Breaking Batman: Playing Bruce as a "Villain" / Rejecting "The Code"

I've enjoyed the second season a lot so far; Episode 2 really surpassed my expectations by letting you interact very closely & extensively with the "villains" of the Pact.

Because Telltale is telling a mature, multi-choice narrative about superheroes, it seems appropriate & inevitable that the story would blur the lines between heroes & villains-- indeed, I sympathize quite a lot with this group of free-spirited costume-wearing, anti-establishment Pact hooligans.

When you think about it, Bruce Wayne in Season 1-- the "Good Guy" Wayne we start with-- isn't actually so good. Naively ignorant of his Father's past, he's just a rich, costumed weirdo who goes around beating on street thugs (who, by the way, probably turned to a life of crime because of the extreme inequality in Gotham). When he learns the truth about Lady Arkham-- that his company is responsible for the sad state of Arkham Asylum and that she became a "villain" to fight-back against & expose a failed & dehumanizing mental health care system-- it makes sense that he might do some reflection & reconsider his "values", and those of Batman.

As Waller points out in the rooftop scene in S2E2, Batman's old way of doing things-- beating street thugs up one at a time-- is bound to be inadequate. You can't punch the social forces that pressure people into committing "crime." Batman's "Code" is cute, quaint, but sticking to it won't necessarily make the world, or even Gotham, a better place.

So, for Season 2, my Bruce is probably as "villainous" as it gets. He does not trust the Agency one bit-- they're far worse than so-called "criminals," and we learn that it's them that pushed the Riddler to go on his spectacular spree of mayhem. In a way, THEY killed Lucius Fox. At the end of Episode 1, I let the two Feds in death cages die to protect Avista, and also because I decided I don't want to play Riddler's twisted game. Riddler claims he's victorious, in the end, because he proved that Batman does have to "compromise," that his "values" have been tarnished. And in a way, he's right; but my Batman feels victorious because he's already accepted this. The dead agents got what they deserved for being part of the Agency.

In Episode 2, fraternizing with the Pact, we find that each individual member has been screwed over in some way by society (isn't this how most "villains" are made)? John Doe was raised in one of WayneCorp's backwards, budget Asylums, meaning Bruce is partially responsible for his current state and future well-being. Harley is a brilliant doctor who was traumatized by her father's suicide (can't recall the details around this), but has become a liberated person by embracing anarchism (and she also seems to have genuine concern for John, serving as a protector of sorts, which is what my Bruce was trying to do anyway). Bane escaped prison, and that's understandable-- prisons suck. Ice Man just loves his wife a lot.

It's unlikely that Telltale will let us become true "villains" in the end-- but it's still fun, especially at this point in the story, to imagine a twist in the tale that lets us play a Bruce that is more sympathetic towards the Pact than towards the traditional structures of Law & Order (Gordon's good as far as cops go, a white-collar sort of guy, and I like having him on my side, but his way of thinking is clearly antiquated; and the Agency doesn't deserve any sympathy).

Imagine using all of WayneTech's resources to do like his Father did back in the day-- run Gotham from behind the scenes, working outside of the law to achieve his goals (which may have been more noble than we realize). Instead of just a single Batman running around punching thugs, there'd be a team of costumed weirdos running around, breaking shit that needs to be broken. It's not so different from what Batman usually does, they just have a different idea of what needs to be broken... and maybe Bruce is coming around to see that they're right.

One thing I noticed in E2 is how RELENTLESS Waller is about getting you to work with her. I rejected her every, single, time, and yet the game offers no choice when it comes to contacting her at the end of the episode. I choose to imagine that Bruce is luring her & the other Agents into the open to get wrecked, and hopefully leave town.

This is something I enjoy doing with Telltale's games-- see how far I can push the story beyond how the game "wants" me to see it.

Comments

  • edited October 2017

    When you think about it, Bruce Wayne in Season 1-- the "Good Guy" Wayne we start with-- isn't actually so good. Naively ignorant of his Father's past, he's just a rich, costumed weirdo who goes around beating on street thugs (who, by the way, probably turned to a life of crime because of the extreme inequality in Gotham). When he learns the truth about Lady Arkham-- that his company is responsible for the sad state of Arkham Asylum and that she became a "villain" to fight-back against & expose a failed & dehumanizing mental health care system-- it makes sense that he might do some reflection & reconsider his "values", and those of Batman.

    That's always been an innate flaw with the character since his conception, IMO. For someone who's supposed to be one of the good guys, he can just as easily be interpreted as a rich asshole who puts on a costume to beat up miserable working-class schmucks who turned to crime mostly out of their own dire circumstances.

    I like to play my version of Bruce/Batman along the lines of Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns;" a borderline nutcase with only a smidgen of humanity to separate him from all the other crazies in Gotham. I would have thought taking this approach would have made the game's tone too dark and depressing, but if anything, it's made the story feel more exhilarating than most Batman graphic novels I've read recently.

  • There is a LOT to unpack in this post.

    When you think about it, Bruce Wayne in Season 1-- the "Good Guy" Wayne we start with-- isn't actually so good. Naively ignorant of his Father's past, he's just a rich, costumed weirdo who goes around beating on street thugs (who, by the way, probably turned to a life of crime because of the extreme inequality in Gotham).

    You can break all sorts of rules that don't directly harm others - squat in an empty house, go dumpster diving, or (arguably) sell weed in states that weed is not legal. Committing those sorts of crimes (squatting may be a crime, something I would do if ever I become homeless) or breaking those sorts of rules is one thing. Joining a gang and killing innocent people is another. That thug whose arm Bruce could break was no innocent man, he fired bullets that caused a police officer to go mad and become a casualty.
    Selina grew up on the streets and stole from people (good and bad) to survive. Stealing from the rich can be seen as a way to protest against inequality, but really what the thugs are doing isn't that. Saying extreme inequality does not justify someone becoming a thug. Plus, plenty of those thugs try to kill Bruce when he's working on preventing a crime. Self defense is completely justifiable. In fact, someone trying to kill you (shooting at you or cracking your skull open with a wrench or mallet) is grounds for justifiable homicide. Killing in self defense is not considered a crime according to American legal standards. Bruce helping the police circumvent crimes does make him a good guy.

    When he learns the truth about Lady Arkham-- that his company is responsible for the sad state of Arkham Asylum and that she became a "villain" to fight-back against & expose a failed & dehumanizing mental health care system-- it makes sense that he might do some reflection & reconsider his "values", and those of Batman.

    I can't believe you are trying to justify Vicki's actions. She IS a villain. Killing innocent people is the definition of a criminal. She commits all manner of crimes = she is a villain. Does Wayne Enterprise actually run Arkham? I was never under that impression. His father is responsible for sending many of the people that ended up there. Still. How many times and in how many ways does it need to be said? Bruce is NOT responsible for his father's crimes. You are not responsible for your family member's crimes, unless you were an accomplice or knew about them beforehand and did not inform the authorities. You said yourself: he was naively ignorant. Um. He was nine and his father did not confide in him. if you want to point the finger at a living person, blame Alfred.

    Furthermore, just because Vicki suffered as a result of Thomas Wayne's actions, and the CPS's failure to take care of and protect Vicki, does not mean that any or all Gothamites are now deserving of her retribution. She was angry that she became an orphan, so she concocted a plan to indiscriminately douse residents of Gotham with something that would render them insane, hence commit crimes and most likely kill other people. Her plan very likely would have rendered other little kids orphans, and in turn ruining their lives. How is that justified? Did the security guard we encounter in episode one deserve to die? What about the moderator at the debate? Those terrorists that flew the planes on 911 probably thought they were justified. They were not. Neither was Vicki.

    She was a god damned reporter. There were other means at her disposal to fight back against and expose the corrupt system. The pain she felt just not justify the method she chose to do so. The ends have to justify the means. Even then, nothing she did was remotely justified.

    As Waller points out in the rooftop scene in S2E2, Batman's old way of doing things-- beating street thugs up one at a time-- is bound to be inadequate. You can't punch the social forces that pressure people into committing "crime." Batman's "Code" is cute, quaint, but sticking to it won't necessarily make the world, or even Gotham, a better place.

    There are no social forces that pressure people into committing crimes. Where does this notion even come from? When there is a riot, because the cops have killed yet another unarmed black man, there is every reason for people to take to the streets to protest. There is no justification for people to break into stores and loot, or to set people's cars on fire or any such thing like that. You're upset because of the widening inequality? Do something positive about it. "Social pressures"! What a load of horseshit. Oh, I'm sorry. Trying to provide the city with law and order isn't working fast enough. Didn't realize working for law and order had become antiquated.

    In Episode 2, fraternizing with the Pact, we find that each individual member has been screwed over in some way by society (isn't this how most "villains" are made)? John Doe was raised in one of WayneCorp's backwards, budget Asylums, meaning Bruce is partially responsible for his current state and future well-being. Harley is a brilliant doctor who was traumatized by her father's suicide (can't recall the details around this), but has become a liberated person by embracing anarchism (and she also seems to have genuine concern for John, serving as a protector of sorts, which is what my Bruce was trying to do anyway). Bane escaped prison, and that's understandable-- prisons suck. Ice Man just loves his wife a lot.

    We don't know what caused John to be mentally unstable. You can't pin that one the Waynes. There's no evidence yet suggesting that any of the Wayne's are culpable.
    You can be a liberated anarchist, but that doesn't give you a free pass to be a psychotic serial killer, one who gets off on creating chaos regardless of the harm it does to other people. What the fuck? Also, boo fucking hoo, her father committed suicide. That justifies NOTHING.
    I must of missed something really huge because I do not remember the Wayne family owning Arkham. He can choose to modernize it, but all those loons became loons before Bruce got involved.
    Bane enjoys killing people. If you don't want to end up in jail, don't fucking commit crimes. It's kind of pretty simple. That douche is not sympathetic.
    "Ice man just loves his wife a lot." Oh. Okay. That justifies killing random people. You know what? Lots of people lose someone they love. You mourn, and you get the fuck over it. You don't get to be a murderer because of your inability to deal with loss. You just don't.

    No matter what the agency did to Riddler, that guy who worked at the casino did not deserve to have his throat slit. If he only went after the people who did him harm, he might have a leg to stand on, but he doesn't. He didn't attempt to kill Mori because Mori was morally dubious, he did it because Mori wouldn't give him what he wanted.

    Collateral damage is not acceptable. It doesn't matter what awful shit happened to you. You don't get to lash out at society and take your "feelings" out on people that had nothing to do with you becoming the fucked up piece of shit you've become.

  • edited October 2017

    She was a god damned reporter. There were other means at her disposal to fight back against and expose the corrupt system.

    Seriously, Vicki had every means of exposing the corrupt system in a legal or at least non violent way but she opted to think with her twisted personal emotions rather than her common sense and that’s what led to her downfall.

    ShampaFK posted: »

    There is a LOT to unpack in this post. When you think about it, Bruce Wayne in Season 1-- the "Good Guy" Wayne we start with

  • I couldn't have said that any better myself.
    In fact, I probably couldn't have even come up with all that.

    ShampaFK posted: »

    There is a LOT to unpack in this post. When you think about it, Bruce Wayne in Season 1-- the "Good Guy" Wayne we start with

  • Is there a dialogue option for finding out more about Harley, John, and Bane's past? I don't remember hearing anything from Harley about her past, and Bane only mentions prison when you fight him the first time, for me anyway.

  • I understand the notion of flirting a lot with the Pact and getting lost in all of the criminal activity - essentially joining some sort of Costume Mafia. Batman is already someone who regularly breaks the law. He's not defending himself. He has no interest in working within the legal system. When the police's hands are tied, he's more than eager to lend a hand circumventing things like warrants, Miranda rights, attorneys, and quite often uses excessive violence while subduing criminals -- which are things that would cost an officer their job if not their freedom. He's a response to society's continued frustration with light sentences for violent crime, and people frequently defend his current actions.

    I don't think that these individuals would be capable of corrupting him to their extent. It's not that in some respects Bruce would be incapable of sympathizing - but he's drawn a line in the sand when it comes to murder. Understandably so as his parents were gunned down in front of him.

  • That thug whose arm Bruce could break was no innocent man, he fired bullets that caused a police officer to go mad and become a casualty.

    Plus, plenty of those thugs try to kill Bruce when he's working on preventing a crime. Self defense is completely justifiable. In fact, someone trying to kill you (shooting at you or cracking your skull open with a wrench or mallet) is grounds for justifiable homicide. Killing in self defense is not considered a crime according to American legal standards.

    When you're driven to a life of crime, of course you're not "innocent" in the eyes of the Law; from that thug's perspective, though, the cop was probably far from innocent. And if killing in self-defense isn't a crime, then the thugs killing cops who want to arrest and/or shoot them is similar, isn't it?

    Bruce is NOT responsible for his father's crimes. You are not responsible for your family member's crimes, unless you were an accomplice or knew about them beforehand and did not inform the authorities. You said yourself: he was naively ignorant. Um. He was nine and his father did not confide in him. if you want to point the finger at a living person, blame Alfred.

    I disagree. If you benefit from past "crimes" (by which I really mean "injustices"), and then learn about them and do nothing to make things right, then you're very responsible. And to Bruce's credit, he DOES take some responsibility (at least in my game) by helping to re-construct Arkham Asylum into a state-of-the-art mental health care facility.

    You bring up Alfred, and that's an interesting point; I'm not sure how I feel about Alfred. He's kind of just... pathetic.

    Furthermore, just because Vicki suffered as a result of Thomas Wayne's actions, and the CPS's failure to take care of and protect Vicki, does not mean that any or all Gothamites are now deserving of her retribution. She was angry that she became an orphan, so she concocted a plan to indiscriminately douse residents of Gotham with something that would render them insane, hence commit crimes and most likely kill other people. Her plan very likely would have rendered other little kids orphans, and in turn ruining their lives. How is that justified?

    Vicki's mental instability & the torture she endured as a child have warped her sense of justice. What she sees as justice is going to be very different from what you or I see, but the fact remains, she became that way because of a screwed-up system (many screwed up systems, in fact). Obviously many of the people of Gotham were blissfully ignorant of what happened to her (and probably others), but ignorance does not absolve a person of responsibility. That's why it's important to learn things, especially about things that are connected to you (like the sad state of a local Asylum where you live).

    There are no social forces that pressure people into committing crimes. Where does this notion even come from?

    It comes from a basic understanding of the fact that social forces do influence our actions all the time, including decisions about which laws to follow or break. Your example of protesting vs. looting merely highlights the fact that governments get to decide what is considered a "crime" and who is a "criminal," and they deploy these terms to suit their interests (in some countries protesting is a crime with severe consequences; in some countries the police could be accused of "looting" when they seize people's private property). Maybe try to understand a little more about the looters' perspective.

    Oh, I'm sorry. Trying to provide the city with law and order isn't working fast enough. Didn't realize working for law and order had become antiquated.

    If there was no social inequality, I don't see why we'd need people working for law and order. The entire concept of Policing as we know it in America is questionable, as it emerged from the practice of Slave Patrolling-- white men searching for fleeing black slaves to protect their "property." To put it bluntly, policing occurs BECAUSE there is social inequality, BECAUSE privileged people recognize that there's social inequality, and if you're on the winning side of the inequality then you want to protect what you have from anyone who would threaten to take it away.

    We don't know what caused John to be mentally unstable. You can't pin that one the Waynes.

    From what I recall, John implies that he's practically lived his whole life in Arkham. He definitely shows in S2 that he's unfamiliar with the "outside world," so he'd been in Arkham a long ass time. It basically shaped him into who he is. So yes, I very much pin that one on the Waynes.

    I must of missed something really huge because I do not remember the Wayne family owning Arkham.

    Thomas Wayne used Arkham as his personal stash-house for people he didn't like, most notably from S1, Cobblepot's mom. Lots of powerful people have used Asylums for that purpose throughout history. Then, not caring much about what happened to his enemies or any "loons" who ended up there, he let it become the notorious place that it is. Pretty sure he owned the entire operation.

    Bane enjoys killing people. If you don't want to end up in jail, don't fucking commit crimes. It's kind of pretty simple. That douche is not sympathetic.

    He's a Warrior. He fights for a cause he believes in. He's opposed to the "aristocracy," and he drinks beer. Yes, he enjoys killing people he considers his enemy-- I can sympathize with a lot of this.

    Regarding jail & crime, I'd refer you to the Netflix documentary 13th. I believe that jail is evil-- deliberately locking up a person in a small space for a long time is as cruel as many so-called crimes. And they don't deal with the real social issues that cause problems in the first place, they just make certain groups of people feel a little safer.

    "Ice man just loves his wife a lot." Oh. Okay. That justifies killing random people. You know what? Lots of people lose someone they love. You mourn, and you get the fuck over it. You don't get to be a murderer because of your inability to deal with loss. You just don't.

    I don't know much about Ice Man, but I can imagine loving someone so much that I'd do anything for them.

    No matter what the agency did to Riddler, that guy who worked at the casino did not deserve to have his throat slit. If he only went after the people who did him harm, he might have a leg to stand on, but he doesn't. He didn't attempt to kill Mori because Mori was morally dubious, he did it because Mori wouldn't give him what he wanted.

    I agree, the casino worker did not deserve to die. I did not support that decision at all, and it's why I had no problem hunting down the Riddler. Moreso when he killed Lucius. But we learn that the Agency has a history of doing horrible things, and when they do it they're not "criminals," it's all totally "legal." How do you fight against an entity like that? Riddler's plan was probably larger & more complex than we realize-- obviously he was planning on taking out all of the Agents in Gotham using the missiles from Mori. He was probably luring them to Gotham in the first place (he remarks that he's "always two steps ahead" of the Agency).

    I suspect that whatever the Agency did to Riddler is partially responsible for his violent tendencies. That being the case, they share responsibility for the casino worker, Lucius, and others who died-- it's not fair, but it is a ripple-effect, and the Agency has created a lot of ripples.

    Collateral damage is not acceptable. It doesn't matter what awful shit happened to you. You don't get to lash out at society and take your "feelings" out on people that had nothing to do with you becoming the fucked up piece of shit you've become.

    Well, whether you like it or not, people DO get to lash out, and they will if they are driven far enough. If that bothers you, do something to affect positive change in the social forces that influence people to do so. Read more books and watch more documentaries (from credible sources). Simply refusing to take responsibility for anything is pure selfishness.

  • edited October 2017

    It's not that in some respects Bruce would be incapable of sympathizing - but he's drawn a line in the sand when it comes to murder. Understandably so as his parents were gunned down in front of him.

    I can understand Bruce feeling that way in the beginning, during what I call his ignorant/naive stage, but when he learns what kind of person Thomas Wayne was, he has the opportunity to rethink his values. Thomas Wayne wasn't killed in a random act of street-thuggishness-- he and his wife were assassinated due to his ties to a network of political/corporate corruption. Based simply on what we learn about Thomas's treatment of Cobblepot's mother, I'd say he probably deserved to die. Not sure about Mrs. Wayne's role in any of this; either she was ignorant, or she was complicit.

    Batman's "line in the sand" might be the true defining choice of this Season. I, for one, would be willing to cross it if Telltale gives me the chance. In a way, my Batman already has, by letting the 2 agents die (even though the game forces the narrative of "failure" onto this path).

  • When you're driven to a life of crime, of course you're not "innocent" in the eyes of the Law; from that thug's perspective, though, the cop was probably far from innocent. And if killing in self-defense isn't a crime, then the thugs killing cops who want to arrest and/or shoot them is similar, isn't it?

    What is this bullshit about being driven to a life of crime?

    When and if cops shoot people is complex, and I'll grant you that there have been far too many instances of cops using force when they shouldn't. It is not similar if a criminal shoots a cop who is trying to arrest them. This is a false equivalency. A burglar enters your home, points a gun at you, and you shoot him? Self defense. You enter a home, point a gun at the home owner, shoot that person before that person can... murder. Cops are proxies of the innocent party.

    I disagree. If you benefit from past "crimes" (by which I really mean "injustices"), and then learn about them and do nothing to make things right, then you're very responsible. And to Bruce's credit, he DOES take some responsibility (at least in my game) by helping to re-construct Arkham Asylum into a state-of-the-art mental health care facility.

    What exactly is Bruce supposed to do about the men and women his father killed? And what do you mean "do nothing"? Even before he knew of his father's true nature, he was risking his life trying to help the police bring about law and order. He is using his ill-gotten gains for good. Could he do more? Sure. He could fund orphanages, help build homeless shelters... how much is incumbent of the wealthy? That's an interesting discussion.

    You know, there's this thing called an opioid epidemic taking place in America right now. There are a few states suing pharmaceutical companies for misrepresenting their pain pills, but those companies are fighting those lawsuits. They say that the FDA approved of their medication and take no responsibility for their representatives for exaggerating the effects of their medicines. Who, I'd like to know, do you blame for the results? The doctors who prescribed the meds? The FDA for approving them? The pharma representatives for trying to increase sales of the products they were responsible for selling? Or the Pharmas for incentivizing sales?

    Also, I consider the US invading Iraq to be a war crime, but I do not consider myself guilty. Why? Because I had no effing power to prevent that from happening. I also, now, have no control over what is happening there. I do feel bad for all those kids who had to live under what I imagine to be awful conditions as a result of the tearing of the social fabric that resulted after the fall of the Saddam regime. And yet, somehow, no one involved in pushing for that war has been arrested or in any way made to pay for advocating for that war. And most Americans were in favor of it. Don't think most of them are losing any sleep.

    Bruce got to live a life of luxury, sure, but he didn't commit any of the crimes that led to it. He is already using his wealth for the good. I am very unsympathetic to criminals. You can, if you are Bats, use excessive force. That, however, is up to the player.

    Thomas Wayne used Arkham as his personal stash-house for people he didn't like, most notably from S1, Cobblepot's mom. Lots of powerful people have used Asylums for that purpose throughout history. Then, not caring much about what happened to his enemies or any "loons" who ended up there, he let it become the notorious place that it is. Pretty sure he owned the entire operation.

    Where is your god damn proof? Also, not all of the people who ended up in Arkham did so because of Thomas Wayne. Those people are loons. Or, mentally ill, if you want to get all PC about it. One way that the Batman series is misrepresenting people with mental illnesses is that the vast majority of them are non-violent. At least so I hear. However, whenever we have a mass shooting in this country (273 this year, meaning an incident which resulted in more than four deaths perpetrated by the same person) one of the things we tend to hear (and usually from Republican pols who don't want to discuss gun laws) is that the person was "sick" or insane. It makes those kinds of tragedies easier to understand. But in the Batverse, those people really are sick. The Batverse has a lot of deranged, violent psychopaths and sociopaths who are committing all manner of heinous acts.

    He's a Warrior. He fights for a cause he believes in. He's opposed to the "aristocracy," and he drinks beer. Yes, he enjoys killing people he considers his enemy-- I can sympathize with a lot of this.

    Here's a simple test. Would you consider any of what these people in the pact are doing acceptable in the real world? Would it have been okay to kill Donald Trump before he became president? Or even now? I mean, that guy was known for racial discrimination. Also known for not paying small business owners for the work they did for him, and using lawyers to reduce how much he did pay so that a LOT of the people who did business with him went bankrupt. As much as I hate the guy and hate having him as our president... that doesn't justify killing him.

    So what cause is he really fighting for? Is he a socialist in disguise? What? I know! We should have a French style revolution. Down with the One Percent! Ridiculous!

    I don't know much about Ice Man, but I can imagine loving someone so much that I'd do anything for them.

    Fantastic. You can imagine yourself becoming a monster.

    I suspect that whatever the Agency did to Riddler is partially responsible for his violent tendencies. That being the case, they share responsibility for the casino worker, Lucius, and others who died-- it's not fair, but it is a ripple-effect, and the Agency has created a lot of ripples.

    I actually suspect that the Agency is the sleeper villain in all of this. As in, it's the thing that truly corrupts and warps Bats and gets him to break his own code.

    Well, whether you like it or not, people DO get to lash out, and they will if they are driven far enough. If that bothers you, do something to affect positive change in the social forces that influence people to do so. Read more books and watch more documentaries (from credible sources). Simply refusing to take responsibility for anything is pure selfishness.

    No. You don't. You don't get to spray into a crowd with a semi-automatic because one person in the crowd did you wrong, when every other person in the crowd knew nothing about what was happening and had no ability to effect the outcome. I like Veronica Mars, it was a TV in case you never watched it. There was a kid, Beaver, who was molested by this wealthy, respected man. This guy also molested other kids. When those kids decide to come forward, against Beaver's protests, Beaver decides to blow up the bus they happened to be using for a field trip, killing nine people to protect his secret. Some of the people on the bus weren't even a part of the decision to come forward, just collateral damage. Beaver is the villain in this scenario. Oh, and Beaver had a shitty dysfunctional family to boot. He got his revenge on his father - who was emotionally abusive - and that was fine... but killing those kids? Unh uh. I mean, I felt sorry for him but honestly didn't feel too bad when he committed suicide. Also, if you lash out and hurt undeserving people, then society has every right to eliminate you.

    We have less power to affect change than you think. We live in a democracy and it, especially now, seems like the best worst option. I mean, seriously, look at the fucking moron that got elected. Tillerson called him that. Don't assume that I don't read or watch documentaries. You know nothing about me, other than the tiny glimpses you see on this forum. Here are a few things: My dad died of leukemia when I was nine. Although my mom worked full time, as a daycare worker, we still ended up living in government housing and needed free lunches and other aid. We were, relatively, poor but I never worried about being homeless or lacking in necessities in any way growing up. I was too young, and too obedient I suppose, to ever consider taking up drugs or acting out. I don't think I felt deprived or whined too much about what I didn't have. So I don't buy the whole... "my parent died and I can't cope with it so I'm going to be a piece of shit" line of logic so many people use to rationalize some shitty character's behavior. Like Chloe in the Life is Strange game. Or Harley in this one. Or Dr. Fries, come to think of it. I also grew up poor, but didn't become a thief because I didn't have what others had. And I certainly wouldn't kill people because of it, as Bane does. Some people don't deserve what they get (good or bad) but that doesn't give you permission to behave badly.

  • See Below.

    That thug whose arm Bruce could break was no innocent man, he fired bullets that caused a police officer to go mad and become a ca

  • Vicki and Oswald also behaved as reprehensibly as Thomas Wayne. Maybe you think that what Vicki did to her foster parents was acceptable. What about security guards and moderators that didn't know anything about what Vicki or Oswald went through? What Vicki had planned was every bit a awful as what Thomas did. Would you agree that Oswald and Vicki also deserved to die?

    It's not that in some respects Bruce would be incapable of sympathizing - but he's drawn a line in the sand when it comes to murde

  • Thanks.

    AChicken posted: »

    I couldn't have said that any better myself. In fact, I probably couldn't have even come up with all that.

  • Gordon can inform you about Harley's past, and you can choose to bring it up to her or not. Seems like it can go a number of different ways.

    Is there a dialogue option for finding out more about Harley, John, and Bane's past? I don't remember hearing anything from Harley about her past, and Bane only mentions prison when you fight him the first time, for me anyway.

  • If Alfred's accounts are to be believed, Bruce's mother was going to leave Thomas. The very essence of all that he knew of his childhood was an illusion -- the marriage, the community work, the business -- all as much a mask as the one he carries with him. They both simply died before any of that came to light for Bruce.

    There are many ways to interpret the discovery of Thomas Wayne's true nature, and what it ultimately meant for his family. It cost him his life, the life of the mother of his child, and nearly his only son. It's a very live by the sword, die by the sword story. I do think Waller might find backing Bruce Wayne into a corner is a terrible idea in the end if the story line leans that direction - but if she's going to die or there will be a lot of Agency deaths, I don't think Batman will be responsible for them. As dark as I could see that going is the choice not to save them from the mess they got themselves into.

    I don't blame you for wanting to explore the avenue though, as I'm treading the darkness with a pro-Agency play through knowing full well this path isn't going to end well for anyone. I'm also hoping for TellTale to provide us with the most morally gray story line they can cook up to make me question every action I take.

    It's not that in some respects Bruce would be incapable of sympathizing - but he's drawn a line in the sand when it comes to murde

  • edited October 2017

    Also, boo fucking hoo, her father committed suicide.

    Suicide is no joke, my friend, and can do a serious number on everyone who was emotionally close to the victim. I agree with most of your points, but the above statement is ignorant and callous to the extreme.

    ShampaFK posted: »

    There is a LOT to unpack in this post. When you think about it, Bruce Wayne in Season 1-- the "Good Guy" Wayne we start with

  • edited October 2017

    I think it's important to remember that all of Batman's villains are ultimately that; villains. Each of them have varying levels of pathos and sympathy, as HSIAMetalKing pointed out, but at the end of the day, they'd still butcher you without remorse if the circumstances demanded it. Mr. Freeze is a good example. I like how Victor actually seemed grateful when Bruce offered some of his facilities to house Nora while he continued to search for a cure.

    But he's also a stone-cold killer, as we saw when he murdered an officer later in the episode (two, if we let him). Batman's conversation with Gordon about Harley's father reflects much of the game's attitude towards the villains, IMO. Almost everyone has a bad day sooner or later, but that doesn't give you the excuse to bash in an innocent bystander's skull with a sledgehammer.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.