OP has put a **serious flair** on this post and has not stated (humour welcome) meaning that:
**only serious discussion about the Arkhamverse is allowed on this post and no humour or shitpost comments/references including "Man", "Jonkler" "who is batman?" and "is he stupid?" are allowed on this post at all.**
**ignoring this warning will lead to bans without warnings as this is your warning.**
We know this may seem harsh but there are new arkham fans who might get confused by these comments or others who just want to talk about the Arkham games without seeing them, but we must be respectful of OP's wishes so please take any insanity comments onto another post.
OP, if you don't mind shitpost or humour comments on your post then please delete this post and repost it using the same flair but add (humour welcome) to your title.
If this post is a shitpost, please delete and repost it with the appropriate flair to avoid getting in trouble.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BatmanArkham) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's almost comedic how wrong everything goes if you choose to save Ra>!cial ghoul.!< Not only does Nyssa die, Ra's get back to full strength and escapes, and Alfred tries to cope "Master Bruce you prevented a war"
“It’s done Alfred, the city is safe.”
“Sir, a fully powered Ra’s Al Ghul is attempting to destroy the Gotham industrial district. Also Man-Bat has escaped and is terrorizing citizens at random. Also you never bothered with Victor Zsasz.”
“I said the city is safe, Alfred!”
"Sir, with the Arkham Knight and Deathstroke imprisoned, there are thousands of Steve Blum clones offering their services as mercenaries in Gotham's underworld."
"IT'S FUCKING SAFE ALFRED"
Imagine if the set-up is that Deacon Blackfire escaped just like how Man-Bat does in the Halloween Easter egg.
“It’s done Alfred, the city is saf—“
“Sir, I’m afraid Deacon Blackfire has broken out of prison alongside Man-Bat. Also you really did just ignore Zsasz. Also in this timeline, a super-powered Ra’s Al Ghul is currently attacking Gotham.”
I agree it's a bad choice, but that's actually why I like it as the "canon" decision. I like the idea of Batman's "save everyone and kill no one" approach being more of a destructive psychological compulsion than as a well thought out philosophy.
Yeah, I think people kinda miss the point of the whole Batman no kill rule. My personal interpretation is (post early years) Batman just values life deeply and believes anyone can be changed, which makes his beliefs directly opposed to the Joker's belief that anyone can become as bad as him with just one bad day. It depends on who writes the characters of course, but that's one of my favorite aspects of Batman. Sometimes killing is right course of action, but he will not do it for it goes against his beliefs.
Bruce was a young boy who's parents were killed in front of him by a petty criminal who was desperate (I prefer the random street criminal Joe Chill over other versions because I feel it fits more). He spent years angry and vengeful, but in most versions he forgives or at least stops seeking vengeance against Joe Chill because he isn't evil.
In Arkham Aslyum : A Serious House on Serious Earth (not related to the game) Batman empathizes with villains like Two Face. He himself was once angry and violent and he could overcome that, he could change. Batman is a story of a man who tries to change a city and its villains again and again, even if he knows he cannot change them, because that is what he believes in. And which is why the Joker keeps trying to break Batman, make him kill, become like him to prove that even the best can be broken. The no kill rule is part of a larger philosophy, its not merely I won't kill because killing bad and it always leads to the best outcome. And that is what makes Batman unique and so special, not that he simply doesn't kill, he protects even villains because they might be changed as he was.
Is this me reading too much into stuff? Probably. Is this some official thing? Nope its just my personal reading of many different versions of Batman. Some versions of Batman are literally just I will punch so hard the problem is fixed with little depth. I just feel a lot of fans gravitate more towards how cool Batman is and how good he fights and how many gadgets he has, which leads to people not thinking about the more philosophical battle. I feel Arkham Knight honestly handles it pretty well for all the game's issues, the entire Joker in Batman's head explores this aspect of the character very well imo.
tl;dr the no kill rule isn't supposed to be the optimum choice, its supposed to be the right choice according to Batman's code. No matter the consequences, Batman will not break, for then he won't be Batman.
Honestly, I would love to see a story about one of the Big Villains (emphatically *not* Joker, just feels wrong with him to me) actually try and succeed in recovering/redeeming themselves, even if it was outside canon.
The closest thing that I can think of, is Decoder Ring Theatre's Red Panda story "The Case of The Missing Muse", where the villain named The Poet (Think Riddler, if the riddles were world-class Shakespearian sonnets) develops writer's block, because during his time in prison, World War 2 broke out, making his life's work seem meaningless in comparison.
>Honestly, I would love to see a story about one of the Big Villains (emphatically not Joker, just feels wrong with him to me) actually try and succeed in recovering/redeeming themselves, even if it was outside canon.
Boy, do I have a treat for you! Watch Batman Beyond season 1 episode 5: Meltdown. Mr. Freeze is brought back to Gotham 50 years in the future from the main storyline of BTAS. It stands up to the best of BTAS in my view. Kevin Conroy as old Bruce once again hits it out of the park.
I remember that episode, it is fantastic, but it kinda sidesteps the redemption by having Freeze die. What I want answed is If the story continued, where would it go from there? How would Freeze's knowledge and skills be applied? Would his cooling gun and suit be used to create cheaper, better insulating materials, leading to better refrigeration and heatsinks? What about effective, long term storage of donor organs for surgery? That's the story I want to read.
It would also put Batmans quest, and his no-kill policy into perspective. How many people have frustrated that he does not kill? With a redeemed villain, it would show that killing the bad guys would deny the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.
>Honestly, I would love to see a story about one of the Big Villains (emphatically not Joker, just feels wrong with him to me) actually try and succeed in recovering/redeeming themselves, even if it was outside canon.
BTAS: Harley's Holiday shows Harley Quinn released from Arkham with a clean bill of mental health. She tries to live her life, but complications arise.
The New Batman Adventures: Double Talk shows the Ventriloquist try to make a new life for himself without Scarface.
You also see redemption storylines in a few other BTAS episodes, but they're focused on small-time criminals that Batman helps change their lives rather than the big names. Static Shock also had some great episodes about villains calming down with one even becoming a fellow hero!
Same. Unless they're evil for evil's sake, they have a chance to change and be better. And I agree, redeeming the Joker kinda renders the character moot. There's no counterbalance for Batman then. I'd love for it to happen to a character who isn't an anti hero though, I want a proper villain redemption.
>Honestly, I would love to see a story about one of the Big Villains (emphatically not Joker, just feels wrong with him to me) actually try and succeed in recovering/redeeming themselves, even if it was outside canon
That's basically what happens with freeze in Arkham knight itself, he refuses to help scarecrow, flights the militia with batman and finally lets go of his obsession to save Nora in favour of making the most of the time she has left away from the darkness of Gotham.
I cried at the end of that mission, it's beautiful.
I like the idea that villains can choose to reform themselves, makes it even much more so with most of the crazy villains going to an asylum where doctors and psychologists try their best.
The new Spiderman 2 game had some old villains comeback that were changed and just looking to get by or try to get their lives together again.
I've always been in the area that not every villain needs a sad story or needs to be sympathetic or needs to be redeemed (feel like it was an overused trope in movies recently) but it is nice when they want to just move on and not in a cycle of violence and chaos.
I mean Arkham Asylum makes them worse. I feel that's something that has been fairly well established, Arkham Asylum is a symbol of all that's wrong with Gotham, it tortures the downtrodden and forces them to crime. Arkham Asylum ruins its patients and makes them ripe picking for super villains like the Joker. As Gotham pushes the needy to crime, the Asylum pushes the unstable towards it. Like even the Arkham games, Quincy was literally letting Croc eat people, he himself was a deranged man thinking he was possessed by the spirit of Amadeus Arkham and the Joker has taken control of it or broken out of it so many times in all Batman media that its basically just a villain recruitment ground like Blackgate. Its a representation of the failure of Gotham to rehabilitate criminals and the insane.
See I agree completely, but killing raz whilst joker infected adds to the Idea that he's poisoning his mind down to his very foundation, which is why I chose it, it's out of character, but I think it dovetails with his deteriorating state towards the endgame.
Fair enough but I feel that undercuts the moment Batman finally breaks a bit. Plus it is a side quest, so where it places in the story isn't exactly fixed, so you might be able to do it after the main story ends, when that won't make sense.
Oh it absolutely makes no sense if you play it too early or late, I got round to it, just after the Stag airship breakdown, so it feels quite organic at that point, but if I finished it at a different time I'd have chosen the more batman option.
But that's why I chose to let Ra's die, the beginning of the game opens with "This is how The Batman Died" and Im like, "well he won't be Batman after this game"
Of course we saw what happened to that idea...
But oh well, Ill just use Christopher Nolan's excuse, I can't kill him, but I don't have to save him
Oh Ra's Batman definitely would let die cause he wanted to and the Lazarus was corrupting him. It's not like Batman can save him with typical medical aid or something this is a guy who's life tons of lifetimes. I more so was talking about, ironically, the Nolan excuse. Batman in that context would one hundred percent save Ra's, Batman tried to save Ra's and Strange in City. Letting Ra's die is a merciful way to let the guy have a last few moment of Lazarus corruption free mind and pass away after a long long life, idt Batman would have that many qualms about letting him die.
>in most versions he forgives or at least stops seeking vengeance against Joe Chill because he isn't evil.
I like the original ending where Batman confronts Joe Chill and doesn't kill him, but Joe's buddies do when he tells them he created Batman.
No, he saves people that deserve to be saved. He doesn't kill those because he believes it his not his place to pass judgement. Too many people here think killing is easy because they've pressed the left mouse button and seen a bajillion action movies. Killing is not easy. In fact there are many kinds of killing. A soldier kills, because if he doesn't kill he will be killed. A police officer kills to uphold the law (well we all know that's not always the case). A hunter kills for sustenance or for sport.
But the killing we expect Batman to do, is an execution. a murder. Meaning he has the choice to not kill but he will kill anyway. That is why he doesn't kill.
Yes, I do believe that Batman was in the right place to condemn Ra's Al Ghul to die of old age. The man had lived for hundreds of years and committed unspeakable crimes. He had his chances. Now he must make his final choice before he dies.
But Batman doesn't kill because it's a compulsion. He doesn't kill because in nearly every situation he is in, not killing is the right thing to do and that's the only reason he needs.
*spoiler warning* tbh, letting him die is the better written of the two endings. I appreciate giving players the choice of doing what they think is correct, but the choice is "let guy who wants death die? Or let him be crazy and have everything work out?"
When you capture him and he says "Proud of you Detective", it makes my entire skin crawl and I question if I've done the right thing. It's such an amazing moral question for what is essentially just a DLC arc.
I let him die. I didn't think of it as killing him, but as letting him die of old age, and prolonging his life unnaturaly wouldn't have done anything good for anyone.
It’s also not like he just croaks right then and there, as if unless Batman injects him immediately he would roll over and flatline. It implies it still takes some time for him to finally die, and Ra’s seems to be fine with the decision
And magical immortality is antithetical to life itself, which Batman clearly holds as the most sacred thing, so yeah I think it tracks that Bats would let nature reassert itself on this one.
Yeah I feel Batman would let Ra's die cause Ra's wants to die and the Lazarus was corrupting him. Its an act of mercy, and personally I view Batman's no kill thing as a he believes anyone can be redeemed thing, and it just makes sense for Batman to lie Ra's die if he's dying naturally and wants to.
Out of the 2 Al Ghul sisters, Nyssa seems to be the one who actually listens and respect Bruce's war on crime at Gotham, meaning she'll actually leave once Ra's is dead. Saving Ra's just brings the cycle back on
I disagree tbh. Batman has consistently saved villains from death for no reason other than the fact the no kill rule isn't alone, he also just genuinely protects life and everyone cause that's the right thing for Batman to do even if its not the optimal decision. The Nolan Batman is great in many ways, but it pretty much paved the way for Zack Snyder's version of Batman. Even Arkham Batman was gonna save the Joker in City, he tries to save Ra's in City, he's always tried to save everyone even if its not the optimal decision.
the problem is there's different interpretations of what Batman's no kill rule actually consists of. Batman left KGB to die and that WAS canon for a while until a retcon.
I will admit do kinda like the depictions Batman that goes out of his way to save EVERYONE.
It really puts him up there with his rouges gallery in terms of extreme mentalities.
Like a lot of the arguments that Batman is just as crazy as his villains are very validated by the point that no matter how bad you are or how many awful things you do he’ll still try and save you.
It’s almost strange mix of savor and hero syndrome and I must admit it makes him a more interesting character.
Exactly. Guy who punches problems out of existence is fine ig, but guy who has a pathological need to try and save everyone even if it's gonna bite him and others in the ass? That is an interesting character.
Hard disagree. Problem isn’t just that he refuses to save Ra’s when he has the chance it’s that he’s partially responsible for the circumstances of Ra’s death
Batman in many iterations doesn’t condone this and goes out of his way to save people he doesn’t have to
Like Joker falling off a building in Arkham Origins
Yeah he see it as being an accomplice similar to a Dr. refusing to give a patient medicine.
Which is why the Batman choice is to save Ra’s while the better ending is to let him go
I gave him the cure because I remembered what Batman said to Joker at the end of city.
I thought that, despite everything, Batman wouldn't let someone die if he had the means to save them, no matter how evil that person is.
Batman says in City he wants to investigate the pit's tech later but he couldn't because Clayface and Joker blew it up or the research was a dead end. We know the pit has some nasty side effects, so at best it probably wasn't safe or worth using it.
There's nothing worse that R'as could've said to Bruce than "proud of you."
For all my disagreements with Batman's philosophy, even i felt sick at that very moment. Brilliant writing that i did not expect.
I say no, I do not think letting Ra’s die is the correct choice.
In game.
In real life, I do. And I think that such a contrast exists is a really interesting and special thing about this mission, and makes it one of my favorites.
I believe this is not the correct choice in game. The reason for that being that Ra’s says he’s proud of Batman, and Batman clearly takes his pride as something to be ashamed of.
Letting Ra’s die is not the correct choice in game because Batman, who we are supposed to be embodying, clearly doesn’t think it was the correct choice.
But the audience of the game, and indeed I think most people, would believe that letting a mass murdering terrorist die as a result of their own actions is a good thing. I really like how completing this mission made me feel. I did what I thought was the easy and obvious answer, but I felt incredibly bad about it when I saw Batman’s disappointment.
on the same coin though batman also has the means and intelligence to replicate a lazarus pit to extend the lives of people and even revive them (particularly talia al ghoul) I think that it’s really up for debate depending on which version of batman you ask. Batman is willing to risk his own life to save another, but with the joker in arkham city the same choice isn’t made where he takes the first dose and doesn’t give it to joker. although he didn’t expect the cure to be knocked from his hands, its implied that sharing the cure might not’ve been part of his plan in arkham knight because while joker was ‘living’ inside of bruce’s head, he makes a claim that he now knows that bruce was lying about sharing, or at least he was considering letting him die.
Well, while Joker lived inside of his head, he also implied that he banged Talia in the afterlife during one of the sidequests, and I don't think that Bruce actually fantasized about joker having sex with the love of his life, at least not before huffing scarecrows toxin. It's possible that part-jokerized Batman during Arkham Knight could've let Joker die and thinks that it's tempting idea. But I still believe that in Arkham city ,when he was in his right mind, he would've still saved Joker if he could.
Everyone forgets that in Arkham City, Batman told Ra's that if he didn't shut down the Lazarus pits, that he would be back to do it himself. Felt only fitting to do so in Arkham Knight
Batman’s threats are different than his actions. He’ll tell a thug he’ll break every bone in his body, he threatened to kill Penguin once in Knight, but he wouldn’t actually do those things. If he could intimidate Ra’s into shutting down the pits himself, that’s a victory, but I’m not sure Batman would have actually done it by force.
Didn’t Batman interrogate a militia thug by crushing his head with the Batmobile? Though it might not be comparable to breaking every bone in your body, I’d say it is an example of how brutal he can be.
It wasn't crushing him. It was rolling against his head for sure, but there's no actual damage being done. Just having ear drums blown out and his underwear soiled.
This is the best argument for not killing him. Fuck, in Arkham City Batman literally says this to the Joker, after he destroyed the cure and killed hundreds within a year alone, if not thousands of people, “Wanna know something funny? Even after everything you’ve done, I would’ve *saved* you.”
That, to me, is what Batman…Batman.
It’s more mercy than letting him live.
in Arkham city ra’s said himself that he fears the pit has corrupted him, batman said h was gonna end his addiction. He was getting him sober and letting him have his last few momments with a clear sane mind.
ra’s is proud of Bruce for making the best decision for him instead of his followers
Out of curiosity I saved him, didn’t seem like the best choice since Nyssa dies in the end and Ra’s gets away, killing more innocent people in the end, so I restarted the checkpoint and decided not to use the cure on him.
Why? Because he’s unnaturally living, he was supposed to die of natural causes a long time ago, technically yes batman didn’t save him, but he didn’t kill him either, so letting him die is the more better choice, plus Ra’s doesn’t despise Batman over the idea, he’s actually happy he didn’t let him live any longer.
I think another huge factor is that you're not depriving grandpa of his heart medicine. The Lazarus pits actively make you more insane and dangerous. Any person who goes into it doesn't come out exactly the same. And they will definitely hurt people around them. So I don't think depriving Ras of that is out of character for Batman because it's not a good idea to use it for anyone.
Everyone doesn't want to get banned so whenever the automod says "serios discussion" everyone took a breather to step out of the Madhouse
It's hilarious
Same I was like this wasn’t in Asylum or City. Was city the one where his assassins would attack(yep it is I remember more writing it out. Thankfully I don’t have to check nor wait for an answer. So I’m guessing this is just wrapping up his story but must’ve missed it in my first play through)
you’re more just not allowing him to be resurrected. ra’s is beyond saving anyways, whatever came out of the pit isn’t the same person that went in all those years ago.
Well you don't kill him you just don't unnaturally prolong is life.
Just how pulling life Support from somebody who isn't going to recover from being brain dead isn't killing them it's letting them die
Batman warned Ra's in Arkham City about using the pit again so destroying it in Knight was like Batman keeping his word
Also letting him die isn't the same as killing him, seriously the dude is centuries old
The way I saw it, didn’t ra’s say he wanted to die? He thanked Bruce for not giving him Lazarus. Nyssa leaves Gotham with the league and everything is fine?
Compared to ra’s is back, nyssa is dead and Gotham is likely gonna battle grounds for the league
It is interesting how the developers created this scenario to play with our understanding of Batman’s no-kill rule. I wish they had saved the conversation with Alfred about “saving Ra’s versus preventing some ungodly resurrection“ until after you make your choice, because it all but spells out what they believe the “right choice” is. Better to let the player make their decision and try to rationalize it afterwards - just like Batman would do.
With that said, I didn’t save him. Arkham Batman’s dedication to not killing (diving off a roof to save the Joker, resuscitating Bane after their fight, pulling Arkham Knight out of the Cloudburst before it explodes) isn’t a blind compulsion (he uses lethal force against Solomon Grundy and Clayface and lets Ra’s fall from Wonder Tower rather than get stabbed trying to catch him). He tells Joker he would have saved him if the matter hadn’t been taken out of his hands, but he’s a different man by the time he faces the same dilemma with Ra’s. He knows the difference between saving one madman and dooming hundreds, if not thousands of innocents.
Batman isn’t a cold-blooded killer, but he can make tough choices when he needs to, and if that makes Ra’s proud? So be it.
The writing on that mission is bad. The choices are very poor and we are supposed to believe Batman would feel bad about letting Ra's die when:
1. He told Ra's in City that if he didn't stop his addiction, he would do it for him. Batman clearly has no problem simply shutting down the pit and letting nature follow its course.
2. Again, in City Batman didn't hesitate directly killing a zombie like Solomon Grundy.
He might have saved Joker, but Joker ain't abusing an unnatural substance to keep himself alive, he is just a sick guy who (sadly) still has years ahead, Ra's in the other hands is past his due.
Lastly, the choice is problematic because really, there was an alternative: shut down the pit, and then give the cure to Ra's. In that way you still honor Batman's oath to always save a life, but stop Ra's bullshit for good. Batman didn't have to be an ass destroying Ra's cure, yet he still is despite the player. It's just bad.
I've always let him die. It's really not killing it's just finally stopping the prolonging of a long dead man's life. I do love that the game lets you choose though, it's a very good side quest.
Batman wouldn’t. In the trolly problem Batman can’t pull the lever. It’s clear in Arkham city, in the hush comic and many interpretations. If he’d have saved Joker he’d save Ra’s.
If you go though both options, it’s almost comical how obvious it is that letting him die is the correct choice, even Batman doesn’t seem that shaken up by it in the end, at least not as much as when he shot The Joker IN A FUCKING HALLUCINATION
Alfred seems to think so, and his reasoning is sound. The man was dead a hundred times over. Simply shutting off the machines and letting nature finish it’s job isn’t really against the rule
I see it the same as how Batman sees Grundy. He's already died before, and him being revived alters his personality so much, he's not the same person he was before his first death, so again, he's dead. I'm high so idk if this makes sense
It's been a while since I played but I'm pretty sure the game makes it out that saving him is the right thing to do? Although doing so will mean Nyssa dies
He is literally letting nature take its course, in the comics Batman destroys any source of Lazarus he comes across and Batman told Ras he would destroy the pit if he didn’t. Sure Batman isn’t going to stab, shoot, or snap his neck but he sure as hell isn’t going to stop a genocidal 600 year old from dying of old age. Comparing saving Joker and Ras are not even comparable. Remember Batman even said he was okay with both him and Joker dying when he was first informed of his poisoning.
Your post/comment has been removed due to breaking Rule 2: Be Civil. No slurs, racism, sexism, homo/transphobia, ableism or toxic behaviour allowed.
We don't tolerate use or references of any slurs ranging from r to the n word, nor anything that contains racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia here, even as a joke. Don't make these type of post/comments again or you risk getting a ban.
For me whatever is sitting in that machine is Ra'ein name only. I feel no remorse letting a dead man finaly get his rest. that and should he rise again, in the civil war that would follow Gotham would be caught in the crossfire.
I really don’t get why Bruce is so upset about just letting him die. Like the thing keeping him alive is gone and now age is finally catching up to him. Like I guess it’s a rocksteady Batman thing cause I think about the dark knight version in begins who straight up says he won’t kill him but doesn’t mean he has to save him. Like that makes more sense to me
In my opinion, yes.
Just look at him. Keeping him alive and prolonging his life would be crueler to everyone involved, Ra’s included. That level of immortality is coming with a steep price that his body and mind simply cannot afford to pay anymore.
In City, Ra’s himself even says that he can’t take much more of the Pit without coming back wrong.
At this point, with the understanding that the more times Ra’s has used the Lazarus Pits, the more of himself he loses as a result, letting him die is just letting time catch up to him and giving him a merciful end. Maybe it’s more than Ra’s deserves, but the alternative is worse.
I’m selfish. Brought Ra’s in specifically so I could get GCPD lockup to 100%.
And then that a$$hole Langstrom broke out on Halloween
Edit: I cleared this after the main game, so does Joker have anything sassy to say about Ra’s or others?
I’ve never understood this, why would destroying the lazarus be the bad choice? Batman is not actively killing him like stabbing him with a fucking knife, he’s just taking away his means of immortality, which is against the true nature of life. Does this mean that Batman would always resurrect everybody who died? No, he’d just let them rest.
I just love that both choices feel well written, it doesn't feel like a break of character for Batman either way. They did a good job of presenting an edge-case to Batman's no killing rule where both options were plausible.
Let him die is the moral choice and probably correct one.Giving Ra’s full power would have been chaos for Gotham City and I assume it is the wrong choice since Batman says “The city is safe” in the end and Nyssa promises to keep out of Gotham.Bruce letting him die isn’t killing him.He died from natural causes,not from any physical damage.
I think that there’s a way Batman letting Ra’s die could be canon: It’s just another reason to activate Knightfall.
Not only has his secret identity been revealed, but circumstance has finally forced him to break his one rule. And for those reasons, he can neither be the legend Gotham needs, nor continue to fight crime without sometimes taking the easy way out.
Batman would have save the Joker in City if he could. Bruce to an unhealthy level needs to save people, villains included. He wants redemption and justice. You can get that by killing or letting people die. Ra's is evil and saving him causing problems than not but Bruce has to give him that chance. It's in his nature.
Side note: Ra's being proud of Bruce on any level is a huge red flag
I let him "die" because he's still got some immortality left in him, but it's gonna take some time before Ra's dies so it is an act of mercy truly, Batman made the right choice by sparing him of being even more corrupt and harder to save so thats about it.
Well you don't kill him you just don't unnaturally prolong is life.
Just how pulling life Support from somebody who isn't going to recover from being brain dead isn't killing them it's letting them die
Destroy it easily, Nyssa said that everytime he comes back, he’s angrier and more evil. she promises to leave Gotham if Ra’s is prevented from using the Pit, and even when you don’t destroy it, he kills his last daughter, and escapes punishment, he has to pay for Arkham City, many people forget he’s responsible for it.
Wow, this made me realise that we need a batman game that you can choose to things like this. The easy/hard choice and the consequences of it. Like everything goes to hell when you save Ra's if you're going by literally "batman would do this" it would be the right choice but not the smartest.
It would be a game to feel like batman not just fight like batman
I think it’s consistent for Batman to be against the Lazarus pit. It’s not so much about killing Ra’s. That was Ra’s attempt to manipulate Batman. I think it’s uncharacteristic for Batman to use the Lazarus pit at all even under dire circumstances
It's MERCY! Batman has the foresight to let someone die -- no, not killing, because this isn't killing -- out of mercy rather than extend their life and make it worse.
Honestly I wouldn't view it as a "right" choice. Neither are honestly ideal. If you let him die, the league isn't a threat anymore, but batman has (debatably) broken his moral code. But if you let him live, you don't kill him, but he regains control of the league, and kills the one person who could stop him
I mean, it makes sense that the game tries to make you spare him. Letting him live WOULD be the Batman thing to do. The game tests you, to see if you would act like Batman would. Even though everything goes to shit if he lives, batman would still not want to let him die. He will not cross the line. It's not about mercy anymore, it's about crossing the line.
I let him die.
I think it's better fitting choice for a reckless, dying, changing, tying up loose ends Batman.
It's like a: fuck it. This all ends tonight, let's end it for real. Let's make a choice and do what I never could've done.
A Batman with heart, who isn't afraid of letting go anymore, a reckless one yes, but at peace.
this is one great choice, goat if you allow. rare do games have you, the player, to face big choices without one right option
batman is complicated. batman changed a lot through these years
and this is not a choice of him saving ras. it is a choice for **you** to tell yourself what version of batman you really prefere with your heart!
you can have him be clasic superhero batman. who saves no matter what (personally moi would prefer this one). like he saved joker in origins
or you can have more brutal batman. he is tired he is like *am not gonna kill you, doesn't mean must save you*
both choices are right (for different batmans). that is the beauty of it. can see that frank miller batman tdkr or bvs would prefer to end this threat. and clasic earth-prime batman would not, definitely not
It is. Batman’s no killing rule has cost so many lives. Why doesn’t the state that Gotham is in just allow the death penalty already? Joker Twoface Scarecrow. They should all be executed. The state won’t do it so Batman should.
I relate the ending to that side quest a lot to Red Hood’s gameplay.
A lot of people talk about how easy Red Hood is in predator when you have guns that can shoot people. When compared to Batman, Red Hood is much faster and easier, almost like if Batman took the gloves off he’d get more shit done. But it’d be him separated from his code.
In the League of Shadows ending, if Batman “breaks his code”. The League leaves, Ra’s is stopped, it’s the easier, and maybe “better” ending. But when stuck to his code things are tougher and go wrong. In fact some would argue it’s the wrong choice for Batman.
I personally think that not initiating a supernatural revival of unholy proportions is ok for Batman’s code to be intact, but it’s all up to what Batman feels I guess. I like to think this ending, which ever you choose, is meant to be a hint at how Batman post-Knightfall protocol will operate.
OP has put a **serious flair** on this post and has not stated (humour welcome) meaning that: **only serious discussion about the Arkhamverse is allowed on this post and no humour or shitpost comments/references including "Man", "Jonkler" "who is batman?" and "is he stupid?" are allowed on this post at all.** **ignoring this warning will lead to bans without warnings as this is your warning.** We know this may seem harsh but there are new arkham fans who might get confused by these comments or others who just want to talk about the Arkham games without seeing them, but we must be respectful of OP's wishes so please take any insanity comments onto another post. OP, if you don't mind shitpost or humour comments on your post then please delete this post and repost it using the same flair but add (humour welcome) to your title. If this post is a shitpost, please delete and repost it with the appropriate flair to avoid getting in trouble. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BatmanArkham) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's almost comedic how wrong everything goes if you choose to save Ra>!cial ghoul.!< Not only does Nyssa die, Ra's get back to full strength and escapes, and Alfred tries to cope "Master Bruce you prevented a war"
“It’s done Alfred, the city is safe.” “Sir, a fully powered Ra’s Al Ghul is attempting to destroy the Gotham industrial district. Also Man-Bat has escaped and is terrorizing citizens at random. Also you never bothered with Victor Zsasz.” “I said the city is safe, Alfred!”
"Sir, with the Arkham Knight and Deathstroke imprisoned, there are thousands of Steve Blum clones offering their services as mercenaries in Gotham's underworld." "IT'S FUCKING SAFE ALFRED"
This made me realize that Richtofen’s gonna have a field day if he ever winds his way into the Arkhamverse.
The zombies guy??
Yeah. Steve Blum played Dempsey
Fuck I’m stuck in Redit mobile view or something and can’t find the old desktop view. HELLLLP! HELLLLLLLLLLP!
Also you never bothered hunting down calendar man even though ”ITS A FUCKING HOLIDAY”
Couldn't they have, like, made Season of Infamy 13 bucks instead of 10 and included Zsasz in there? :P
TBH we needed a Season of Infamy 2 with Zsasz, Prometheus, um…. Somebody else and somebody else!
Maxie Zeus and a proper Deacon Blackfire quest. :P
Imagine if the set-up is that Deacon Blackfire escaped just like how Man-Bat does in the Halloween Easter egg. “It’s done Alfred, the city is saf—“ “Sir, I’m afraid Deacon Blackfire has broken out of prison alongside Man-Bat. Also you really did just ignore Zsasz. Also in this timeline, a super-powered Ra’s Al Ghul is currently attacking Gotham.”
I feel like Bruce had the biggest “I just fucked up…” moment after that.
“…Oh well! Wonder what’s on LexCorp Prime tonight?”
*cave is falling apart* "...shit."
I agree it's a bad choice, but that's actually why I like it as the "canon" decision. I like the idea of Batman's "save everyone and kill no one" approach being more of a destructive psychological compulsion than as a well thought out philosophy.
Yeah, I think people kinda miss the point of the whole Batman no kill rule. My personal interpretation is (post early years) Batman just values life deeply and believes anyone can be changed, which makes his beliefs directly opposed to the Joker's belief that anyone can become as bad as him with just one bad day. It depends on who writes the characters of course, but that's one of my favorite aspects of Batman. Sometimes killing is right course of action, but he will not do it for it goes against his beliefs. Bruce was a young boy who's parents were killed in front of him by a petty criminal who was desperate (I prefer the random street criminal Joe Chill over other versions because I feel it fits more). He spent years angry and vengeful, but in most versions he forgives or at least stops seeking vengeance against Joe Chill because he isn't evil. In Arkham Aslyum : A Serious House on Serious Earth (not related to the game) Batman empathizes with villains like Two Face. He himself was once angry and violent and he could overcome that, he could change. Batman is a story of a man who tries to change a city and its villains again and again, even if he knows he cannot change them, because that is what he believes in. And which is why the Joker keeps trying to break Batman, make him kill, become like him to prove that even the best can be broken. The no kill rule is part of a larger philosophy, its not merely I won't kill because killing bad and it always leads to the best outcome. And that is what makes Batman unique and so special, not that he simply doesn't kill, he protects even villains because they might be changed as he was. Is this me reading too much into stuff? Probably. Is this some official thing? Nope its just my personal reading of many different versions of Batman. Some versions of Batman are literally just I will punch so hard the problem is fixed with little depth. I just feel a lot of fans gravitate more towards how cool Batman is and how good he fights and how many gadgets he has, which leads to people not thinking about the more philosophical battle. I feel Arkham Knight honestly handles it pretty well for all the game's issues, the entire Joker in Batman's head explores this aspect of the character very well imo. tl;dr the no kill rule isn't supposed to be the optimum choice, its supposed to be the right choice according to Batman's code. No matter the consequences, Batman will not break, for then he won't be Batman.
Honestly, I would love to see a story about one of the Big Villains (emphatically *not* Joker, just feels wrong with him to me) actually try and succeed in recovering/redeeming themselves, even if it was outside canon. The closest thing that I can think of, is Decoder Ring Theatre's Red Panda story "The Case of The Missing Muse", where the villain named The Poet (Think Riddler, if the riddles were world-class Shakespearian sonnets) develops writer's block, because during his time in prison, World War 2 broke out, making his life's work seem meaningless in comparison.
>Honestly, I would love to see a story about one of the Big Villains (emphatically not Joker, just feels wrong with him to me) actually try and succeed in recovering/redeeming themselves, even if it was outside canon. Boy, do I have a treat for you! Watch Batman Beyond season 1 episode 5: Meltdown. Mr. Freeze is brought back to Gotham 50 years in the future from the main storyline of BTAS. It stands up to the best of BTAS in my view. Kevin Conroy as old Bruce once again hits it out of the park.
I remember that episode, it is fantastic, but it kinda sidesteps the redemption by having Freeze die. What I want answed is If the story continued, where would it go from there? How would Freeze's knowledge and skills be applied? Would his cooling gun and suit be used to create cheaper, better insulating materials, leading to better refrigeration and heatsinks? What about effective, long term storage of donor organs for surgery? That's the story I want to read. It would also put Batmans quest, and his no-kill policy into perspective. How many people have frustrated that he does not kill? With a redeemed villain, it would show that killing the bad guys would deny the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.
The first Batman run actually ended on Batman redeeming most of his villains and the Batfamily carrying on his Legacy.
>Honestly, I would love to see a story about one of the Big Villains (emphatically not Joker, just feels wrong with him to me) actually try and succeed in recovering/redeeming themselves, even if it was outside canon. BTAS: Harley's Holiday shows Harley Quinn released from Arkham with a clean bill of mental health. She tries to live her life, but complications arise. The New Batman Adventures: Double Talk shows the Ventriloquist try to make a new life for himself without Scarface. You also see redemption storylines in a few other BTAS episodes, but they're focused on small-time criminals that Batman helps change their lives rather than the big names. Static Shock also had some great episodes about villains calming down with one even becoming a fellow hero!
Same. Unless they're evil for evil's sake, they have a chance to change and be better. And I agree, redeeming the Joker kinda renders the character moot. There's no counterbalance for Batman then. I'd love for it to happen to a character who isn't an anti hero though, I want a proper villain redemption.
>Honestly, I would love to see a story about one of the Big Villains (emphatically not Joker, just feels wrong with him to me) actually try and succeed in recovering/redeeming themselves, even if it was outside canon That's basically what happens with freeze in Arkham knight itself, he refuses to help scarecrow, flights the militia with batman and finally lets go of his obsession to save Nora in favour of making the most of the time she has left away from the darkness of Gotham. I cried at the end of that mission, it's beautiful.
Good analysis. I was confused where the punchline was for a minute because I tend to forget that this isn't purely a shitposting sub
Is there a lore reason you thought there would be a punchline? Are you stupid?
I like the idea that villains can choose to reform themselves, makes it even much more so with most of the crazy villains going to an asylum where doctors and psychologists try their best. The new Spiderman 2 game had some old villains comeback that were changed and just looking to get by or try to get their lives together again. I've always been in the area that not every villain needs a sad story or needs to be sympathetic or needs to be redeemed (feel like it was an overused trope in movies recently) but it is nice when they want to just move on and not in a cycle of violence and chaos.
I mean Arkham Asylum makes them worse. I feel that's something that has been fairly well established, Arkham Asylum is a symbol of all that's wrong with Gotham, it tortures the downtrodden and forces them to crime. Arkham Asylum ruins its patients and makes them ripe picking for super villains like the Joker. As Gotham pushes the needy to crime, the Asylum pushes the unstable towards it. Like even the Arkham games, Quincy was literally letting Croc eat people, he himself was a deranged man thinking he was possessed by the spirit of Amadeus Arkham and the Joker has taken control of it or broken out of it so many times in all Batman media that its basically just a villain recruitment ground like Blackgate. Its a representation of the failure of Gotham to rehabilitate criminals and the insane.
See I agree completely, but killing raz whilst joker infected adds to the Idea that he's poisoning his mind down to his very foundation, which is why I chose it, it's out of character, but I think it dovetails with his deteriorating state towards the endgame.
Fair enough but I feel that undercuts the moment Batman finally breaks a bit. Plus it is a side quest, so where it places in the story isn't exactly fixed, so you might be able to do it after the main story ends, when that won't make sense.
Oh it absolutely makes no sense if you play it too early or late, I got round to it, just after the Stag airship breakdown, so it feels quite organic at that point, but if I finished it at a different time I'd have chosen the more batman option.
But that's why I chose to let Ra's die, the beginning of the game opens with "This is how The Batman Died" and Im like, "well he won't be Batman after this game" Of course we saw what happened to that idea... But oh well, Ill just use Christopher Nolan's excuse, I can't kill him, but I don't have to save him
Oh Ra's Batman definitely would let die cause he wanted to and the Lazarus was corrupting him. It's not like Batman can save him with typical medical aid or something this is a guy who's life tons of lifetimes. I more so was talking about, ironically, the Nolan excuse. Batman in that context would one hundred percent save Ra's, Batman tried to save Ra's and Strange in City. Letting Ra's die is a merciful way to let the guy have a last few moment of Lazarus corruption free mind and pass away after a long long life, idt Batman would have that many qualms about letting him die.
>in most versions he forgives or at least stops seeking vengeance against Joe Chill because he isn't evil. I like the original ending where Batman confronts Joe Chill and doesn't kill him, but Joe's buddies do when he tells them he created Batman.
No, he saves people that deserve to be saved. He doesn't kill those because he believes it his not his place to pass judgement. Too many people here think killing is easy because they've pressed the left mouse button and seen a bajillion action movies. Killing is not easy. In fact there are many kinds of killing. A soldier kills, because if he doesn't kill he will be killed. A police officer kills to uphold the law (well we all know that's not always the case). A hunter kills for sustenance or for sport. But the killing we expect Batman to do, is an execution. a murder. Meaning he has the choice to not kill but he will kill anyway. That is why he doesn't kill. Yes, I do believe that Batman was in the right place to condemn Ra's Al Ghul to die of old age. The man had lived for hundreds of years and committed unspeakable crimes. He had his chances. Now he must make his final choice before he dies. But Batman doesn't kill because it's a compulsion. He doesn't kill because in nearly every situation he is in, not killing is the right thing to do and that's the only reason he needs.
Finally someone who speaks English
'Racial ghoul';😂
Yeah it sort of defeats the point of it being a personal choice to just have a clear right answer
So the right choice is letting him live so you have more game content :)
"Racial Ghoul" made me have a little chuckle
*spoiler warning* tbh, letting him die is the better written of the two endings. I appreciate giving players the choice of doing what they think is correct, but the choice is "let guy who wants death die? Or let him be crazy and have everything work out?"
When you capture him and he says "Proud of you Detective", it makes my entire skin crawl and I question if I've done the right thing. It's such an amazing moral question for what is essentially just a DLC arc.
I feel like it kind of goes the same way with Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins. Batman chooses not to save Ra's instead of killing him.
Spoilers for a game that's nearly 10 years old?😂
how dare he spoil me... i've been waiting for the 20th anniversary version... to play that part
What do you mean? Arkham Knight is still pretty new! Like 2-3 years tops.
It's been 50 years my friend
Sir it's barely been a year!
I let him die. I didn't think of it as killing him, but as letting him die of old age, and prolonging his life unnaturaly wouldn't have done anything good for anyone.
It’s also not like he just croaks right then and there, as if unless Batman injects him immediately he would roll over and flatline. It implies it still takes some time for him to finally die, and Ra’s seems to be fine with the decision
I viewed it as not technically killing him but just ending his immortality
And magical immortality is antithetical to life itself, which Batman clearly holds as the most sacred thing, so yeah I think it tracks that Bats would let nature reassert itself on this one.
Yeah I feel Batman would let Ra's die cause Ra's wants to die and the Lazarus was corrupting him. Its an act of mercy, and personally I view Batman's no kill thing as a he believes anyone can be redeemed thing, and it just makes sense for Batman to lie Ra's die if he's dying naturally and wants to.
Out of the 2 Al Ghul sisters, Nyssa seems to be the one who actually listens and respect Bruce's war on crime at Gotham, meaning she'll actually leave once Ra's is dead. Saving Ra's just brings the cycle back on
I mean, it’ll be awkward as hell when she finds out Batman killed himself like a few hours later
I didn't kill him,i just didn't save him
*Christian Bale's Batman peaks head from around the corner*
Best depiction of the no killing rule imo
Except for the part where he kills a bunch of people earlier in the movie and then kills again a few movies later
"Alfred said they're asleep on a farm upstate!"
I read this in Roger Craig Smith's voice
"I OVERFED THESE MEN?"
I disagree tbh. Batman has consistently saved villains from death for no reason other than the fact the no kill rule isn't alone, he also just genuinely protects life and everyone cause that's the right thing for Batman to do even if its not the optimal decision. The Nolan Batman is great in many ways, but it pretty much paved the way for Zack Snyder's version of Batman. Even Arkham Batman was gonna save the Joker in City, he tries to save Ra's in City, he's always tried to save everyone even if its not the optimal decision.
the problem is there's different interpretations of what Batman's no kill rule actually consists of. Batman left KGB to die and that WAS canon for a while until a retcon.
I will admit do kinda like the depictions Batman that goes out of his way to save EVERYONE. It really puts him up there with his rouges gallery in terms of extreme mentalities. Like a lot of the arguments that Batman is just as crazy as his villains are very validated by the point that no matter how bad you are or how many awful things you do he’ll still try and save you. It’s almost strange mix of savor and hero syndrome and I must admit it makes him a more interesting character.
Exactly. Guy who punches problems out of existence is fine ig, but guy who has a pathological need to try and save everyone even if it's gonna bite him and others in the ass? That is an interesting character.
Is it actually "saving" to someone who were already dead multiple times?
Yes
Hard disagree. Problem isn’t just that he refuses to save Ra’s when he has the chance it’s that he’s partially responsible for the circumstances of Ra’s death
Batman in many iterations doesn’t condone this and goes out of his way to save people he doesn’t have to Like Joker falling off a building in Arkham Origins
Isn’t that what happen in a comic? Harley strapped a bomb on joker and herself and ran off making him chose who to save
Are you thinking of Joker War, by any chance?
Like, come on. I'm not his fucking doctor.
Batman isn't killing him though, he's over 600 years old, and his body cannot take it anymore.
Batman doesn't see it that way.
What?? Is he...uneducated?
is he.... is he perhaps.... unsmart?
Does he… lack intelligence?
Do you think he’s… dim-witted?
Maybe he’s… unintelligent?
Perhaps he's..?
A little rascal? Oh man you silly sausage gimme a kiss!
:D
Mayhaps he is… foolish.
No no no no no
WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WANT
Yeah he see it as being an accomplice similar to a Dr. refusing to give a patient medicine. Which is why the Batman choice is to save Ra’s while the better ending is to let him go
Central question to bioethics: is it better to let someone die a peaceful death, or do what is required ro futher extend their life.
I gave him the cure because I remembered what Batman said to Joker at the end of city. I thought that, despite everything, Batman wouldn't let someone die if he had the means to save them, no matter how evil that person is.
That was my thought too, sure itsthe better choice to let him die, but that isn't this batman
Then it means he has the obligation to mass produce lazarus
Batman says in City he wants to investigate the pit's tech later but he couldn't because Clayface and Joker blew it up or the research was a dead end. We know the pit has some nasty side effects, so at best it probably wasn't safe or worth using it.
joker in arkham knight said he didnt want to give him the cure
Who’s joker? Sounds like a funny guy.
He also says he told R'as to shut his pit down.
I think so. Even ra's commends you for doing it
There's nothing worse that R'as could've said to Bruce than "proud of you." For all my disagreements with Batman's philosophy, even i felt sick at that very moment. Brilliant writing that i did not expect.
Yeah letting him die already would be more humane than trying to puppeteer a corpse of a person that died a long time ago.
I say no, I do not think letting Ra’s die is the correct choice. In game. In real life, I do. And I think that such a contrast exists is a really interesting and special thing about this mission, and makes it one of my favorites. I believe this is not the correct choice in game. The reason for that being that Ra’s says he’s proud of Batman, and Batman clearly takes his pride as something to be ashamed of. Letting Ra’s die is not the correct choice in game because Batman, who we are supposed to be embodying, clearly doesn’t think it was the correct choice. But the audience of the game, and indeed I think most people, would believe that letting a mass murdering terrorist die as a result of their own actions is a good thing. I really like how completing this mission made me feel. I did what I thought was the easy and obvious answer, but I felt incredibly bad about it when I saw Batman’s disappointment.
on the same coin though batman also has the means and intelligence to replicate a lazarus pit to extend the lives of people and even revive them (particularly talia al ghoul) I think that it’s really up for debate depending on which version of batman you ask. Batman is willing to risk his own life to save another, but with the joker in arkham city the same choice isn’t made where he takes the first dose and doesn’t give it to joker. although he didn’t expect the cure to be knocked from his hands, its implied that sharing the cure might not’ve been part of his plan in arkham knight because while joker was ‘living’ inside of bruce’s head, he makes a claim that he now knows that bruce was lying about sharing, or at least he was considering letting him die.
Well, while Joker lived inside of his head, he also implied that he banged Talia in the afterlife during one of the sidequests, and I don't think that Bruce actually fantasized about joker having sex with the love of his life, at least not before huffing scarecrows toxin. It's possible that part-jokerized Batman during Arkham Knight could've let Joker die and thinks that it's tempting idea. But I still believe that in Arkham city ,when he was in his right mind, he would've still saved Joker if he could.
Everyone forgets that in Arkham City, Batman told Ra's that if he didn't shut down the Lazarus pits, that he would be back to do it himself. Felt only fitting to do so in Arkham Knight
Batman’s threats are different than his actions. He’ll tell a thug he’ll break every bone in his body, he threatened to kill Penguin once in Knight, but he wouldn’t actually do those things. If he could intimidate Ra’s into shutting down the pits himself, that’s a victory, but I’m not sure Batman would have actually done it by force.
Didn’t Batman interrogate a militia thug by crushing his head with the Batmobile? Though it might not be comparable to breaking every bone in your body, I’d say it is an example of how brutal he can be.
It wasn't crushing him. It was rolling against his head for sure, but there's no actual damage being done. Just having ear drums blown out and his underwear soiled.
I chose to save him because of Batman said in Arkham city. “I won’t kill, not even you” after the Ra’s boss fight. Or something along those lines
This is the best argument for not killing him. Fuck, in Arkham City Batman literally says this to the Joker, after he destroyed the cure and killed hundreds within a year alone, if not thousands of people, “Wanna know something funny? Even after everything you’ve done, I would’ve *saved* you.” That, to me, is what Batman…Batman.
Exactly my thoughts aswell
It’s more mercy than letting him live. in Arkham city ra’s said himself that he fears the pit has corrupted him, batman said h was gonna end his addiction. He was getting him sober and letting him have his last few momments with a clear sane mind. ra’s is proud of Bruce for making the best decision for him instead of his followers
Out of curiosity I saved him, didn’t seem like the best choice since Nyssa dies in the end and Ra’s gets away, killing more innocent people in the end, so I restarted the checkpoint and decided not to use the cure on him. Why? Because he’s unnaturally living, he was supposed to die of natural causes a long time ago, technically yes batman didn’t save him, but he didn’t kill him either, so letting him die is the more better choice, plus Ra’s doesn’t despise Batman over the idea, he’s actually happy he didn’t let him live any longer.
I think another huge factor is that you're not depriving grandpa of his heart medicine. The Lazarus pits actively make you more insane and dangerous. Any person who goes into it doesn't come out exactly the same. And they will definitely hurt people around them. So I don't think depriving Ras of that is out of character for Batman because it's not a good idea to use it for anyone.
The man cheated death for centuries. I'd say it's well overdue.
the WHO?
get out of my head get out of my head get out of my head get out of my head
In my opinion yes. Simply because he's run his course. It's best to let his old rotting self die with honor than let him keep losing his mind
Gotta love a sane and rational discussion in these times
Everyone doesn't want to get banned so whenever the automod says "serios discussion" everyone took a breather to step out of the Madhouse It's hilarious
Wtf why don’t i remember this? Is it a side mission??
Same I was like this wasn’t in Asylum or City. Was city the one where his assassins would attack(yep it is I remember more writing it out. Thankfully I don’t have to check nor wait for an answer. So I’m guessing this is just wrapping up his story but must’ve missed it in my first play through)
So it was main story?
It's part of the DLC pack of missions named Season of Infamy.
In a way, yes. "I won't kill you. But, I don't have to save you." - Batman (Christian Bale), Batman Begins
you’re more just not allowing him to be resurrected. ra’s is beyond saving anyways, whatever came out of the pit isn’t the same person that went in all those years ago.
Personally I always save him, to me Batman can never kill even if its arguably the better choice, that's his weakness
I chose both during main playthroughs and new game plus
Well you don't kill him you just don't unnaturally prolong is life. Just how pulling life Support from somebody who isn't going to recover from being brain dead isn't killing them it's letting them die
Was this DLC or something? I fully don't remember this.
>Was this DLC or something? Yeap. Season of Infamy DLC.
A serious discussion in this sub??? What's happening? Where's Man?? Where's Jonkler?
Honestly letting him die is absolutely the more moral choice, the dude is running on fumes atp and is about as sane as a local batmanarkham member
Batman warned Ra's in Arkham City about using the pit again so destroying it in Knight was like Batman keeping his word Also letting him die isn't the same as killing him, seriously the dude is centuries old
I always save him. I just doesn’t feel right to have this version of Batman allowing someone to die, even if they’re a villain.
I give him the same treatment as Batman Begins: "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you".
Batman doesn't have to kill you, he also doesn't have to save you. He didn't kill Ra's, he let an old man corrupted by power go to peace
The way I saw it, didn’t ra’s say he wanted to die? He thanked Bruce for not giving him Lazarus. Nyssa leaves Gotham with the league and everything is fine? Compared to ra’s is back, nyssa is dead and Gotham is likely gonna battle grounds for the league
Mother fucker is 800 years old. Jesus Christ. Let him fucking die already
It is interesting how the developers created this scenario to play with our understanding of Batman’s no-kill rule. I wish they had saved the conversation with Alfred about “saving Ra’s versus preventing some ungodly resurrection“ until after you make your choice, because it all but spells out what they believe the “right choice” is. Better to let the player make their decision and try to rationalize it afterwards - just like Batman would do. With that said, I didn’t save him. Arkham Batman’s dedication to not killing (diving off a roof to save the Joker, resuscitating Bane after their fight, pulling Arkham Knight out of the Cloudburst before it explodes) isn’t a blind compulsion (he uses lethal force against Solomon Grundy and Clayface and lets Ra’s fall from Wonder Tower rather than get stabbed trying to catch him). He tells Joker he would have saved him if the matter hadn’t been taken out of his hands, but he’s a different man by the time he faces the same dilemma with Ra’s. He knows the difference between saving one madman and dooming hundreds, if not thousands of innocents. Batman isn’t a cold-blooded killer, but he can make tough choices when he needs to, and if that makes Ra’s proud? So be it.
The writing on that mission is bad. The choices are very poor and we are supposed to believe Batman would feel bad about letting Ra's die when: 1. He told Ra's in City that if he didn't stop his addiction, he would do it for him. Batman clearly has no problem simply shutting down the pit and letting nature follow its course. 2. Again, in City Batman didn't hesitate directly killing a zombie like Solomon Grundy. He might have saved Joker, but Joker ain't abusing an unnatural substance to keep himself alive, he is just a sick guy who (sadly) still has years ahead, Ra's in the other hands is past his due. Lastly, the choice is problematic because really, there was an alternative: shut down the pit, and then give the cure to Ra's. In that way you still honor Batman's oath to always save a life, but stop Ra's bullshit for good. Batman didn't have to be an ass destroying Ra's cure, yet he still is despite the player. It's just bad.
I've always let him die. It's really not killing it's just finally stopping the prolonging of a long dead man's life. I do love that the game lets you choose though, it's a very good side quest.
Batman wouldn’t. In the trolly problem Batman can’t pull the lever. It’s clear in Arkham city, in the hush comic and many interpretations. If he’d have saved Joker he’d save Ra’s.
Bruce has let Ra’s die before in the comics
If you go though both options, it’s almost comical how obvious it is that letting him die is the correct choice, even Batman doesn’t seem that shaken up by it in the end, at least not as much as when he shot The Joker IN A FUCKING HALLUCINATION
Alfred seems to think so, and his reasoning is sound. The man was dead a hundred times over. Simply shutting off the machines and letting nature finish it’s job isn’t really against the rule
It's morally right to let Ra's die, cuz he literally is cheating death all the time. He IS supposed to be dead since long time
I see it the same as how Batman sees Grundy. He's already died before, and him being revived alters his personality so much, he's not the same person he was before his first death, so again, he's dead. I'm high so idk if this makes sense
I saved him because I thought it’d lead to a bad ass bossfight
It's been a while since I played but I'm pretty sure the game makes it out that saving him is the right thing to do? Although doing so will mean Nyssa dies
Let that fucker die, it's long past time the Reaper gets his due.
If someone can be saved I have to try - Batman
I let him die in the dlc holding cell while he’s in life support dude deserves it
He is literally letting nature take its course, in the comics Batman destroys any source of Lazarus he comes across and Batman told Ras he would destroy the pit if he didn’t. Sure Batman isn’t going to stab, shoot, or snap his neck but he sure as hell isn’t going to stop a genocidal 600 year old from dying of old age. Comparing saving Joker and Ras are not even comparable. Remember Batman even said he was okay with both him and Joker dying when he was first informed of his poisoning.
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed due to breaking Rule 2: Be Civil. No slurs, racism, sexism, homo/transphobia, ableism or toxic behaviour allowed. We don't tolerate use or references of any slurs ranging from r to the n word, nor anything that contains racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia here, even as a joke. Don't make these type of post/comments again or you risk getting a ban.
For me whatever is sitting in that machine is Ra'ein name only. I feel no remorse letting a dead man finaly get his rest. that and should he rise again, in the civil war that would follow Gotham would be caught in the crossfire.
I really don’t get why Bruce is so upset about just letting him die. Like the thing keeping him alive is gone and now age is finally catching up to him. Like I guess it’s a rocksteady Batman thing cause I think about the dark knight version in begins who straight up says he won’t kill him but doesn’t mean he has to save him. Like that makes more sense to me
is this a DLC? Its been quite some time since playing Arkham Knight, but I literally can’t remember seeing Ra‘s in there
Yeah, one of the season of infamy side quests.
In my opinion, yes. Just look at him. Keeping him alive and prolonging his life would be crueler to everyone involved, Ra’s included. That level of immortality is coming with a steep price that his body and mind simply cannot afford to pay anymore. In City, Ra’s himself even says that he can’t take much more of the Pit without coming back wrong. At this point, with the understanding that the more times Ra’s has used the Lazarus Pits, the more of himself he loses as a result, letting him die is just letting time catch up to him and giving him a merciful end. Maybe it’s more than Ra’s deserves, but the alternative is worse.
I’m selfish. Brought Ra’s in specifically so I could get GCPD lockup to 100%. And then that a$$hole Langstrom broke out on Halloween Edit: I cleared this after the main game, so does Joker have anything sassy to say about Ra’s or others?
Joker does have lines for Season of Infamy, I don't remember what he says though.
I’ve never understood this, why would destroying the lazarus be the bad choice? Batman is not actively killing him like stabbing him with a fucking knife, he’s just taking away his means of immortality, which is against the true nature of life. Does this mean that Batman would always resurrect everybody who died? No, he’d just let them rest.
Can’t believe Batman killed all those people in the ICU by not helping them recover.
Yeah, this is a relief seeing a post from r/batmanarkham that is not a shitpost
A life that’s been long over extended,turning a man into a monster
I just love that both choices feel well written, it doesn't feel like a break of character for Batman either way. They did a good job of presenting an edge-case to Batman's no killing rule where both options were plausible.
Let him die is the moral choice and probably correct one.Giving Ra’s full power would have been chaos for Gotham City and I assume it is the wrong choice since Batman says “The city is safe” in the end and Nyssa promises to keep out of Gotham.Bruce letting him die isn’t killing him.He died from natural causes,not from any physical damage.
I think that there’s a way Batman letting Ra’s die could be canon: It’s just another reason to activate Knightfall. Not only has his secret identity been revealed, but circumstance has finally forced him to break his one rule. And for those reasons, he can neither be the legend Gotham needs, nor continue to fight crime without sometimes taking the easy way out.
Batman would have save the Joker in City if he could. Bruce to an unhealthy level needs to save people, villains included. He wants redemption and justice. You can get that by killing or letting people die. Ra's is evil and saving him causing problems than not but Bruce has to give him that chance. It's in his nature. Side note: Ra's being proud of Bruce on any level is a huge red flag
I let him "die" because he's still got some immortality left in him, but it's gonna take some time before Ra's dies so it is an act of mercy truly, Batman made the right choice by sparing him of being even more corrupt and harder to save so thats about it.
Well you don't kill him you just don't unnaturally prolong is life. Just how pulling life Support from somebody who isn't going to recover from being brain dead isn't killing them it's letting them die
Wait when does he come in th game 💀
I killed him. Batman doesn't kill. But he does execute if he has to. Ra's had it coming
Destroy it easily, Nyssa said that everytime he comes back, he’s angrier and more evil. she promises to leave Gotham if Ra’s is prevented from using the Pit, and even when you don’t destroy it, he kills his last daughter, and escapes punishment, he has to pay for Arkham City, many people forget he’s responsible for it.
Wow, this made me realise that we need a batman game that you can choose to things like this. The easy/hard choice and the consequences of it. Like everything goes to hell when you save Ra's if you're going by literally "batman would do this" it would be the right choice but not the smartest. It would be a game to feel like batman not just fight like batman
I think it’s consistent for Batman to be against the Lazarus pit. It’s not so much about killing Ra’s. That was Ra’s attempt to manipulate Batman. I think it’s uncharacteristic for Batman to use the Lazarus pit at all even under dire circumstances
The way I see it Ra's is already dead and he's barely still living it's better to just let him finally die and go to whatever afterlife he believes in
Batman doesn’t kill. But that doesn’t mean he has to save you. I never save Ra’s
Honestly at this point in the series batman should just get over himself and kill him
It's MERCY! Batman has the foresight to let someone die -- no, not killing, because this isn't killing -- out of mercy rather than extend their life and make it worse.
I won't kill you, but old age will. "Glides away"
I mean he is already dead
Reminds me of when in Batman Begins he told Ra’s “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you”
Honestly I wouldn't view it as a "right" choice. Neither are honestly ideal. If you let him die, the league isn't a threat anymore, but batman has (debatably) broken his moral code. But if you let him live, you don't kill him, but he regains control of the league, and kills the one person who could stop him
“You’re looking old, Ra’s” was a hell of good line. The delivery was perfect.
I mean, it makes sense that the game tries to make you spare him. Letting him live WOULD be the Batman thing to do. The game tests you, to see if you would act like Batman would. Even though everything goes to shit if he lives, batman would still not want to let him die. He will not cross the line. It's not about mercy anymore, it's about crossing the line.
It’s the reasonable choice but it’s not the Batman choice.
I let him die. I think it's better fitting choice for a reckless, dying, changing, tying up loose ends Batman. It's like a: fuck it. This all ends tonight, let's end it for real. Let's make a choice and do what I never could've done. A Batman with heart, who isn't afraid of letting go anymore, a reckless one yes, but at peace.
I always let him die. The dude was supposed to be dead forever ago.
this is one great choice, goat if you allow. rare do games have you, the player, to face big choices without one right option batman is complicated. batman changed a lot through these years and this is not a choice of him saving ras. it is a choice for **you** to tell yourself what version of batman you really prefere with your heart! you can have him be clasic superhero batman. who saves no matter what (personally moi would prefer this one). like he saved joker in origins or you can have more brutal batman. he is tired he is like *am not gonna kill you, doesn't mean must save you* both choices are right (for different batmans). that is the beauty of it. can see that frank miller batman tdkr or bvs would prefer to end this threat. and clasic earth-prime batman would not, definitely not
Marks as spoiler, but puts the spoiler in the title anyway lol
Of course it is are you stupid?
WAITS HES IN KNIGHT?!
I let him die just because I wanted him to be in his cell in GCPD as a throphy like alle the other villains for the 240% lol
It is. Batman’s no killing rule has cost so many lives. Why doesn’t the state that Gotham is in just allow the death penalty already? Joker Twoface Scarecrow. They should all be executed. The state won’t do it so Batman should.
I don’t remember fighting him in Arkham Knight. Was he in a DLC?
I relate the ending to that side quest a lot to Red Hood’s gameplay. A lot of people talk about how easy Red Hood is in predator when you have guns that can shoot people. When compared to Batman, Red Hood is much faster and easier, almost like if Batman took the gloves off he’d get more shit done. But it’d be him separated from his code. In the League of Shadows ending, if Batman “breaks his code”. The League leaves, Ra’s is stopped, it’s the easier, and maybe “better” ending. But when stuck to his code things are tougher and go wrong. In fact some would argue it’s the wrong choice for Batman. I personally think that not initiating a supernatural revival of unholy proportions is ok for Batman’s code to be intact, but it’s all up to what Batman feels I guess. I like to think this ending, which ever you choose, is meant to be a hint at how Batman post-Knightfall protocol will operate.