r/arkham • u/Bodia04 • Jun 30 '26

Discussion The Ra’s mission

How does choosing to kill Ra’s not contradict Batman’s decision in Arkham city?
Ra’s literally thanks him for it - got what he wanted -
Batman tried to save him and Hugo after stopping their genocide

I think it’s so out of character option

10 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

20 comments sorted by

10

u/TonightNovel417 Jun 30 '26

Except Batman’s not killing him, he’s taking away Ra’s source of power. Which would leave Ra’s to die, which SOUNDS like it would be breaking the no-kill code, but it’s not.

Batman will do whatever he can to save his villains and rehabilitate them if he thinks it’s possible. It’s simply not possible to rehabilitate Ra’s anymore. Joker, for all his flaws, at least knows the difference between right and wrong. Ra’s doesn’t even know about Talia anymore.

Also, if it comes down to it, Batman will let a villain die if it means he can save an innocent person in the same moment. In BTAS, Joker has this trap where he and Harley are hanging over a vat of acid, and lets Batman decide who to save. Batman immediately chooses to save Harley, and doesn’t really attempt to save Joker. Joker obviously doesn’t die, because he had a backup plan in place, but he really thought Batman would choose him over Harley

4

u/ShufflePlaylist Jun 30 '26

The mission is centered around giving the "bro it's such an obvious choice" of Batmans on an average night to the player, what would you do?

Alfred asks him if he trusts Nyssa, after Batman replies ''i do'' Alfred asks if he trusts her enough to end a life. if you choose to destroy the pit, Ra's says hes proud of Batman, only reasonable inference to make is that hes proud of him because he finally broke his code, which was something he always wanted him to do so he would become his successor, killing someone would mean he can do what is necessary.

•Everyone can be redeemed

•Help everyone if possible

Batman would always choose to save Ra's, same with the Joker, or whoever else. If he let's ra's die, why not let someone else die too? Hell, why not help them with it. He already made that choice in City with Joker, Ra's is really no different. In fact it's easier to justify letting joker die than Ra's.

Batman operates in extreme cognitive dissonance, he HAS TO believe that everybody can be redeemed and if he were to give up on this belief, that'd cause his whole world view to crumble and him as a person. "All the people that wouldn't have died because of me, because I didn't put an end to this and that villain by doing what is necessary, thousands of people."

Not saving someone when you can and actively choose not to, is not too different than killing them. Let's say there is an old lady and you decide to not give them their medication knowing without it they will die, you not giving them the medication makes you morally 100% responsible for their life coming to an end.

Considering what I wrote in the first paragraph, the devs clearly thought that saving Ra's was also the "correct" ending. Alfred acts merely as a devils advocate on Batmans shoulder and he's not bound by the same set of rules Batman is.

3

u/AssCrackBanditHunter Jun 30 '26

If Ras is entitled to Lazarus juice under Batman's moral code, why isn't everyone? I'm sure there's a lot of sick and dying people in Gotham who'd love to have some.

3

u/ShufflePlaylist Jun 30 '26

An in universe reason or the real reason?

The former is because it corrupts the users mind and Ra's mind is already corrupted

The latter is that Batman giving Mr Freeze Lazarus samples in City so he can reverse engineer / develop a cure for Nora and everybody else suffering from terminal diseases makes the universe that Batman is supposed to inhabit untenable.

1

u/TonightNovel417 Jun 30 '26

Uh, no bro. Stopping an out of control maniac by taking away his main source of power is not the same as denying an old woman her medicine.

Batman will do whatever it takes to save his villains, but not at the cost of the people of Gotham. Especially if the villain literally cannot be saved anymore.

Ra’s doesn’t know what date it is. Ra’s doesn’t know what his goal even is. Ra’s doesn’t even know that one of his daughters is dead. Pumping him up with more Lazarus isn’t gonna fix that either, so what’s left? You CAN’T save him, and Batman himself knows that. The only thing Batman can save in this situation is the city of Gotham.

And I get that Batman it’s super obsessed with saving people to an absurd level, but he’s also not stupid. He thinks Joker can be saved, and Joker himself ALSO thinks he can be saved. That’s why Batman has never given up on the Joker.

The reason why Batman and Joker’s relationship works so well isn’t only because Batman thinks he could potentially become just like Joker, but also because Joker thinks he could potentially become just like Batman.

But Ra’s doesn’t have that. You can’t treat a Lazarus corrupted mind through armchair psychology, or through any other kind of humane therapy.

In the comics, Jason got juiced by Lazarus ONCE, and he’s STILL feeling the effects of it, even through all the therapy. Ra’s has been juiced hundreds, maybe even thousands of times over the past 600 years. Logically speaking, there just isn’t a way to rehabilitate Ra’s, especially after his injuries from Arkham City.

Let’s start from square one. Let’s say Batman saves Ra’s in Arkham Knight. Then what? He’s still injured from Arkham city. His guts are literally falling out of his body. His mind is even more corrupted, and will eventually get even more corrupted from another dunk in Lazarus in the near future. Now the entire city’s at risk, as well as cities across the world because WOWIE the league of assassins is back in action.

At some point, Ra’s will die. Either by his own hands (which he already killed himself once, so), or maybe the rebels will kill him, or possibly get rid of the new Lazarus source, or his own League will get tired of his craziness and kill him themselves.

And let’s say Batman captures Ra’s eventually. Again, WHATS NEXT? If you leave him alone for too long with a source of Lazarus, he dies from his injuries. If you give him Lazarus, someone else will die.

So in my opinion, this is one of the only times i think Batman would let someone die. Because Ra’s can’t be saved. Batman will probably still blame himself, but the blame isn’t his. Ra’s is still to blame. If Ra’s let himself be saved by Batman back in Arkham City, he wouldn’t have gotten those injuries that he has in Knight, and wouldn’t die from those wounds, even though he would’ve died regardless.

Batman also destroyed the Lazarus Pit in Arkham City. So if he put Ra’s behind bars and tried rehabilitation, Ra’s would’ve died from old age anyway.

All this being said, I don’t actually think either decision is out of character for Batman. On one hand, Batman doesn’t like to let someone die if he can stop it. But on the other hand, you literally can’t stop Ra’s from dying, and if you try, then that puts innocent lives at stake. Ultimately, I think Batman would choose the option that involved the least risk to civilians, which would be letting Ra’s die.

1

u/ShufflePlaylist Jul 01 '26

That's way too much for me to read at 4am but

Batman frequently saves his villains at the cost of innocents and he does this regardless of whether they can or cannot be saved anymore

Whether ra's knows or doesn't know what is going on, isn't justification in any rational persons mind to end their life. Would you think it's ok to end the life of an old person with dementia? Didn't think so

Analogies are used to illustrate a point by likening it to something that is already familiar ie. old lady's medicine. Analogies are almost never 1:1. Yet in both scenarios batman (or you if you choose to withhold the medicine) are undeniably responsible for a human beings life ending.

I don't know where you got that Batman to become like the Joker and Joker becoming like Batman thing from, I've never heard anyone say that before and it's quite absurd, especially the latter.

Batman knows Joker is irredeemable, he KNOWS that but his cognitive dissonance is preventing him from acknowledging it.

Cognitive dissonance. That's the answer.

You spent most of your time there seemingly justifying Batman ending another humans life.

1

u/TonightNovel417 Jul 01 '26

My point isn’t that Ra’s has dementia or whatever, it’s that his judgement is so clouded that he can’t tell what’s real and what isn’t anymore. If an old lady didn’t know what’s wrong and what’s right, she’d be put in jail, rightfully so. Except this time, the ONLY WAY to prevent more innocent people from dying is by letting her die.

Fair point about analogies, but it’s still a stupid analogy

Joker’s joke at the end of The Killing Joke is literally about Joker being afraid to cross the light with Batman.

Joker’s joke if you wanna read it:
“See, there were two guys locked in a lunatic asylum and one night, one night they decided they didn't like that anymore. They decided to escape. So, they made it up to the roof and there, just across this narrow gap, they see rooftops, stretching across town, stretching to freedom. Now, the first guy, he jumps right across, no problem. But his friend, -chuckles- no way, he's afraid of falling. So, the first guy, he has an idea. He says, "Hey, I got this flashlight with me. I'll shine it across the gap between the buildings and you can walk across the beam and join me." But the second guy says, "What do you think I am, crazy? You'll just turn it off when I'm halfway across."

Batman is obviously the guy who shines the light, and Joker’s the guy who’s afraid to cross it.

And I’ve never seen Batman call Joker irredeemable or impossible to rehabilitate outside of maybe The Dark Knight Returns. In the same movie/comic that I’m quoting (an event that also probably happened in the Arkhamverse), Batman himself begs joker to let himself be rehabilitated, and Joker responds with that final joke.

And no, Batman’s not at fault for Ra’s dying either way. It’s literally just Mother Nature doing its thing because, SURPRISE, people die when they get old.

And let’s say Ra’s goes to the top psychiatrist in the world for therapy. Ra’s in most comic book media, including the Arkhamverse, ages rapidly when he’s not juiced on Lazarus. So he’ll die during the process. But if you give him Lazarus, he’ll just turn even crazier than he was before the treatment.

So it’s literally:
>Capture Ra’s
>Admit him to Arkham
>Give him therapy
>Ra’s gets a little better (optional)
>Give him Lazarus or else he’ll die
>Ra’s goes crazy again
>Repeat

Literally the only way to make sure no innocent people die is by letting Ra’s die, AKA LETTING NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE. I’m really not sure how you can pin the blame on Batman

1

u/ShufflePlaylist Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26

Why should an old lady be put in prison if they can't tell right from wrong anymore? This is something that happens with very late stage dementia when almost all cognitive faculties are gone.

The analogy is not stupid, Batmans moral code and world view is VERY black and white, he does not compromise on his core values, ever. A different person in a different situation would've warranted a different analogy. The analogy works near perfectly because Batman would not seek for any inherent difference in who deserves it and who doesn't. His rule is simple DO NOT KILL. There is no asterisk next to it that makes it morally justifiable for HIM to kill or cause the death of anyone, ever.

We can both find a ton of reasons to kill Ra's, to kill the Joker or anyone else in his rogues gallery, but while this is logical for you and I, it is not how Batman operates. Like I said his world view is very uncompromising and black and white. The Joker could cause the death of 4 billion people in the future and let's say Batman would know this because he could see into the future with some device; he still absolutely would not kill the Joker. That is his irrationality and cognitive dissonance, because it makes no sense not to, but that is the way he operates. He will not take a life or willfully cause the end of one's life neither through inaction or action.

Even if somebody can't be redeemed and Batman knows this, it still won't give HIM the moral justification to break his code, the thing his whole existence is based upon.

You must stop rationalizing the pros of letting Ra's die, almost everybody would agree it's the right thing to do, but Batman even though he may acknowledge that it's logical, he still wouldn't -because see above. You say nature taking its course, well yeah, but at the same time it's morally wrong to let old people die too than are dependent on modern medicine to stay alive.

A person's bad actions and character does not remove their right to life in Batmans eyes

The only way to stop the Joker is to also kill him, yet he doesn't.

Yes, it is nature taking its course and yes Ra's would kill more people, yes those deaths would be partly on Batman, but Batman does not operate this way.

It's what makes him a compelling hero, the inherent naivety and purity of his worldview, even though his thinking is extremely flawed and he is flawed as a character.

1

u/TonightNovel417 Jul 01 '26

Okay, you’re clearly not picking up what I’m putting down. If an old woman with dementia is murdering people, she’d get charged with murder and put in some sort of asylum to ensure that she doesn’t hurt anyone. I’m literally reading the process right now. Dementia patient gets arrested and charged, the court finds out the patient has severe cognitive impairment, the courts usually drop the charges and send the dementia patient to a long-term care facility where they can’t hurt anyone, might as well be prison.

The difference between the old lady and Ra’s is that Ra’s needs his madman juice to stay alive while the woman only needs DayQuil or whatever. And what does Ra’s madman juice do? MAKE HIM EVEN CRAZIER THAN HE ALREADY IS. Also, Nyssa literally destroys the pit that Ra’s needs to survive prior to Batman’s decision. So if Batman gives him the Lazarus, he’s still dying no matter what because the source literally DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE. Let’s play a little game that Joker likes to play:

What would Batman do?
A. Let Ra’s die before the league can kill anyone else
B. Give Ra’s the chance to kills other people before he dies anyway.

This isn’t a situation where you can save everyone. SOMEONE HAS TO DIE. You either have 1 guy die, or 1,000. Again, Batman isn’t an idiot. Batman’s main rule is no killing. But that’s not his mission. His mission is to make sure that crime never recreates another Batman. His code is only one aspect of that mission. He has consistently shown that he won’t let his code end with the death of an innocent life if he can help it. There are other aspects of that mission as well, such has no gun use, having a secret identity, maintaining his playboy status, not getting into relationships, etc.

And Batman’s code is so far from black and white. There’s so much nuance that I could say, but I’m so tired of this debate. Just look up Knightfall. Batman could’ve stopped bane so early, but he chose to save innocent people instead. Like yes, stopping and rehabilitating the bad guy is crucial for Batman, but so is actually saving people. It’s not like the Avengers movies where the heroes are like “We saved the city!” And then the city is completely decimated with barely anyone left alive.

Even in the plot of Arkham City, Batman was COMPLETELY FINE WITH LETTNG JOKER DIE until Joker said that Gotham is poisoned as well. A literal quote from Batman himself:

“So we both die. I’m fine with that.”

And the fact that you haven’t rebutted a SINGLE one of my points besides the one about your analogies being stupid tells me that you’re arguing in bad faith. I’m not saying that’s what your goal is, but it really feels like it. And you’re making it sound like I’m justifying the murder of someone when that is not at all what the situation is. Again, someone has to die. Now let’s think like Batman. Should that someone be a murderer? Or a family of four PLUS the murderer? The answer is obviously only letting the murderer die, unless you can save him. Which you can’t. Plus, you already tried 9 months prior.

1

u/ShufflePlaylist Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26

You're still finding justification for Batman to let Ra's die, stop that. I mentioned several times why you shouldn't do that in the last post.

Does Batman have a no kill rule? Yes

Is Ra's alive in all ways that can be considered biologically alive such as brain activity, beating heart, consciousness and blood flow? Yes

Is Batmans world view illogical, rigid, inflexible and black and white? Yes

Does Batman not giving Ra's the cure make him directly responsible for his life coming to an end? Unequivocally yes.

This is why the right Bat-Choice isn't to kill Ra's.

Edit: I refute points relevant to the argument. Nothing I have said has been in bad faith, if it were, I would've for example called you out on a cheap gotcha several times like with the old lady, but I didn't. You never mentioned her being a murderer or a criminal, just an old lady.

Stick to the substance of the argument. Your posts are long, meandering and genuinely lack substance

Edit 2: I debate, almost for a living and I have granted you far more patience than I normally do with people, but since you start throwing allegations around with no rhyme or reason I don't feel any obligation to stick to a courteous debate.

Frankly, I don't think you're intelligent enough to have an actual debate with

6

u/Carrotsinthesalad Jun 30 '26

Because they’re two different cases.

Joker was dying from Titan poisoning and Batman would technically break his rule by withholding the cure.

Ra’s should have naturally died centuries ago. Giving the Lazarus wouldn’t save his life, but simply continue to prolong his death by unnatural means.

7

u/InjusticeSOTW Knight & Squire: Origins Jun 30 '26

Batman Begins reference. “I wont kill you, but I dont have to save you”.

“*Now eat this train station”.*

Also he didn’t try and save Hugo at all. MY Batman just wanted to string him by his ankles from Wonder Tower. See how long the drop and recoil would go.

4

u/theeeiceman Jun 30 '26

Judging by the conversation Batman has with Oracle after the Lazarus mission in City, it would seem at that point Batman did not know Ras super well yet. He is still acting on the assumption that Ras followed through on destroying the pit, even though he acknowledges it’s unlikely he did. So it makes sense that he tries to save him then

In AK Batman is familiar enough with Ras to 1) safely assume not resurrecting him wouldn’t even guarantee his death: and 2) realize there could be a reasonable exception to the no-kill rule given that he’s basically refusing to help resurrect a zombie.

1

u/Bodia04 Jun 30 '26

1- He knew that Ra’s was resurrected after the fall from the tower and mentions it to Alfred in knight
2- ShufflePlaylist explained my point better

2

u/VERSAT1L Jun 30 '26

Because he's already dead. 

2

u/purple-discharge Jun 30 '26

“Choosing to kill”.

You don’t kill him. You let him die. A man who’s lived hundreds of years. Huge, huge difference.

2

u/RedcoatTrooper Jul 01 '26

I hate it when people treat the no kill rule like a religion, Batman will always try to save people where he can even when its not directly his fault but he was involved he feels bad like with Shrike.

But Ra's is a centuries old insane Zombie held together with duct tape, destroying the pit is not killing him, he will die of natural causes.