When did Batman's no-kill rule, but even moreso his having never killed anyone, become such a huge part of his entire character? Pic related is from the 80's where Batman can say he's had to kill before, but only in self-defense.
So he doesn't outright murder, but he can say he's killed in self-defense and it's not some huge controversial thing.
When did it start? Late 80's? Early 90's with BTAS?
Sorry for the shitty image.
>>82817754
I think modern writers just take it to a stupid level. I'm guessing that's from the "second chances" tpb? Look at the moves Batman use in that one when fighting compared to new52 shit he does. With the way he fights now he should logically kill far more people in self-defense.
>>82817754
I think it was pretty early like I'm almost certain it was already a thing by detective comics 100 but I'm not auctualy sure when
>>82817754
pre crisis don't count famm
I'm guessing the old Adam West TV show probably had something to do with it. That Batman was a bigger boy scout than Superman ever was.
>>82818231
this is post crisis on infinite earths, if that's what you mean.
>>82818199
It being a thing is one thing. It being one of the major facets of his character to literally never kill, not even accidentally (which is retarded considering the shit he pulls) is another.
I've read some Dennis O'neil stuff, he seems to have been easier with the no kill rule than others.
>By 1940’s Batman #4, in a story by co-creators Bill Finger and Bob Kane — which is about as definitive as you can get — Batman reminds Robin that “we never kill with weapons of any kind.”
>>82817754
Please. Batman's a hypocrite. I don't believe a word that comes out of that lying whore's mouth.
>>82817754
>in self defense
fuck you bruce what about the guy you dressed as batman and left in front of a death ray, or the dude you basically pushed into a vat of acid, or that guy you hung with the batplane.
I'm sure that one guy was really a threat that required you to kill him in selfdefence with a fucking plane.
>>82818400
This isn't what the OP is talking about, he's talking about when the shift from having Batman killing in self defense to no killing at all took place.
Me? I think BTAS made every writer after emphasize it more.
>>82817754
I assumed it was a comics code thing. Pre-code Bats kills, after the code came in heroes killing (and killing generally) was against the rules
>>82817754
I think the 90s are to blame, while everyone else became edgier they made Batman different.
It's also when he had the Knightfall arc with all the arguments about Azrael being too violent and all that
Where did the 'If Batman kills anyone, somebody worse will fill their place' horseshit start?
How do you ever actually prove that
>>82817754
He adopted it right when he adopted Robin, less than a year after his debut. Which makes sense, really; you don't want to raise a kid thinking it's OK to just kill everyone.
But it's more of a meta thing, really. Batman doesn't kill because most writers are aware of the fact that once he does start killing, then it's open season for hack writers to turn him into a worse Punisher, which in turn destroys any kind of stability Batman as a character has. It wouldn't make sense for Gordon to publicly support him, it wouldn't make sense for his rogue gallery to still be alive when you consider what he's capable of, it wouldn't make sense as why the Justice League would even allow him in, etc. He just wouldn't be batman. If you want a murderous Batman, just read Red Hood or 90s Bats which explicitly show why it's a dumb idea.
>>82819611
Many elseworlds have shown that killing really doesn't solve any of Batman's problems.
>>82817754
Him and Robin use to kill people all the time in the early days.
>>82819750
Batman accidentally killing, killing in self defense or thugs dying as a result of their injuries wouldn't turn him into the punisher. Nor would it detract from his character, it would only add a layer of believability.Despite this, your point on hack writers is well taken
