Would murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne be justifiable?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Batman: Arkham City
  3. Would murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne be justifiable?

User Info: yes_boss_man

7 years ago#1
I'm not trying to be sadistic, but I think it's an interesting question philosophically. If you were to know that Bruce Wayne would become Batman because of his parents' deaths, and in the process help thousands, would it be justifiable to kill his parents? It seems really interesting to me. Personally, I think the answer would be yes, but I could see both sides. Writing a comic on this would be pretty interesting as well. Let me know what you think.

User Info: rinzero

7 years ago#2
If he didn't become Batman he probably would of ended up a doctor like his father. So he would still be saving lives.
It was on fire when I got here

User Info: Fibblefish

7 years ago#3
Very interesting idea. The problem is that in stories about time travel, there are always the same paradoxes and questions about what happens if you change something and whether time corrects itself. That's sort of why I find time travel annoying in stories. But just as a discussion, it's rather interesting. You'd have to weight the good of them both living to old age against the work of Batman. While T&M helped people and do seem to have been improving the city, their deaths lead to the only thing that causes fear in criminals.
But again, I feel like some one writing this comics would just be lazy and follow the concept that either time is unchangeable or that deliberately killing Bruce's parents to allow for Batman would be bad. So in this comics lets say a criminal goes back in time to stop Bruce's parents being killed in the hopes it will stop Batman from being created. In this case, the author would likely just have Bruce's parents die in some other way that inevitably leads to him becoming Batman (this is the time is unchangeable idea). Alternatively, lets say some one goes back in time and for some reason feels they need to ensure the death of Tom and Martha to allow for Batman. In this case, the author would probably make it so time is changeable and Bruce instead becomes a criminal or something.
But yeah, interesting philosophical dilemma.

User Info: Dark_Flux

7 years ago#4
Theres also the view that Batman attracts all the freaks to Gotham so without him some of the villains may never have existed and thus they wouldnt be able to harm anyone.
PSN ID : Dark-Flux2

User Info: TJORLY

7 years ago#5

The Joker definitely wouldn't exist if Batman didn't.

User Info: yes_boss_man

7 years ago#6
He probably would have been a doctor, but for the sake of the argument, let''s say he wouldn't.

I understand the paradoxes of time travel and it can be frustrating, you're right. This was purely of philosophical nature. Interesting response, thanks for posting it.

True, they may not have been created, but you never know. It just adds another layer to the discussion, really. Still, I think his impact on the city overall was positive, so creating him wouldn't be a bad thing. As for what the Waynes would have done...well, would their deaths have done more?

User Info: Dark_Smidge

7 years ago#7
If you stopped Batman from ever being created you'd be taking away your future reasoning for traveling back in time. Hence the paradox of time travel.

Although, if you go by the Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey Ball way of thinking, time can be split depending on each different action we take. So while you may change the history of the time line you traveled to, there would still be a different timeline where Batman did still appear.

But as for the main question, you'd have to weigh the casualties of deaths in pre-Batman time, to those in a post-Batman time. After all, Joker probably kills a thousand or so people every year, and he keeps it up because he knows Batman will try to stop him. If Batman had never appeared, Joker may not have as well.

Now remove all supervillains who may have been created out of Batman's existence. Batman has certainly stopped almost all "casual" crime in Gotham. The renegade druglord may come in once in a while, but they wouldn't be able to kill as many as Batman's saved.

Getting back to the answer to your question, two lives are vastly less than all the lives ended by druglords and supervillains. While I don't believe it's ever truly justifiable to kill people, killing the Waynes did help create a better future for Gotham.
Breaking news: I'm everyone. And everyone in the world is me. ~The Master
572342 -Official Invader Zim Board

User Info: Blighboy

7 years ago#8
NEXT ISSUE: Batman goes back in time and kills his parents!
Who the **** is Marth, and why is unlocking him considered a reward?-Yahtzee
# of people who think my sig is win:38 # of people who think it's fail:14

User Info: Acheronseven

7 years ago#9
Actually there is a comic dealing with this exact subject: Batman/ Superman Absolute Power. Its amazing, I recommend it.
GT: AcheronRaene7 PKMN Diamond FC: Acheron- 3867 3238 5711
If you once believed in Jesus but came to your senses and now worship Arceus, put this in your sig.

User Info: yes_boss_man

7 years ago#10
Thanks for the suggestion. I got it and just finished yesterday. It was great, and a very interesting read; I also highly recommend it to others. Thanks again.
  1. Boards
  2. Batman: Arkham City
  3. Would murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne be justifiable?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived
More topics from this board...
Trouble at the MuseumTheLostDreams411/15 7:07PM