, why would you want to stop killing? Also, I should add; I don't condone violence or murder, but the rules change when in a universe that has crime to that extent.

First of all, spacing and paragraphs. You have an Enter button, use it.

Second of all, while I mostly agree with you, there is one thing that bugs me, whenever people post something like you just did:

Why is it, that people only think in terms of "kill or don't kill". Really, what is wrong with people, causing them to see no alternative to throwing the criminals in Arkham, other than killing them?

-

To explain what I mean:

Batman is one of the greatest minds on the planet, he is a highly skilled escapologist, engineer, detective, and many other useful skill-sets. And as Bruce Wayne, he has an enormous amount of resources, as well as influence in the city.

You blame him for not killing the criminals, at least the serial mass-murderers. I think it's much worse than that.

I respect his choice of not killing, and can accept his reasons for it. But he has the capabilities, and the resources, to takes alternative means to prevent the criminals from coming back again and again, like a demented game of whack'a'mole.

1. He could improve the Arkham facilities. Using his influence to get permission to do so, his resources to pay for it, and his skills and knowledge to actually design and build improvements to the facilities, that would ensure a much more secure prison.

Or 2. He could build a completely new prison, designed by himself.

And finally, it goes much deeper than just Batman. Because while Batman is highly capable himself, he also has connections to the Justice League, and through that, access to Kryptonian, Martian, Apokolipian and Thanagarian tech. Not to mention the very capable people in the JLA, that could help him make the design even more secure.

But wait, it's not just the Gotham criminals that keep escaping again and again. It happens in all of america. So while, yes, Batman is personally responsible in Gotham(due to refusing to allow other heroes access), the JLA as a whole, share the same guilt, albeit to a slightly lesser degree.

I mean, they are some of the greatest minds on the planet(if not more), and they can't come up with the idea that "hmm, maybe we need better prisons" ?

They are, at best, guilty of countless cases of criminal negligence, and negligent homicide.

@dctv3363: Gordon may hate it and while society does have a right to try the accused in a court of law, Batman could kill the Joker in self defense. It does worry me that Batman seems to care more about his mental well being then those of his city. When Joker escapes for the 10th time, Batman should quit either because he is largely ineffectual or because he broke his rule.

With that in mind shouldn't anybody who kills quit living that lifestyle? Policemen, military, bodyguards...Oh wait, they just act like men and deal with the consequences of their decisions. I can easily agree with the op's logic. It's nice that the writers try to justify their need to retain the bad guys with Bruce's decision but it makes him seem morally weak. He can't make the hard decision and people, innocent people die for it.

Well said.

The fact that Batman continues to try is probably much more than the city deserves... which is why he is awesome.

ok iam guessing no one here has ever taken a life and if you did you would know that when it comes to the everyday man or woman weather its policemen or a soldier taking the life of another human isnt easy to deal with. Even when that person issome one like the joker. Movies may show a cop or soldier being able to kill some one and go about their lives like nothing happened but this in real life isnt how most people deal with killing some one even when it is justifed for most people taking a life is a tramatizing event. Which leads many to commet suicide.

@sirmethos: actually he as upgraded arkham numerous times read batman annual number 2

Killing is against Batman's moral code and he rejects the premise that he has a responsibility to kill. Not that he doesn't blame himself for every murder in Gotham, but he does that because he wasn't there to stop it. Not because he accepts the logic that he should kill to stop killing.

Has it ever been explained why he can't just get Superman to shoot the Joker off into the Negative Zone? Seems it would be a perfect solution.

It's not his responsibility to do so. He does more than he has to already.

@itscometothis:This pretty much explains why Batman doesn't kill, even when his own adopted son/sidekick thinks Bruce should have stopped him

My theory is, Joker is right. Batman can't live without the Joker. He's his Yin to his Yang. Without the Joker, Batman wouldn't be complete. It's kinda crazy, I know. But the reason Batman really goes out on the streets because he doesn't want other to feel his pain. WRONG. Batman goes out on the streets to feel good about himself. When he stops a criminal, he feels good that he stopped someone. Without Joker, it would be to easy. All the other villains just show up once in a blue moon to fail. But Joker is always breaking out, always the one to cause trouble, always killing. And the more he stops him, the better he feels about himself.

It's not his place to take another life. Sure,it's his responsibility to make Gotham safe,but not by killing. He can never cross that line because it is not his place to take another life,no matter how effective it may be,and I respect that decision.

All the criminals on the streets are fault of the cops!!!!

If they kill every single criminal, crime would stop.

Oh not this argument again.

@gor724: the reason why he dosnt throw joker into negative zone is becuase that eleminates the jokers ability to chose.

this is the argument is the same thats being talked about in Injustice. Superman kills villains and forces nations around the world to stop fighting thus he creates a world without war or crime but Batman see though supermans plan becuase while Superman does offer a world of peace and safety he also created a world with out liberty and whats a world or a life without liberty

That's kind of the point though. You think Batman doesn't feel extremely guilty, all the time? He does. But he deals with it. Because he knows that if he slips up, if he kills even a single person, then he will never be able to stop. Killing The Joker might be a justified action, but then... why not Two Face while he's at it? Harvey's killed plenty of people. And then there's Penguin, his kill list is almost as high. Oh the Riddler is completely unpredictable and who knows how many he can kill! He's gotta go too. Etc, etc, until Gotham becomes a fascist dictatorship ruled by The Batman.

It's mentioned that Bruce Wayne does indeed contribute to Arkham security. Fact of the matter is, Joker and Co. are all good enough to escape regardless.

Completely inhumane.

Not the best excuse, but really none of these are.

oh look it's this thread again

@nickzambuto: @lordofthenorth: I know he has contributed to the security a few times.

Which just means 2 things.

1.

A. His skills and knowledge are vastly overrated

or B. The various improvements he has contributed with, have not been the top of what he could actually do. Which would either be due to arrogance, raw stupidity, or keeping his secret is more important to him than keeping the prisoners from escaping.

And 2. He hasn't made use of his connections to the JLA, regarding ways to increase the security in Arkham(which kinda leads back to 1-B as well).

And contributions or no contributions, the fact is that he stills puts the criminals into Arkham, with full knowledge of the fact, that they are going to escape and kill again. Which, at best, is criminal negligence, and negligent homicide. Or at worst, conspiracy to commit <insert various crimes>, mass-murder being the primary one.

Bottom line: Batman is either an idiot, a hypocrite, or a criminal.

In regards to the JLA, Batman has always made it clear that Gotham is his city and he does not want any interference. So I suppose "hypocrite" would be the best option. The Gotham Rogues like Joker and Riddler who are clever enough to constantly escape Arkham are likewise constantly displayed as intellectual rivals to the dark knight, so I don't find it too unbelievable that they could crack his security one way or another. There is the matter of building his own prison, but it makes sense that, if he really is putting everything he has into Arkham, simply constructing a new building won't really change anything.

Batman doesn't kill, but he has no problem torturing, denying due-process and inflicting permanent physical harm/disability to criminals.

I didn't read the OP because I am tired but why do super heroes need to kill? Why don't the Gotham courts just issue the death penalty? The only real explanation is plot but realistically if this were to happen I am pretty sure Joker would be dead by now due to the courts.

I really don't see it as batmans fault.

@itscometothis: how you fail at getting batman firstly he doesent even have to help Gotham its not his duty so if he should not even be saving lives what gives him the rite to kill. Also Bruce does feel guilt his own partner Jason was killed by Jason. When Jason returned from the dead Bruce tells him why he can't kill joker and that is that even if he only kills once then still why should the others live why should he or the people he protects live. And that if he kills joker then he will have taken a life as a replacements to Jason's and jokers life is not worth Jason's at all so he can't do it.

Also he will be the problem by killing breaking the law to fight crime is one thing but to kill makes him no better than the joker. Andafter all the lives lost cause he did not kill why now what makes the difference all life is sacred to him. And if he kills then the world he is fighting for the one were no 8 year old will lose his parents to crime or a child like Jason will not be killed by joker for nothing but the fact that it was for nothing. Then he will have betrayed that world by killing to stop killing by killing just begins the problem but this time it's glorified not hated his fight is not with criminals but with crime and injustice he is protecting criminals from each other also. To add to that he knows that to stop crime is not to kill them because as the reasons above say its wrong, but rather that he can save everyone's lives and give them a chance to live and to save their morality also criminals can truly be saved and the innocent by a different way because as he said in his first origin " criminals are a superstitious cowardly lot, therefor my disguise must strike terror into their hearts" or take when he picked the bat in year one his words were help me father give me the means in which to fight injustice" and at that moment a bat smashed through a window and screeched at him. So you see he iscnocasking for a way to stop a criminal like chill but to stop the death for everyone so no one must have to die or lose their morals for nothing. Also if he was given the chance to kill one man that by killing will stop crime, he would not do it as he knows that a person say joe chill is not crime but only a person hurt by it like Bruce so what gives him the rite look at year one he says fight not stop cause u can't stop crime. Look at the episode of doctor who genesis of the dales were he can destroy the early versions if a mutated by science beings that will destroy the universe sooner or later he tries to make it so they have morality but is stopped so with no choice is forced to break his morals and kill them but stopes and says a speech as he starts crying and sweating and he says what gives me the rite to take an intelligent however terrible beings life in because in our view they are evil but to him they are still beings and he says have I that rite and drops the wires. So bats does not kill for so many reasons don't judge your not him and have not thought about it. The ideal of batman is a way to use his fear to inflict fear and only fear for criminals are not crime but only humans so what gives him the rite to take a man even chills life.

LOL How many of these threads do we have now?

Batman can only do so much. He's already breaking quite a few laws, actually. He doesn't want to S^%@ on the Legal system, even If It's corrupted or flawed. He can do what he wants but that makes him look like a criminal and that wouldn't be the correct way to make Gotham start taking thing in their own hands.

Batman doesn't really need Joker at all. He's wanting to protect Gotham, not fight against evil. There's way to many crazies out there he messed with for him to really need Joker to go on with his life and crusade.

So can this be flagged for being a dupe thread or a bait thread? It's serving both those functions at the moment.

@nickzambuto: He wouldn't have to allow them into Gotham, to get their help with upgrading security.

He could just show the plans for the security as it is at the time, and ask for ideas to improve it. Or better yet, ask for ideas on how to make it as close to 100% secure as possible. With tech. minds like Mr. Terrific, Steel, Cyborg, hell even Superman, as well as the advice from an escape master like Mister Miracle(scott free), chances are that they could come up with some pretty impressive things.

Especially if he also provides descriptions of past escapes.

He could also ask Zatanna, Jason Blood, Dr. Fate, etc. for magical assistance, without having them come into Gotham, by having them provide various enchanted items(say, something you can slap on a wall, to make it unbreakable, just as an example).

Dupe thread.

OP here. Thanks for the feedback. I kind of see the point now. Maybe I should try reading some of the comics and then try playing Asylum again. Again, great feedback. To those saying "Look it's this thread again", etc, I'm a first time poster so sorry for posting a thread that was already on the forum. But maybe the fact that so many people have this question means that it's a justifiable one? Or maybe people just don't understand/agree with Batman's morals.

Its always fun to question Batman's morals but I am just surprised it bothered you to the extent that you stopped playing Arkham Asylum despite it being as you say a great game.

I swear that word search is still useless. Does anyone ever thought that this has been use before or you just don’t want make long forum topic?

Here is the link and welcome to Comic Vine.

http://www.comicvine.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/i-cant-kill-because-i-am-a-superhero-syndrome-385069/

@itscometothis: Hmm...I think this will make you happy in the long run my friend =D

The true reason of Batman unkilling is very simple. It's not some great moral or responsibility, but fear, result of trauma of his parents death.

It's not about Batman not allowing other heroes to step foot in Gotham City, it's about Batman not wanting to accept help. If he took some tips from the JLA or utilized their technology, that'd be interference in his city. Chalk it up to selfish stubbornness if anything.

As much as I think Batman is a punk for his no killing policy, I concede it is an important part of his character. It is really the fault of Gotham's legal system that these mass murderers are on a revolving door through Arkham. Batman's refusal to kill could be rooted in fear from his parents' murder, a personal code reflecting his role as a vigilante, or even a desire to be an example to others. Whatever his motives, it defines him and is more important to his character than the more generic "killing makes us bad m'kay" of a lot of other heroes.

It's a tricky topic that I think different characters should have different answers for. I understand Superman's not killing because he DOES want to be a role model. I understand that Wonder Woman does kill sometimes because of her culture / background. When there's a rationale behind it, I can accept a character's beliefs about killing, either way.

@el_contrarian: His policy of not killing, is not a problem. It's the fact that he is incapable of coming up with an alternative, aside from letting the criminals, essentially, come and go as they want.

Better question: Why haven't the citizens of Gotham form an angry mob and kill most Batman's rogues?

@nickzambuto: no his goal is not beat people like zod but to end the pain and after effects caused by crime. So he used fear it was explained in no mans land when Clark fixed the city and realized that gothams problem is the people's selfishness and that they are afraid.

What would be the point of killing if he lives in a universe where people gets back from the grave anyway?

Another Batman Morality thread

*Rolls eyes*

I have a question.

Does killing criminals stop crimes in any way?

It stop people from becoming criminals?

Also, why is this thread still open if there are others exactly like this one.

I don't quite agree, but it's his decision to make. Nobody hired him to do this stuff. He breaks laws constantly to do his thing. I kinda wonder how they convict anyone he catches actually with all his evidence acquired illegally. I don't quite agree on the never killing some of these mass murderers, but that said, I dunno if I'd ever really want to snuff someone unless it was really them or me. Killing's a big deal

First off, I disagree with Batman's no-kill policy, but I do understand it. It's exactly as the clip Chaos Burn showed. Batman is afraid he's too much like Joker, too close to being the crazed psychopath just like all the other freaks in Gotham. He has just as much reason to got bat-poo crazy on everyone as Joker does, and he considers himself just as much in darkness as the criminals. He's afraid that once he kills off Joker and the rest of the murdering criminals, he'll lose it. He might even end up killing policemen and Commissioner Gordon, just because it could be construed as their fault his parents died. Batman is too psychologically unstable to be able to make that decision. Yes, that does mean he is weak; at least he recognizes his weakness.

Another reason he doesn't want to kill is because he believes that everyone, even murderers, can be saved. While I agree that they might stop killing eventually if they get fixed, I disagree that this is a good idea - he risks too many innocents by letting one murderer stay alive. It's not as if he doesn't know that they are murderers either, he's seen the Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, and most of the rest of the rogue's gallery off people personally. It would be far better if Batman would either kill them or let them die by their own hands.

However, it's not just Batman's fault. The entire world's justice system sucks. I mean, doesn't anybody get the death penalty?! They always just go to Arkham, either because they're insane or because Batman got them instead of a police officer. Heck with that! It happens in real life too - "You murdered your own children in a bathtub. And how do you plead?" "Insanity" "Oh, then we'll help you get better and back to your life so you can do it again if you regress." It's messed up.

(Also, how come there are still so many people alive if supervillains run amok constantly?)

Point is, Batman should do take care of the problem, but he just stems the tide. A lot better than nothing, I guess.

Im shocked u let that stop u from playing the Arkham Games. They are like crack. Between Skyrim and Arkham City i sunk more hours into them than should ever be mentioned.

I think it all boils down to writers' lack of creativity, more than anything. If Arkham were 100% secure, then we'll never see any of Batman's rogues ever again once he's locked them up in there. And fans just looove them rogues. So no, 100% secure Arkham will never happen, unless writers can find a way around this problem.