Bro I swear every depiction of Alfred is a mf G idc what no one say. Dez Caught It. #batman #alfredpennyworth #arkhamknight #gothamknights #thebatman #alfred
To quote Alfred himself from a Batman comic: "My master lives by a strict code to never take a life in the name of justice.... I have no such standards."
@@cynicat74 Even in the TellTale version he had a gun if you chose to fight Harvey instead of stopping Penguin. He's a fighter, gotta hand it to him. :P
@@Horatio787 Wasn't there a B:TAS episode where we find out he was MI6 in his youth? And Michael Caine mentioned his SAS unit burning down a forest to kill one guy.
@@stevenscott2136 Yeah there was, someone puts a truth serum in him to extract the info. I was just remarking that professional soldier to butler seems like an unlikely career move since british butlers are pretty entrenched in their ways.
I like how he didn’t say, “Drop it Alfred.” Or “I don’t want to hear more of this.” That moment was genuinely heartfelt. He’s so confused and has no idea what choice to make so he went to the man who knew more than him. His father figure Alfred.
@@excitedcat9517 Alfred would have just ended the fucker without hesitation he only didnt say that because he wasnt there and didnt want to push him to a path that would cause his son bruce to suffer They care deeply for each other and know the other very well
Alfred (and Lucius) are both behind Batman Mask. Joker is right to dont care about Batman true identity. Yes, It's mostly Bruce. But Bruce without Alfred or Lucius is nothing during a good period of Batman.
"Perhaps you relied on my master's vow AGAINST using lethal force. Let me assure you that I subscribe to NO such niceties." In other words, "I keep dat mfkn THANG on me"
@@tornadotaylor8956 I understand the sentiment, however the two situations aren't entirely compatible: it's the difference between a home invasion and going out and hunting for someone. Not saying it's wrong or anything, but there is a difference, which is likely why he answered the way that he did. Bruce already knows Alfred won't hesitate to use the most effective tools at his disposal to protect his home; whether Alfred would gear up and go take someone out is another story.
Man’s lived lifetimes, died multiple times, and through inaction you’re simply letting a man who’s died time and time again finally stay at peace, instead of forcing him on, corrupting his mind and killing his daughter, as well as countless others. I think there’s a clear option of which choice to pick, but I’d love to here from anyone who would choose to save him, even knowing both immediate outcomes
@@Strangeminds38 you not killing him really you saving him if batman wanted to kill he could have done it a long time ago but his morality won't allow it he did the right thing if he chose to let him have the Lazarus it will remain in his conscious that he made a big mistake by giving him a sample of the pit if you chose to destroy the tubes you made the right choice from a storyline perspective to end the Era of batman this would be the correct choice
@@jessemccutchen308 Meh you literally crush his chances of surviving in front of his eyes, i think it could be considered indirect murder, of course it's more complex than that and Ra's Al Ghul is barely a human being at this point but you basically make sure that his survival chances are 0% (not saying that it's a bad thing)
@@Strangeminds38 bro this is not crushing his chances it's choosing to not save him so technically he didn't murder al ghul if you look at the Nolan dark knight this is a reminiscent of this but batman didn't murder him but letting him live to then murder his daughter is murder and is something batman doesn't want on his conscious so to think about this is the right choice
Bruce didn’t kill Talia,Joker did.Don’t say it’s his fault she’s dead,because she willingly had Joker hold her hostage.It’s only due to a “miscalculation” that she ended up dead.If that was the real Joker,Bruce would be making wedding plans rather than keeping to himself.
Batman doesn’t kill because as the Joker in Nolan’s Dark Knight points out, he needs villains to fight sustain his identity. On a personal level, his crusade is driven by his trauma. If he ran out of people to stand in for his parents killers he would actually have to resolve it and move on. Symbolically if it weren’t for these supervillains who are (ambiguous in a lot of cases, yes) inherently ontologically evil, then he would just be a very rich person using his wealth to resolve his mental health issues beating up poor people.
@@SOLOcan In my personal theory Batman always used the statement that “there’s no going back” once you kill but I think he only means that for himself He knows he’s also one step away from being insane cause a regular person wouldn’t turn into a genocidal maniac if they kill once especially when it’s completely justified
@@noro329 By symbolic, I don't mean that Batman is one step away from losing his mind. He is, this much has already been established ever since the Killing Joke. It's rather that, without the Joker there simply is no Batman. The symbol of the "dark knight" has no meaning at all. Bruce Wayne, puts on the mask to find meaning, lost after his parents death. In fighting an external enemy that threatens the metropolis, he is able to elevate his "truth" to that of a larger community. Gotham City. Thus Batman is as much a institution of City just as much as the police force or the mayors office. When GCPC or Harvey Dent cannot do what needs to be done against the likes of SuperVillians, Batman is there to take up the mantle. This is explicitly shown in the Nolan films. But this is an identity based on two illusions. One, Batman's identity as a protector is imminent to the existential struggle for Gotham City. Once there is no struggle there's no need for Batman. As pointed out by so many people, Bruce Wayne is the mask, Batman is the real. It isn't when his enemy is defeated that he becomes his true self. Batman's true self is already there, defined by his villain's and the struggle. So when he says "there's no going back". It is hinting at his subconscious wish to keep the struggle going. Once the Joker is dead, Batman is really just a violent man wearing hockey pants Second, supervillain's are not real. I don't mean that they are unrealistic. I mean that villain's are never external to us. In reality crime isn't committed by some outside force, or some criminal with an entirely alien subjectivity to us. They are committed by the community members, for reasons you and me deal with everyday.
@@SOLOcan I mean Batman has always been insane. He trained and studied like crazy just so he can dress up as a bat every night to fight crime. This is what I imagine Batman’s reason behind his no kill rule, it’s for him to stay in control.
I think the Arkhamverse Batman would pick to destroy the machine. He promised to end Ra's al Ghul's addiction if he didn't do it himself in Arkham City. And he didn't attempt to prevent Ra's from stabbing himself at the end of that game, so he already has some belief that ending Al Ghul's artificial clinging to life isn't the same.
Batman promised to stop Ra’s again, not kill him or end his addiction for him (I know you didn’t say kill but some people thought he would do that, too, and breaking his addiction might imply killing Ra’s, as well.)
@@teleportedbreadfor3days "I've given him a chance to break his addiction, or I'll be back to do it myself." Literally a direct quote from Batman to Oracle in Arkham City. Him choosing to destroy the machine is him fulfilling that promise. Besides he even stops Nyssa from killing him, opting to instead take him to GCPD.
@@teleportedbreadfor3days I did watch a video. He says that right after you fight Ra's, leaving Wonder City. It's some lengthy dialogue between Batman and Oracle but that is (I believe) the last line.
"What would you do, Alfred?" From what we've seen in all his depictions, probably tell the villain he doesn't have a code against killing and then blow their head off with a shotgun.
I go by the quote from Batman Begins during this mission: “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you”. Batman technically never kills Ra’s, instead leaving him to face his own mortality.
The only option that makes sense canon wise is option A: Destroy the machine. Batman clearly stated in City that Ra's is addicted and that he has to stop, or he would STOP him. Injecting him in Knight would contradict his position in City. Furthermore, since Knight is the ENDING, letting him live leaves a huge loose end that never gets resolved. Dispite Batman's fucked up code, I truly believe he would see this as an act of mercy (for a man who suffers an illness) not to mention the end of centuries worth of conflicts (past, present and future) Option A is the only one
I don't really think barman code is "fucked up" not killing criminals is fine even some of the more extreme cases like two face or scarecrow because with some actually good treatment they could probably be rid of their mental illness and live normal lives but their can be some exceptions to this rule of course like joker who's just too far gone that gone that killing him is probably mercy at this point the same thing with ra's he's lives for centuries and his addiction to immortality and the pit is destroying destroying his mind killing is the best option for him but overall batmans rule is a good one I believe
At the end of Arkham City, Batman tells a dying Joker that he would have saved him had he not dropped the vial when Joker stabbed him. This is the exact same situation. Batman is met with a dying Ra's who he has the ability to save. This time, there is no one to stab him in the shoulder, so canon-wise, Batman would save Ra's. If he didn't, it would not be consistent with what he told Joker, and that was arguably the most pivotal plot point in the series.
Batman has killed before (or mentally crossed the line, as he does so during the hallucination on Scarecrow's airship.) in other media, though. Plus, since it's one of his last acts as "The Batman". I figure it would be a better note to go out on. Not s a "mercy kill", but to let him die, once and for all. Like in Batman Begins, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." @@ascii8229
@@brycemcglothlin3830 Batman absolutely does not consider Ra's to be an exception to his rule. Regardless of what he considers Ra's to be, Batman still doesn't want to kill him. In Arkham City, Batman explicitly states, after his boss fight with Ra's: "I'll never kill, not even you." The state that Ra's was in then is the same state he's in during Arkham Knight, just because he's about to die again, it doesn't change the fact that he already has died and been resurrected. And at that point in Arkham Knight, whatever Batman considers him (undead, alive, etc.), he still does not see Ra's as an exception to his no kill rule, because it would contradict his actions in Arkham City. And yes, I'm willing to argue that he already knew Grundy wouldn't die from it. It's either that, or he believes Grundy's state is different from the state Ra's is in, a state in which his rule does not apply.
I think it’s worth mentioning that Bruce’s conviction to avoid killing people is not, and has never been rational. Even when the strictly correct or better option in any given case is to kill someone, Bruce will choose not to do it, not because he’s stupid, but because he knows that if he allows himself to indulge that privilege, he’ll never recover. It’s not a matter of whether murder is the correct option, it’s a matter of whether he’ll be able to stop himself from doing it again in the future.
Exactly what I thought. While I do believe it wouldn't be out of character for him to destroy the machine (ultimately it wouldn't kill Ra's, just let him die naturally as he should have done centuries ago) I do think too many people misunderstand why he refuses to kill under any circumstances. It's not because he thinks he can change characters like the Joker (Batman often said that he's irredeemable scum) but to prevent himself from falling into the slippery slope of being judge, jury and executioner. Him not killing is also the reason why the GCPD, namely Commissioner Gordon, treats him as an ally and not an illegal vigilante; he never really takes the law in his own hands and lets the system deliver punishment on the criminals he captures. There's a comic book where an alternate Batman actually kills criminals and Gordon is staunchly against him, eventually even unmasking him. So it's for the best that Batman doesn't kill: so that the people of Gotham and the police can trust him and so that he doesn't end up like some sort of Punisher.
This sidequest was awesome because it stretched Batman's morals just before ending his final night as the caped crusader. If you choose to destroy Ra's life support and ultimately dooming him to a final death.....Batman has chosen that ending life (though not directly) may sometimes be necessary. If you decide to stick to Batman's traditional morals to a T, you still stop the League, but allow Ra's to continue his evil long-term. Both endings are very well-suited and still fit Batman regardless. Great plot writing honestly.
"What would you do Alfred?" "I literally just made an argument for it but I would kill him, wouldn't even be a bother depending on which version of Alfred you want, most of them I'm former SAS or MI6."
"What would you do Alfred " I LOVE Conroy's change of tone, a genuine son like wonderment of someone he trusts, and in so doing Alfred softens and admits he doesn't know but believes the boy he raised will make the right choice regardless if he can hold back the monster inside him
Batman: what would you do? Alfred: you do remember i have killed in service to the queen, and am not fond of people who cause you distress? Do the math, master wayne.
Usually Batsy and pals just walk around shouting the real names of the ones they're talking with (and even if they think there's nobody around, we know people like Joker and Riddler can easily hack their calls). But now he literally shows the face of his butler in 16:9 for everyone around to see !
And Barbara. And Lucius. I tell myself the video is just there for us -- the equivalent of TV shows jump-cutting from one person to the other so we can see the faces.
Akshually the gauntlet feed is an AR display being projected into Bruce's eyes by the cowl. If you ever look at Batman during these kinds of exchanges he has the "white eye" look that usually only happens during Detective Vision, which indicates that he is looking at something not seen in regular sight.
@@fluidthought42 Well, if that's true... that's not so bad as it seems. Still other people can hear what he says and.. then why does he need to look at his arm, if he can keep the "live chat" in a corner of his eyes anyway?
@@fluidthought42 We're talking about the guy who waste time to bat-shape explosive plastic, even if nobody's watching, before to blow it up... So... Most likely.
Letting a sick criminal die from illness I don't think counts as murder. So letting Ra's die by denying him the Lazarus Pit shouldn't break Batman's rule.
I mean Alfred isn't wrong batman doesn't have a problem with killing grundy since he's literally already dead you could make the same decision. Plus this falls into the same logic as the Nolan movies batman doesn't kill but he doesn't have to save them.
The thing I love about Alfred is that he doesn't agree with Bruce's rule. Killing can sometimes be more good than bad, especially when a person like Ra's has been cheating death for hundreds of years
Alfred: Just let Ra's die, he suffered too much. Batman: And let him out of my control? NEVER!!! Alfred: *sighs in disappointment of Batman's declining health*
It was clear what Alfred was arguing for. I don't know why he chickened out when Bruce asked him what he would do. He should have just boldly stated that he would let him die but then also say that he'll support Bruce no matter what he decides.
He knew he had gotten his opinion across. But he also knew Bruce's traumas and obsessions, and didn't want to PUSH him into doing something that might make him worse. Plus, an element of "Son, you're 40-something years old, a genius, and basically a father yourself -- learn to make your own f**king decisions!"
Batman contemplates taking a life while he leaves the streets and rooftops littered with men who have been beaten to an inch of their life. The difficult decisions of Batman.
he does? what's really interesting is that if you ever read the Original Alfred when he joined the comics back in the 1940's. his entire family were butler's to the wayne's and Alfred was the only only one left of his family that hadn't at the time not served Bruce's family. his introduction was him showing up on Bruce's door and saying who he was and why he's there and pretty much talks him into be his butler before that it was just Bruce and Dick. also in the 40's Alfred was also a stage actor who gets to show his acting throughout the 40's and became a huge part of the comics, he even played as batman a number of times as well, they would have short stories where Alfred would bumble his way into solving a crime by accident DC also did the same thing with Lois Lane as well she's always find some way to catch the bad guys and the idea was her to do it on her own. in the 50's at least where i am which is June (1956) i'm reading them digital Alfred really isn't used that much for whatever reason. but in the 40's he was used quite a lot. now in the comics they have fucking Bane kill him off i do not like that
Makes sense. Alfred has often been portrayed as being former military and possibly a spy/intelligence officer. A guy like that would understandably be prepared if a fight came to his door, especially considering his boss/surrogate son is a vigilante whose sworn enemies are some of the most dangerous people alive.
@@Garrus1995 which is really funny cause when he was introduced at least in the comics in the 40's he was an actor of the stage who's career never went anywhere so when he played Batman he was acting the part in the sense. he also was really fat at first than the Serials came and he was portrayed him as Thin so they wrote him going off on a spa and he lost a ton of weight and kept it off to match his film version.
This was a good way to bend his rule...or not. I was very surprised you got a choice here but I think the point is that you only have a choice because both options could be seen as in-character.
This was the moment where everything I believed about Batman fell apart. Had I never played this DLC I would have never questioned Batman's no-kill moral code. I don't look at it as a bad thing though, I think it's good to have healthy objections to what heroes do for the sake of justice. In my game, you bet your ass I let Ras die.
Batman: "What would you do Alfred?" Alfred: "Sir, I am an ex-Special Forces, trained in using firearms and has used them to take lives. I believe you know very well what I would do."
"Well Master Bruce, one must consider how many people each of your many enemies kill each time they go back out onto the streets of Gotham because you refuse to stop them permanently. Personally I would just kill them all so I don't have to keep fighting them in increasingly convoluted ways just for them to escape or get released from custody. But I'm just a humble butler, sir."
Considering that down one timeline Ra's goes full psycho and inhabits the body of his own daughter, I'm sure nobody will lose sleep if he stays asleep, you understand me?
Knowing Alfred’s past as a spy and a soldier, I’m surprised he even hesitated to ask Batman to let Ra’s die, he known Batman doesn’t kill but he also was wondering whether he would actually do so
I'd say it was likely out of respect for Bruce and the predicament he found himself in. Even if Alfred doesn't personally uphold a "no killing" code of ethics, he understands Bruce does and likely respects that. That he's suggesting letting Ra's die at all is seemingly a flimsy effort to reassure Bruce that it'd be an acceptable option by his code. Even if Alfred knows what he'd do himself, he also doesn't necessarily know what he'd do in Batman's position. Nor does he want to overly pressure Bruce to make a tough decision when there's already too much pressure as it is. Hence why he'd ultimately end by specifying that he'll support Bruce regardless of his decision.
this is a good reference of the batamn comics where from 1985 to 2007 everytime batman saw a vampire he went balistic about killing it regardless of his moral code on the current series tie-in or spin off he was in.
i recently replayed arkham city, specifically the wonder city segment, the lazarus was already killing him, he was on the fast track to becoming ra's al Grundy and we don't need a second immortal brainless zombie, especially one with ninja skills.
“I swore I’d never kill.” What, so all the people you ran over with your car don’t count? You think those prisoners you left with traumatic injuries in Arkham City were rushed to the hospital? The city was under lockdown during Arkham Origins, frostbite plus internal bleeding would not be a fun combination. This attitude is what makes Batman a hypocrite.
"What would you do, Alfred?" "-Shoot him dead, dismember the corpse, burn it to ash and scatter it to the four corners of the earth.- I don't know, but I'll support you whatever you choose, sir."
When it comes to this choice, I just saw it as the exact same situation as the end of Batman Begins: “I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”
Really like Batman, Bruce(he may "die" on that day, but part of him remain of the body) is asking Alfred advice and sound conflict too And I agree with Alfred lowkey suggesting killing Ra's, he is far too gone and powerful, plus letting him rest seem something Batman would do more than giving the cure
I'd be interested in reading a Story where a friend of Bruce's has a terminal illness and asks for his help in an assisted suicide. I think there's a ton of potential in a story like that.
This is why gordon is my favorite. He respects batman and counts on him to get the job done, his way, but if hes still gonna take the shot if he gets it
Bruce really is the type to let the train run over 5 people instead of one claiming he would be responsible for the one death and the five would just be an accident
Coming back to this. Thinking about it...R'as dies either way. How he dies here is simply up to you. Let him die as himself, or kill his mind to bring back the Demon.
I think even Ra’s, to some extent, knew that destroying the machine and letting him die was the right call. His last words are “proud of you…” after all.
At this point, Ra's is more like a Universal Monster than a man, and Bats has been known to cook a vampire or drop a crypt on a mummy from time to time.
I love how after Bruce decides to let Ras die, you can go visit him in the GCPD and he says to Bruce that he's proud of him for making that decision. Sort of a sweet moment between the 2
To quote Alfred himself from a Batman comic: "My master lives by a strict code to never take a life in the name of justice.... I have no such standards."
Pretty sure Alfred was a military man in most continuities before becoming a butler. Doesn't make sense when I think about that actually.
All the while loading a shotgun
Alfred is the one character I've never seen done wrong
@@cynicat74 Even in the TellTale version he had a gun if you chose to fight Harvey instead of stopping Penguin. He's a fighter, gotta hand it to him. :P
@@Horatio787 Wasn't there a B:TAS episode where we find out he was MI6 in his youth? And Michael Caine mentioned his SAS unit burning down a forest to kill one guy.
@@stevenscott2136 Yeah there was, someone puts a truth serum in him to extract the info. I was just remarking that professional soldier to butler seems like an unlikely career move since british butlers are pretty entrenched in their ways.
"What would you do, Alfred?"
"Shoot him with a .50 cal repeatedly until he stopped moving, then reload, sir."
"Guns didn't kill your parents, a man like him did." - Alfred
I appreciate that he asks what Alfred would do. If nobody else, he trusts his father's judgement.
Agreed. Batman never asks this question ever. But he asks Alfred because deep down, he values his opinion and advice.
I like how he didn’t say,
“Drop it Alfred.”
Or
“I don’t want to hear more of this.”
That moment was genuinely heartfelt.
He’s so confused and has no idea what choice to make so he went to the man who knew more than him. His father figure Alfred.
@@excitedcat9517 Alfred would have just ended the fucker without hesitation he only didnt say that because he wasnt there and didnt want to push him to a path that would cause his son bruce to suffer
They care deeply for each other and know the other very well
Alfred (and Lucius) are both behind Batman Mask. Joker is right to dont care about Batman true identity. Yes, It's mostly Bruce. But Bruce without Alfred or Lucius is nothing during a good period of Batman.
alfred ain’t his father
"What would you do Alfred?"
"Probably snipe him from a distance, Master Bruce"
"Blow him apart with my 12 gauge sir."
Exactly. I was waiting to for Alfred to go off by saying exactly what he would do to someone whose a known threat.
The same thing I did to the men who broke into the batcave.
Or use a shotgun
"Perhaps you relied on my master's vow AGAINST using lethal force. Let me assure you that I subscribe to NO such niceties."
In other words, "I keep dat mfkn THANG on me"
@@tornadotaylor8956 I understand the sentiment, however the two situations aren't entirely compatible: it's the difference between a home invasion and going out and hunting for someone.
Not saying it's wrong or anything, but there is a difference, which is likely why he answered the way that he did. Bruce already knows Alfred won't hesitate to use the most effective tools at his disposal to protect his home; whether Alfred would gear up and go take someone out is another story.
"How many more back surgeries will it take for you to listen, Master Bruce?"
"Yes."
Man’s lived lifetimes, died multiple times, and through inaction you’re simply letting a man who’s died time and time again finally stay at peace, instead of forcing him on, corrupting his mind and killing his daughter, as well as countless others.
I think there’s a clear option of which choice to pick, but I’d love to here from anyone who would choose to save him, even knowing both immediate outcomes
Tbh the most logical option is killing him but sometimes i save him cuz it fits the way that Batman's no kill rule causes more harm that it avoids.
@@Strangeminds38 you not killing him really you saving him if batman wanted to kill he could have done it a long time ago but his morality won't allow it he did the right thing if he chose to let him have the Lazarus it will remain in his conscious that he made a big mistake by giving him a sample of the pit if you chose to destroy the tubes you made the right choice from a storyline perspective to end the Era of batman this would be the correct choice
@@jessemccutchen308 Meh you literally crush his chances of surviving in front of his eyes, i think it could be considered indirect murder, of course it's more complex than that and Ra's Al Ghul is barely a human being at this point but you basically make sure that his survival chances are 0% (not saying that it's a bad thing)
@@Strangeminds38 bro this is not crushing his chances it's choosing to not save him so technically he didn't murder al ghul if you look at the Nolan dark knight this is a reminiscent of this but batman didn't murder him but letting him live to then murder his daughter is murder and is something batman doesn't want on his conscious so to think about this is the right choice
Bruce didn’t kill Talia,Joker did.Don’t say it’s his fault she’s dead,because she willingly had Joker hold her hostage.It’s only due to a “miscalculation” that she ended up dead.If that was the real Joker,Bruce would be making wedding plans rather than keeping to himself.
Alfred found the ultimate loophole
sometimes killing is a only choice.
Batman doesn’t kill because as the Joker in Nolan’s Dark Knight points out, he needs villains to fight sustain his identity.
On a personal level, his crusade is driven by his trauma. If he ran out of people to stand in for his parents killers he would actually have to resolve it and move on.
Symbolically if it weren’t for these supervillains who are (ambiguous in a lot of cases, yes) inherently ontologically evil, then he would just be a very rich person using his wealth to resolve his mental health issues beating up poor people.
@@SOLOcan
In my personal theory Batman always used the statement that “there’s no going back” once you kill but I think he only means that for himself
He knows he’s also one step away from being insane cause a regular person wouldn’t turn into a genocidal maniac if they kill once especially when it’s completely justified
@@noro329 By symbolic, I don't mean that Batman is one step away from losing his mind. He is, this much has already been established ever since the Killing Joke.
It's rather that, without the Joker there simply is no Batman. The symbol of the "dark knight" has no meaning at all.
Bruce Wayne, puts on the mask to find meaning, lost after his parents death. In fighting an external enemy that threatens the metropolis, he is able to elevate his "truth" to that of a larger community. Gotham City.
Thus Batman is as much a institution of City just as much as the police force or the mayors office. When GCPC or Harvey Dent cannot do what needs to be done against the likes of SuperVillians, Batman is there to take up the mantle. This is explicitly shown in the Nolan films.
But this is an identity based on two illusions.
One, Batman's identity as a protector is imminent to the existential struggle for Gotham City. Once there is no struggle there's no need for Batman. As pointed out by so many people, Bruce Wayne is the mask, Batman is the real. It isn't when his enemy is defeated that he becomes his true self. Batman's true self is already there, defined by his villain's and the struggle.
So when he says "there's no going back". It is hinting at his subconscious wish to keep the struggle going. Once the Joker is dead, Batman is really just a violent man wearing hockey pants
Second, supervillain's are not real. I don't mean that they are unrealistic. I mean that villain's are never external to us. In reality crime isn't committed by some outside force, or some criminal with an entirely alien subjectivity to us. They are committed by the community members, for reasons you and me deal with everyday.
@@SOLOcan I mean Batman has always been insane. He trained and studied like crazy just so he can dress up as a bat every night to fight crime. This is what I imagine Batman’s reason behind his no kill rule, it’s for him to stay in control.
Well, this continues to prove that Alfred Pennyworth is very awesome.
Of course he is
@@larniieplayz6285 yeah, but still.
"What would you do, Alfred?"
"I've killed before, I'm confident I could do it again sir."
I think the Arkhamverse Batman would pick to destroy the machine. He promised to end Ra's al Ghul's addiction if he didn't do it himself in Arkham City. And he didn't attempt to prevent Ra's from stabbing himself at the end of that game, so he already has some belief that ending Al Ghul's artificial clinging to life isn't the same.
Not much batman could have done when ra's tried to stab him
Batman promised to stop Ra’s again, not kill him or end his addiction for him (I know you didn’t say kill but some people thought he would do that, too, and breaking his addiction might imply killing Ra’s, as well.)
@@teleportedbreadfor3days
"I've given him a chance to break his addiction, or I'll be back to do it myself."
Literally a direct quote from Batman to Oracle in Arkham City. Him choosing to destroy the machine is him fulfilling that promise. Besides he even stops Nyssa from killing him, opting to instead take him to GCPD.
@@justinharvey7398 I’ll have to rewatch that scene. I could’ve sworn i remember him not saying exactly that
@@teleportedbreadfor3days I did watch a video. He says that right after you fight Ra's, leaving Wonder City. It's some lengthy dialogue between Batman and Oracle but that is (I believe) the last line.
"What would you do, Alfred?"
From what we've seen in all his depictions, probably tell the villain he doesn't have a code against killing and then blow their head off with a shotgun.
Is that what you would do, Plague?
@@jadehaze7939No but comic Alfred would
Unexpected Plague of Gripes
Sometimes ‘ending’ a life is the same as ‘saving’ it.
I go by the quote from Batman Begins during this mission: “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you”.
Batman technically never kills Ra’s, instead leaving him to face his own mortality.
The only option that makes sense canon wise is option A: Destroy the machine.
Batman clearly stated in City that Ra's is addicted and that he has to stop, or he would STOP him.
Injecting him in Knight would contradict his position in City.
Furthermore, since Knight is the ENDING, letting him live leaves a huge loose end that never gets resolved.
Dispite Batman's fucked up code, I truly believe he would see this as an act of mercy (for a man who suffers an illness) not to mention the end of centuries worth of conflicts (past, present and future)
Option A is the only one
I don't really think barman code is "fucked up" not killing criminals is fine even some of the more extreme cases like two face or scarecrow because with some actually good treatment they could probably be rid of their mental illness and live normal lives but their can be some exceptions to this rule of course like joker who's just too far gone that gone that killing him is probably mercy at this point the same thing with ra's he's lives for centuries and his addiction to immortality and the pit is destroying destroying his mind killing is the best option for him but overall batmans rule is a good one I believe
At the end of Arkham City, Batman tells a dying Joker that he would have saved him had he not dropped the vial when Joker stabbed him.
This is the exact same situation. Batman is met with a dying Ra's who he has the ability to save. This time, there is no one to stab him in the shoulder, so canon-wise, Batman would save Ra's. If he didn't, it would not be consistent with what he told Joker, and that was arguably the most pivotal plot point in the series.
Batman has killed before (or mentally crossed the line, as he does so during the hallucination on Scarecrow's airship.) in other media, though. Plus, since it's one of his last acts as "The Batman". I figure it would be a better note to go out on. Not s a "mercy kill", but to let him die, once and for all. Like in Batman Begins, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." @@ascii8229
I think batman was lying@@ascii8229
@@brycemcglothlin3830 Batman absolutely does not consider Ra's to be an exception to his rule. Regardless of what he considers Ra's to be, Batman still doesn't want to kill him. In Arkham City, Batman explicitly states, after his boss fight with Ra's: "I'll never kill, not even you." The state that Ra's was in then is the same state he's in during Arkham Knight, just because he's about to die again, it doesn't change the fact that he already has died and been resurrected. And at that point in Arkham Knight, whatever Batman considers him (undead, alive, etc.), he still does not see Ra's as an exception to his no kill rule, because it would contradict his actions in Arkham City.
And yes, I'm willing to argue that he already knew Grundy wouldn't die from it. It's either that, or he believes Grundy's state is different from the state Ra's is in, a state in which his rule does not apply.
I think it’s worth mentioning that Bruce’s conviction to avoid killing people is not, and has never been rational. Even when the strictly correct or better option in any given case is to kill someone, Bruce will choose not to do it, not because he’s stupid, but because he knows that if he allows himself to indulge that privilege, he’ll never recover. It’s not a matter of whether murder is the correct option, it’s a matter of whether he’ll be able to stop himself from doing it again in the future.
Plus the death penalty is in the states hands after a trial. Or would be if people dealt with this for a generation
And he does stop the criminals and has set up charities to get them the help they need
Depending on how you interpret the "Ghost" ending, he does indulge in killing.
But rationally isn't there a point where it's best to kill certain people even if it means he'll start killing more people?
Exactly what I thought.
While I do believe it wouldn't be out of character for him to destroy the machine (ultimately it wouldn't kill Ra's, just let him die naturally as he should have done centuries ago) I do think too many people misunderstand why he refuses to kill under any circumstances.
It's not because he thinks he can change characters like the Joker (Batman often said that he's irredeemable scum) but to prevent himself from falling into the slippery slope of being judge, jury and executioner.
Him not killing is also the reason why the GCPD, namely Commissioner Gordon, treats him as an ally and not an illegal vigilante; he never really takes the law in his own hands and lets the system deliver punishment on the criminals he captures. There's a comic book where an alternate Batman actually kills criminals and Gordon is staunchly against him, eventually even unmasking him.
So it's for the best that Batman doesn't kill: so that the people of Gotham and the police can trust him and so that he doesn't end up like some sort of Punisher.
Sometimes, let some people die (not killing them directly, just letting the life doing their stuff) its a act of mercy.
Alfred should've warned Rocksteady not to make Suicide Squad.
Well, you don't see Batman running around Gotham making sure that nobody unplugs life support.
This sidequest was awesome because it stretched Batman's morals just before ending his final night as the caped crusader. If you choose to destroy Ra's life support and ultimately dooming him to a final death.....Batman has chosen that ending life (though not directly) may sometimes be necessary. If you decide to stick to Batman's traditional morals to a T, you still stop the League, but allow Ra's to continue his evil long-term. Both endings are very well-suited and still fit Batman regardless. Great plot writing honestly.
"What would you do, Alfred?"
"I assure you I subscribe to no such niceties as you, Master Bruce."
I always destroy the Lazurus machine. Ras is basically a zombie at this point. You're killing a zombie, that's more of a civil service than murder.
Plus Batman killed the zombie Grundy
"What would you do Alfred?"
"I literally just made an argument for it but I would kill him, wouldn't even be a bother depending on which version of Alfred you want, most of them I'm former SAS or MI6."
Alfred you damn good butler man said "I'll stand by you" Good or Bad Alfred will always remain Loyal
Enter TellTale Alfred
He is right.
It's taking him off life support. It's not killing him.
Alfred knows exactly what he'd do he keeps a 12 gauge loaded in the manor for a reason
"What would you do Alfred "
I LOVE Conroy's change of tone, a genuine son like wonderment of someone he trusts, and in so doing Alfred softens and admits he doesn't know but believes the boy he raised will make the right choice regardless if he can hold back the monster inside him
"What would you do, Alfred?"
Dude Alfred was SAS, he'd kick in the door with a shotgun and dispense the Queen's justice.
My favorite part of this entire DLC mission will always be him asking Alfred what’s the right thing to do.
Alfred honestly sounds like your dad if he was a therapist
He feels more like an uncle or an older mentor friend
Master Wayne, do you think it’s wise to be “hooking up” with miss vale sir? I feel, old sir. This makes me feel old sir
Batman did kill the zombie grundy
Considering batman killed Grundy, a zombie, it makes sense for Batman to not help ra’s who is in a zombified state, thus letting it happen
I always destroy the machine. Ra's Al Ghul is dangerous, plus he is pretty much a corpse in this game, and it isn't truly killing, just not reviving.
“I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.” -The Dark Knight.
Batman: what would you do?
Alfred: you do remember i have killed in service to the queen, and am not fond of people who cause you distress? Do the math, master wayne.
I love how Alfred is basically Batman's father. Not to be confused with Bruce Wayne's father.
Nah he's both.
"What would you do Alfred?"
Chad Comics Alfred: Sir, five rounds rapid.
😭
Usually Batsy and pals just walk around shouting the real names of the ones they're talking with (and even if they think there's nobody around, we know people like Joker and Riddler can easily hack their calls).
But now he literally shows the face of his butler in 16:9 for everyone around to see !
And Barbara. And Lucius. I tell myself the video is just there for us -- the equivalent of TV shows jump-cutting from one person to the other so we can see the faces.
Akshually the gauntlet feed is an AR display being projected into Bruce's eyes by the cowl. If you ever look at Batman during these kinds of exchanges he has the "white eye" look that usually only happens during Detective Vision, which indicates that he is looking at something not seen in regular sight.
@@fluidthought42
Well, if that's true... that's not so bad as it seems.
Still other people can hear what he says and.. then why does he need to look at his arm, if he can keep the "live chat" in a corner of his eyes anyway?
@@BETMARKonTube
Because it looks cool, probably
@@fluidthought42
We're talking about the guy who waste time to bat-shape explosive plastic, even if nobody's watching, before to blow it up... So... Most likely.
To quote Batman Begins, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
Letting a sick criminal die from illness I don't think counts as murder. So letting Ra's die by denying him the Lazarus Pit shouldn't break Batman's rule.
He always makes good points
I mean Alfred isn't wrong batman doesn't have a problem with killing grundy since he's literally already dead you could make the same decision. Plus this falls into the same logic as the Nolan movies batman doesn't kill but he doesn't have to save them.
Movie was EXTREMELY lazy and incorrect about that whole set up
A case could be made that... well... (hesitant Alfred noises)
The thing I love about Alfred is that he doesn't agree with Bruce's rule. Killing can sometimes be more good than bad, especially when a person like Ra's has been cheating death for hundreds of years
"What would you do, Alfred?"
"I'd blow that monster's fucking head off and sleep soundly tonight."
Alfred: Just let Ra's die, he suffered too much.
Batman: And let him out of my control? NEVER!!!
Alfred: *sighs in disappointment of Batman's declining health*
This mission is litteraly the ending to Batman begins: “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”
"What would you do Alfred?" He'd put Ras in the dirt ong
It was clear what Alfred was arguing for. I don't know why he chickened out when Bruce asked him what he would do. He should have just boldly stated that he would let him die but then also say that he'll support Bruce no matter what he decides.
He knew he had gotten his opinion across. But he also knew Bruce's traumas and obsessions, and didn't want to PUSH him into doing something that might make him worse.
Plus, an element of "Son, you're 40-something years old, a genius, and basically a father yourself -- learn to make your own f**king decisions!"
"He's a smoker sir, how long does he have anyway?" Slippery slope Alfred.
Batman contemplates taking a life while he leaves the streets and rooftops littered with men who have been beaten to an inch of their life. The difficult decisions of Batman.
Alfred (in the comics) has a bunch of guns hidden throughout wane manor, Bruce hasn't found them all
he does? what's really interesting is that if you ever read the Original Alfred when he joined the comics back in the 1940's. his entire family were butler's to the wayne's and Alfred was the only only one left of his family that hadn't at the time not served Bruce's family. his introduction was him showing up on Bruce's door and saying who he was and why he's there and pretty much talks him into be his butler before that it was just Bruce and Dick.
also in the 40's Alfred was also a stage actor who gets to show his acting throughout the 40's and became a huge part of the comics, he even played as batman a number of times as well, they would have short stories where Alfred would bumble his way into solving a crime by accident DC also did the same thing with Lois Lane as well she's always find some way to catch the bad guys and the idea was her to do it on her own.
in the 50's at least where i am which is June (1956) i'm reading them digital Alfred really isn't used that much for whatever reason. but in the 40's he was used quite a lot. now in the comics they have fucking Bane kill him off i do not like that
Makes sense. Alfred has often been portrayed as being former military and possibly a spy/intelligence officer. A guy like that would understandably be prepared if a fight came to his door, especially considering his boss/surrogate son is a vigilante whose sworn enemies are some of the most dangerous people alive.
@@Garrus1995 which is really funny cause when he was introduced at least in the comics in the 40's he was an actor of the stage who's career never went anywhere so when he played Batman he was acting the part in the sense. he also was really fat at first than the Serials came and he was portrayed him as Thin so they wrote him going off on a spa and he lost a ton of weight and kept it off to match his film version.
"what would you do, Alfred?"
"kill the bastard, sir"
"you're fired, Alfreed"
This was a good way to bend his rule...or not. I was very surprised you got a choice here but I think the point is that you only have a choice because both options could be seen as in-character.
"All the people I've murdered by letting you live. No more!" Old Batman to Joker.
As Batman once said: “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”
This was the moment where everything I believed about Batman fell apart. Had I never played this DLC I would have never questioned Batman's no-kill moral code. I don't look at it as a bad thing though, I think it's good to have healthy objections to what heroes do for the sake of justice. In my game, you bet your ass I let Ras die.
"What would you do, Alfred?"
*Alfred, slowly raises shotgun into view*
Batman: I swore to never kill.
Alfred: It's not killing, it's stopping that man making necromancy with his own body.
“I won’t kill you. But that doesn't mean I have to save you.”
Batman: "What would you do Alfred?"
Alfred: "Sir, I am an ex-Special Forces, trained in using firearms and has used them to take lives. I believe you know very well what I would do."
"Well Master Bruce, one must consider how many people each of your many enemies kill each time they go back out onto the streets of Gotham because you refuse to stop them permanently. Personally I would just kill them all so I don't have to keep fighting them in increasingly convoluted ways just for them to escape or get released from custody. But I'm just a humble butler, sir."
For the record I NEVER let Ra's off the hook.
Considering that down one timeline Ra's goes full psycho and inhabits the body of his own daughter, I'm sure nobody will lose sleep if he stays asleep, you understand me?
Knowing Alfred’s past as a spy and a soldier, I’m surprised he even hesitated to ask Batman to let Ra’s die, he known Batman doesn’t kill but he also was wondering whether he would actually do so
I'd say it was likely out of respect for Bruce and the predicament he found himself in. Even if Alfred doesn't personally uphold a "no killing" code of ethics, he understands Bruce does and likely respects that. That he's suggesting letting Ra's die at all is seemingly a flimsy effort to reassure Bruce that it'd be an acceptable option by his code. Even if Alfred knows what he'd do himself, he also doesn't necessarily know what he'd do in Batman's position. Nor does he want to overly pressure Bruce to make a tough decision when there's already too much pressure as it is. Hence why he'd ultimately end by specifying that he'll support Bruce regardless of his decision.
Alfred: You can't kill a dead man, Sir.
Alfred at the end their desperately trying to hold back his MI6 training
Bruce: We don't kill!
Alfred: So anyways i started blastin
For me, it was like in Batman Begins:
"I'm not going to kill you. But I don't have to save you."
Alfred : I don’t know sir also Alfred : was part of the SAS
Alfred would probably ventilate Ra's skull if he was given the chance.
"What would you do, Alfred?"
Batman LISTENS?
“I don’t know, sir”
I know damn well Alfred would storm the building and destroy the body to be safe
In my playthroughs, I always destroy the machine. The alternative is Ra's causing more havoc and Nyssa dying in the process.
this is a good reference of the batamn comics
where from 1985 to 2007 everytime batman saw a vampire he went balistic about killing it regardless of his moral code on the current series tie-in or spin off he was in.
When I played this I clicked the wrong button and made him live instead. And I’m like nooooo
i recently replayed arkham city, specifically the wonder city segment, the lazarus was already killing him, he was on the fast track to becoming ra's al Grundy and we don't need a second immortal brainless zombie, especially one with ninja skills.
Its like zombie rules, you can’t kill him if he’s already dead. Since he’s already died so many times it’s not truly murder.
“What would you do Alfred?”
“I’d bust a cap in his ass Master Bruce.”
“I swore I’d never kill.”
What, so all the people you ran over with your car don’t count? You think those prisoners you left with traumatic injuries in Arkham City were rushed to the hospital? The city was under lockdown during Arkham Origins, frostbite plus internal bleeding would not be a fun combination.
This attitude is what makes Batman a hypocrite.
Almost like that's a video game where they can't control what players do, or something
@@OhNoTheFace Have you played the Arkham games? Trying to get through them WITHOUT getting into combat is impossible.
@@OhNoTheFace Oh yeah, sure, sure. Almost like they CODED THE ABILITY TO TAZE PEOPLE WITH YOUR CAR.
"What would you do, Alfred?"
"-Shoot him dead, dismember the corpse, burn it to ash and scatter it to the four corners of the earth.- I don't know, but I'll support you whatever you choose, sir."
Alfred saying "I dont know what I'd do" translates to "I'd shoot the fucker but I don't want to make you feel bad"
Alfred's ex-special forces.
We know what he'd do.
Makes sense
Bruce’s no killing rule has cost both his family and his city a lot of pain and misery and all thanks to one Clown Prince of Crime or Chaos
Always the good slave Alfred. He know his master is wrong but remain blindly loyal and obedient.
When it comes to this choice, I just saw it as the exact same situation as the end of Batman Begins:
“I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”
Alfred is right. This is good advice
Really like Batman, Bruce(he may "die" on that day, but part of him remain of the body) is asking Alfred advice and sound conflict too
And I agree with Alfred lowkey suggesting killing Ra's, he is far too gone and powerful, plus letting him rest seem something Batman would do more than giving the cure
I'd be interested in reading a Story where a friend of Bruce's has a terminal illness and asks for his help in an assisted suicide.
I think there's a ton of potential in a story like that.
This is why gordon is my favorite. He respects batman and counts on him to get the job done, his way, but if hes still gonna take the shot if he gets it
Bruce really is the type to let the train run over 5 people instead of one claiming he would be responsible for the one death and the five would just be an accident
Coming back to this. Thinking about it...R'as dies either way. How he dies here is simply up to you. Let him die as himself, or kill his mind to bring back the Demon.
Such an awesome game series
I think even Ra’s, to some extent, knew that destroying the machine and letting him die was the right call. His last words are “proud of you…” after all.
At this point, Ra's is more like a Universal Monster than a man, and Bats has been known to cook a vampire or drop a crypt on a mummy from time to time.
tbh he's had many, MANY lifetimes to change his ways.
Batman: What would you do Alfred
Alfred: I would stop being a little bitch, sir
It's weird seeing Alfred with glasses.
I love how after Bruce decides to let Ras die, you can go visit him in the GCPD and he says to Bruce that he's proud of him for making that decision. Sort of a sweet moment between the 2
"I won't kill him Alfred, i promised to never do such a thing"
"So what will you do?"
"Beat him so hard he will become a vegetable on a bed"
Batman begins if I ever saw it…