Who was responsible for the birth of Joker
Some people would answer that both Waller and Bruce were to some extent responsible for him turning out to be a villain. I reject that. John was drawn equally to Bruce and Harley - that darkness was in him all along. Even if you went the vigilante route, he ends up being a villain. Bruce can try to explain his philosophy and code to John, but John's only willing to look at it very simplistically and judge Bruce for making difficult decisions. EG Lying and manipulating to John to infiltrate his group. In the end Alfred feels bad that they did that, but I felt no shame or guilt for how Bruce treated John. I feel like John using the way Bruce treated him as a reason to give in to his amoral persona is just another version of "I've been mistreated, therefore I can do whatever I please" excuse so many villains use to justify their horrible behavior. I just don't buy it. I think the only person truly responsible for the birth of Joker is John all along. I don't even blame Harley, who encouraged it, because at the end of the day, it was still John who chose to embrace his worst impulses.
Comments
Bill Finger. I blame him.
I think you misunderstood John's character. In the Vigilante route he doesn't turn into a villain. He goes way too far with his desire for justice. It was all a lot of frustration with Batman's code. Assigning blame is the wrong way to think about it as well. It isn't necessarily anyone's fault. It's a tragic set of events that put together led to John's downfall.
Though with the Villain version, that's a reaction to John feeling betrayed. So with that route you can argue that it's Bruce's fault.
not yo mama
I agree. Finding some means to place the blame for what John Doe became isn't honestly possible. We are all more than the sum of one moment, or one person - even Bruce Wayne, but to discount the effects of outside influences and forces upon a person is an equal discredit to their power.
We don't have enough information regarding John Doe to even put it all on his choices. I do believe he suffers from the amnesia that he claims to, and I can't say what caused that. I don't know what his treatment involved at Arkham - if he suffers from a chemical imbalance, or if he's some rejected Agency byproduct. I do know that Batman disappointed me in not digging deeper into the Agency - whatever his reasons.
I don't know what Harley might've subjected him to with her knowledge of psychiatry, or what medications she might've had access to. I do know that alcohol and any form of mental illness is a recipe for disaster which might've been a catalyst in what happened to the Agents at the funhouse.
At the end of the day, John Doe was an ill man that admitted he was struggling to cope outside of Arkham, and losing that battle from the moment Bruce met him at the funeral. There are aspects to this world and it's ways that don't make sense to sane people. Yes, Harley and Bruce helped to shape who he became. So did Waller, Bane, Freeze, and Riddler. Even Catwoman to some extent in her fight with Bruce - normalizing a violent romantic entanglement.
I reject your line of argument - that Bruce was responsible for John becoming Joker. John feels betrayed - so get angry, feel hurt, express it and then move on. Don't in the process kill hundreds of people who did nothing to you. Bruce is not responsible for John's decisions.
I also think that once he begins killing innocent people, that John in the vigilante play through did become a villain. I didn't mind Tiffany killing Riddler. I mean, Riddler did kill Tiffany's dad. Would it have been better had she let Bats capture him and have Riddler face justice? Absolutely. On the other hand, I understood where she was coming from. John didn't show restraint in what he did. He just killed whoever happened to cross his path to make a point. That's not justice.
Also, why not think about why Bruce might have behaved as he did? The company John was keeping, and the way he was behaving or being a spectator to, he wasn't exactly innocent. Bruce needed to find a way to stop the pact, which John was ecstatic to be a part of. John Doe was a cheerleader for violence; he enjoyed Harley's company because she was so quick to anger and act on that anger. People like Riddler and the rest of the pact (and I am including John in that) are not deserving of the kind of considerations of honesty etc. You get to use lies and manipulation to get information necessary from them to subvert them. John doesn't get to say, because you betrayed me I am going to do all these horrible things to show you how you don't honor your own code. That is bullshit, to put it mildly.
What is the difference between blame and responsibility? If you break a vase at the store (whether accidentally because you weren't watching where you were going or intentionally for whatever reason) and it was caught on tape - wouldn't you have to pay for that vase? Let's assume you didn't slip because of the floor and that no one bumped into you. You should have to pay the consequences for the results of your actions. John sets off bombs. He makes that decision. Harley may have encouraged him, but isn't he responsible for going along with that plan? Or what if the idea was his? Isn't he responsible for those decisions?
I hate the insanity plea. We don't forgive alcoholics for drunk driving fatalities, but for a guy like John we're supposed to what? I do not understand insane people. How is John smart enough to figure out Bruce is Bats, but whatever he is or isn't to figure out that killing people is wrong?
There isn't enough information to determine whether or not your store analogy is accurate concerning John Doe. The difference between blame and responsibility in this reference is that John Doe in the villain scenario is looking for someone to blame, and in your comment you believe he is responsible. I wasn't splitting hairs, simply using the game's line of thought for my point.
In a way, society does give a pass to several drunk drivers that cause fatalities. ( Some serve as little as nine months for murder. There was a case concerning a drunk that killed a 5 year old that received a sentence of thirty days. ) Depending on location, some are more severe than others, but none are seen the same as other types of murder.
Analogies aside, what we lack for this determination is information as I previously stated.
Depending on the court system, they do use different tests to make that legal determination ( M’Naghten Test, Brawner Rule, Durham Test ect depending on jurisdiction. ) But I'm not arguing an insanity case in court lol. What we're discussing is who had a hand in crafting John Doe into Joker from the title. In this instance, it wasn't only John Doe.
I agree, it isn't so simple that one can point the finger at a single person and say this person is the one to blame. I certainly wouldn't say Bruce is 'to blame' for John becoming Joker, but I think at least my Bruce blames himself. Because he's Batman, and that's what he does. Personally I think Bruce's choices contributed to the birth of Joker, but that blame is too harsh a word for it, and that there were several other causes as well.
One more factor that wasn't explored in the game is if Arkham provided any plans for followup or further treatment as an outpatient once he was released - it seems he had been there for a long time, so it would seem reasonable to me in such a case that they arrange some followup and see how he was coping. Of course it's possible that they tried this and he rejected is, we simply don't know.
Telltale Games.
becausehowheturnonmeinviglinatewhenIsidewithhimitsukschoicessukandnotmattercheerioughzruhr
This is deep.
Sometimes i feel like John isn't that much different compared to a kid. He lived his whole life in Arkham and doesn't have a idea how things work outside of it. At least in the start. I see everyone related to John as something like a parent figure that he wants to learn from because he doesn't know how this new "world" works. I think not only Bruce but also Harley and other character had a big influence that made him transform into the Joker.
Yeah. I think so too.
I agree completely. My Bruce also holds onto a lot of blame for what John Doe became, and in the same respect my Alfred places part of the blame on Bruce and himself. It's a fairly common reaction for people to have and to wonder if they have made better choices, or even different choices if they couldn't have changed things. In a TellTale game at least, Bruce did. Whether that choice was for better or worse, it changed the Joker.
Might wanna grab a dictionary.
Don't be condescending. Just say what you mean.
Completely agree with you, ShampaFK. John was a walking time bomb ready to go Joker at the slightest urge. He claims to be looking for acceptance and support but can't handle any deviation from that or take responsibility for his actions. Bruce/Batman was way more patient and helpful toward him than I would have been.
I know you and the people who like vigilante John love being in denial, but if you bothered to look at the meaning of words in the dictionary you'll see he fits perfectly in the definition of villain.
See, when you start you're argument by accusing me of being in denial or completely rejecting my opinion you lose a lot of credibility and it becomes harder to take you seriously because you've just labelled yourself as someone who can't respect others opinions. But for the sake of argument I will talk about my opinion about John possibly being 'evil'.
In almost every definition of the word villain it relates to the word 'evil' whether it be evil actions that drive a plot or evil person standing opposed to the protagonist. What Vigilante Joker did was wrong, but evil isn't a word I'd associate with him. What he does is evil (murdering a group of Agents) but John's motivation isn't, so I don't think you can call John himself an evil person. It's completely different from the Villain Joker who kills several people out of revenge.
See how I expressed my opinion without belittling or rejecting yours? It's not that hard.
Vigilante Joker definitely fits the definition of season finale antagonist, but in the day and age where Deadpool, Wolverine, Spawn, Rorschach, Blade, V, ect are considered heroes ( anti-heroes if you prefer ) - it's more complex to outline Vigilante Joker as a villain.
He crosses boundaries this Batman doesn't, and undoubtedly during the incident at the GCPD there were non-combatants harmed in his attempt to escape. From his perspective, Waller and her Agency ( which were responsible for the torture, death, and enslavement of multiple victims not all necessarily even criminals ) were a threat which needed to be dealt with at all costs much as Waller's own philosophy.
Several heroes also have taken this approach, and no less are not labeled villains. It reflects the theme of the season as being do the ends justify the means, and how does it sit with the player?