Can someone explain why i shouldnt want Batman to kill?
I have a hard time roleplaying this part of Batman's character, as some of the criminals that Batman fights will undoubtedly go on to hurt/kill even more innocent men, women, and children. I wouldnt have Batman go around killing everyone, but I wouldnt have any qualms killing a lunatic who would immediately get out of jail and start mass murdering again.
So why should i care about Batman's code if its inevitably going to get someone he loves killed, like in the other universes? I wonder if we will be able to shape Batman's stance/reason for not killing this season, or possibly have a difficult choice to kill someone later on?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
One of batmans main character points is that he doesn't kill, even though thats pretty stupid because some of the stuff he does no doubt leaves people extremely injured or dead.
Batman got stupid years ago I don't know why they just drop the no kill thing we're not falling for it, people die from being kicked of skyscrapers and stuff so stop lying to us. Now that I think about it the no kill thing is probably just to keep the age ratings lower.
I haven't actually played telltales batman myself im just going off batman as a character.
In the first scene of the very first episode, the bad guys are talking about how Batman sent a bunch of their people to the hospital and the rest to the morgue. And then suddenly Batman never kills, its dumb and I feel like it really limits my interactions while playing as him.
You're missing a lot if you haven't played this yet. Especially season 1.
One of telltale's best work lately.
Batman's "no killing" rule wasn't a constant during all of the character's iterations. There were some versions that did kill (I mean, just at the beginning of one Tim Burton's Batman movies, he puts a bomb on some guy's crotch and pushes him in a hole, then the bomb explodes. Don't tell me that wasn't a kill). But it is something that has been enforced in modern iterations.
Anyways, perhaps it is because I'm a lawyer in real life, but no one should be Judge, Jury and Executioner. It doesn't matter who the person is and what they did, everybody deserves their day in court. This is one of the pillars of our society, without which it wouldn't survive. You may think "yeah but what if they are really, REALLY bad?", but the thing is, when you start opening exceptions, crossing certain limits, it is a matter of time until you go too far. Bruce decided long ago that there are some limits he isn't willing to cross, and not killing is one of these.
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” - Nietzsche
What annoys me the most is that Batman keeps sparing the Joker despite all the terrible things he has made like:
Seriously, there is no point keeping him alive because he will always cause trouble, Joker is not human anymore.
Didn't he also cause Joker to fall in the original movie? Bat is the one who attached his leg to the statue of the bell tower.
Im not very knowledgable on the different Batman iterations so i didnt realize there were versions where he does kill. That gives me hope that i can shape the Telltale Batman to be more brutal and unforgiving than its forcing me to be.
I understand how killing and taking the violent route can be a serious detriment to the very society those actions would be trying to protect. I've seen firsthand how horrifying mob justice can be, and a state obsessed with anger and violence is not one I want to live in. But surely there is a definitive line that can be crossed where imprisonment isn't enough of a punishment/preventative measure.
Since you're a lawyer, have you ever represented someone that you knew had no remorse and would commit the crime again in a heartbeat? What if they would 100% come try to kill you or your family the second they were released? What if they simply don't care how much time they get in prison, and what if they simply become better criminals while they're there? At what point is the law and the pillars of society simply being taken as a joke?
Anyways I would at least enjoy the opportunity to try this method and experience the ramifications, because for me the no killing rule feels some mischaracterized for how I want to play Batman. I mean hasn't Bruce ever wondered if his parents would be alive if Joe Chill had been killed instead of spit in and out of prison? Its a difficult dilemma that i hope to explore later in the series, thanks for the discussion mate.
Yeah he did. That one is a classic! Batman even says he is going to kill the Joker before the brawl. That one is Tim Burton's too. Tim Burton's Batman killed quite a few people.
Kinda. I assisted my teacher, who is the equivalent to a public defender in the USA, in a case like that while I was still in college. The defendant was a serial killer without a pattern: Whenever he got the impulse to kill, he just killed with whatever he could find, whoever he could find, for a total of 12 confirmed victims. His youngest victim was a teenage boy. And in my country there is no death penalty or life in prison: The max someone can stay in prison is for 30 years, no matter the conviction, even if they get like 400 years they will get out in 30. And I'm 100% sure he doesn't care, he is a psychopath after all.
But despite all of that, he is a person (as per legal definition of person, as much as I want to call him a monster). He got his day in court (several days, actually) and got convicted for all 12 murders. My teacher tried to claim insanity so he would be sent to a mental institution instead (not that it would help, since these are as bad as prisons here, sometimes worse. "Arkham" is a thing in third world countries, absolutely), but the jury didn't care much. But the point is, it was a completely legal process, where several people were involved, and as much as knowing he will get out in 30 years leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I would feel much worse if I had to see a bunch of vigilantes being put in jail for mob justice instead.
But it is a difficult dilemma. I actually had to be convinced this is the right thing after getting in law school. Drawing a line between justice and vengeance is really, really hard, and I would love to see Batman struggling with this. Especially since my Alfred is vengeful right now.
He has a personal honor code against killing, simply put. Batman became Batman because he witnessed the murder of his parents. As cheesy as it may sound, he probably feels killing would make him just as bad as the guys he goes after.
EDIT: Also, he believes deeply in the concept of Justice, as in everyone should be tried in a court of law.
Batman has evolved since his inception. In the 1939-40's, Batman frequently killed people. ( Comics ) He punched someone into a vat of acid, and called it a fitting end for his kind. He shoots up a truck with his plane. He does mention that he doesn't like to take a human life in that panel, but also mentions ' this time it's necessary '. He's also hung someone til death from the batplane.
It's not until Detective Comics #33 that Bruce Wayne has a backstory, and a rule against killing with weapons appears in Batman #4 as a reminder to Robin. More recently as mentioned, Tim Burton's Batman killed.
The no-killing rule is extremely frustrating, just as 'justice' itself is extremely frustrating. The revolving door of violence our society has created is like a living parody, and those who commit non-violent crimes or even some minor drug related crimes that only hurt themselves sometimes get put away for longer than those that have made the innocent suffer. There are people who have received longer sentences for possession of marajuana than rape.
It's really little wonder how many people often think if Batman would just kill one person , how many hundreds would that have saved considering the body count of villain after villain. How many children wouldn't have to also be an orphan ( and one that didn't have a butler that would raise them as their own in a mansion ).
The rule is far from perfect, but it makes him a much more interesting character, imo.
Some iterations have tied it to him not liking guns. This makes sense as it ties back to his origin, when Joe Chill killed his parents with a gun etc. Batman V Superman touched on this, though that film is deeply flawed and didn't get the moment right, the DCAU however (Batman: TAS, Batman Beyond) got it spot on. The pilot episode of Batman Beyond shows an old Bruce Wayne give up the mantle because he resorted to almost using a gun to defend himself.
That said, I'm not strictly against him killing. I just tend to think of the main version of the character to have the rule, since you have alternate versions like Flashpoint, and you need that contrast to distinguish the two. Batman V Superman didn't give this enough focus, though the Dark Knight under its realism made it clear that there are consequences for people dying, even indirectly because of Batman existing. It also touches on him being aware that he simply does not and should not have the authority to do that, I mean, he's already a vigilante.
It's a very stubborn thing to do, just to keep his own conscience clean, but for him to be able to do what he does efficiently, the line has to be drawn so that he doesn't become the very thing he chose to stand up against.
Batman's reasons are to keep him from becoming a monster. There have been times where he's expressed that he wants to kill but he holds himself back. A perfect example of this is in the Under the Red Hood animated film. Minor spoilers incoming! Jason Todd is furious and just can't understand why Batman hasn't killed the Joker for what he's done. And Batman explains that he's always wanted to kill him but if he went down that path he'd never come back. So as I understand it Batman believes that the second he'd cross that line he would never come cross back. If he'd kill Joker he'd kill everyone who got in his way.
EDIT: So why should you care? I don't know if I can tell you that. Maybe if you care about Batman as a character you should care about his beliefs. I don't know.
Did Bats kill them or were they killed during the fighting? I mean, when we take down Falcone at the Skyline club, two mobsters are killed because Falcone was trying to shoot Bats and sprayed them with bullets. Totally not Bats' fault.
Bat is not guilty of first, second, or third degree murders. It's possible that he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if his devices cause a death he did not intend - similar to how these cops pursued a teenage graffiti artist (Florida, because Florida) and tazed him, which caused his death. Turns out the kid had a heart condition. The jury did not convict those officers of murder.
There's another whole category of justifiable homicide; eg self-defense, or if you can prove that someone else is going to commit murder unless you stop them. So if the Bats had killed the Riddler, right before he slits that casino worker's throat, for example it would have been justifiable. We don't have that option, and even if he had, he wouldn't.
In the first episode I wanted to not catch Selina, but the game doesn't give you that option. She's too integral to the game, and that goes against Bats' ethics.
I think Bats gave a LOT of people concussions every time he got into a fight with thugs. Better that then actually kill them. Plus, ya know, they were trying to kill him or some other innocent person.
Should Bats kill serial killers? I know I would, given the chance, but I actually respect Bats for not making that decision.
My point is... it is never proven that Bats killed anyone despite whatever those CoA said or believed.
You can want to kill whomever you want in the Bats world, doesn't mean that the writers are going to allow that as an option.
I mean, he would have tried to save LA even though she knew his identity. The building collapsing on her is the only reason I can think of that he didn't.
Well it was due mainly to the US Government getting on the case of horror Comics and pushing a ratings system that made Comics more kid friendly....Tales From the Crypt and others wee pretty gruesome...it was not until the growth of the popular Mangas coming to the US and Independent Comic books in the late 80s through the 90s that Killing the bad guys became more popular...This actually did sorta help Batman as the 70s went into darker psychological stories that seem to creep up in newer issues every so often.
As a side note...in the 70s things were so gritty that Cat Woman was a drugged up whore and actually died. But of course reboots happen and the only thing we have left of that is Frank Miller's Year 1.
I will say that the entire no-killing rule set does help to preserve some of the greatest villains in the comic verse whereas most comic books only have a handful of decent ones. It also prevents messy stories that involve some mysterious resurrection or a very clear death has a very horribly shady 'didn't really die' storyline. Quite a few authors have written themselves into corners by killing villains that were very popular with the fans only to have to cheaply concoct a method they could've survived the event for a future story.
I will only kill if I feel there is a need to. Even the law has limits, and since this is Batman's world we know far too well what future Batman will have with Joker. Knowing that what's the point continuing this trend if we know what the future is going to be
So yeah I will kill Joker since we know what the future will be
Bruce has been traumatized by his parents' brutal murder right before his eyes. What it taught him was that human life can be taken away very easily, human life therefore became sacred to him.
Obviously there are cases where breaking his famous code does more good than harm, taking one life to save one hundred sort of situation. Cops have to cope with this concept all the time after all.
I want my Batman to be as compassionate and kind as possible. As the description in season one said Batman should be a beacon of hope not a symbol of human brutality.
He knows how powerful he is, he knows just how much damage he could do if he let go completely. This should give him confidence, he does not need to prove he is very skilled.
True power lies in restrain.
I'm curious. Do you want me to convince/persuade you or do you want me to explain WHY its important for others? I can do both if you want.
Convince me why I should want my Batman to not kill, when it could mean the deaths of hundreds of innocent lives further down the line.
If you do, then what is to stop other vigilantes to pop up and start handing out "justice" according to their codes? No, Batman has to set a standard for any that follow in his footsteps.
Also, this is a bit like Galadriel's test. She might have been a wonderful ruler, but she chose not to let absolute power corrupt her. I dunno. I agreed with Penguin when he was telling Bats that the reason why he had so many enemies is because he let all of them live.
Well there are a couple of reasons.
The first is pretty obvious, he thinks killing is wrong. He has an inherent belief that all life is precious. ALL life. An he as a person does not have the right to say when its not. His crime fighting philosophy is based on incapacitation, not extermination.
Second: He feels that if he kills he becomes what he hates and is therefore hypocritical. How can he blame a villain for choosing who lives and dies when he himself has taken lives in situations. Of course you can argue that in some cases its very clearly different, Joker killing people for a bad Joke does not equal Batman killing a mass murderer who wont stop killing others. But think about those morally grey guys, people who went out for revenge because someone hurt them or their families. In a way when Batman makes that leap a lot of it becomes muddy and we are left wondering if batman really is better than some of the people he says are so bad. What about the inevitable copycats that will show up? Are we just supposed to accept that Batman is the only one infallible in judgement?
Third: He wants a good relationship with the law. For all its flaws, Batman honestly believes in the legal system. He wants to work as an extension of the law, not its replacement like many think. He recruited commissioner Gordon because he believes that he will eventually restore order and fix corruption in the department. He gives them into custody because he believes they will be treated fairly and given a good trial hat will expose them. He sends people to jail instead of making his own facility because he trusts that they will be contained (even as it becomes ridiculously unlikely that ends up happening). If he suddenly decides 'screw it' and breaks KillKill McCrazies neck, that's gone. How the hell can the police ever publicly work with someone who violated the constitutional right of a fair trial? It gets even worse if he gets public support. Listen for a second to how freighting this sounds to a police officer, the people are actively preferring a vigilante who BROKE THE LAW by executing a criminal without any legal right at all to the actual enforcers of the law. How long before random people put on Owl costumes and start executing criminals? How long until its suspected or 'potential' criminals? How long until the police is part of problem? Now they have to actively cut all ties, denounce his actions and brand him a criminal regardless of their opinion. And this is set in stone, if he does this Batman can never work with any legal institution again. If you look at it this way, its pragmatic.
Fourth: Where does it stop? Okay lets go for the obvious example, Batman kills the Joker. He does something really inhumane, hurts/kills a lot of people and Batman just does it. He has now changed his moral view one of two ways. Both are flawed and will inevitably lead to more death and violence.
A: Joker is Crazy. The logic is extremely simple, he kept hurting people, he wouldn't stop, its done.The monster is dead. But then you stop and think for a second. Joker is not put in Arkham because they think he deserves that hellhole. He is insane. As in he is actually insane, diagnosed even. So Batman just killed someone who was mentally sick. Someone who needed treatment and could eventually recover. Now in his new morality, killing a sick person is ok."But wait", you say confidently, "Batman doesn't think killing crazy people is okay. He did it to prevent more deaths". So then what about someone like Hatter or Riddler, people who are definitely crazy, but kill incessantly. Killing them should be fine too since even though they are crazy, they kill and murder dozens without remorse. Why should they be allowed to kill and slaughter. What about Harvey? Why should he live when so many die because of it. Isn't Bruce getting blinded by his own personal feelings, Batman's justice should always be above that. And what about those that aren't insane like Penguin, they should be covered by this too. Soon we have a immense pile of bodies and we'll ask ourselves what went wrong. But of course there a second argument to this:
B: Joker is not Crazy. What exactly is there to prove that Joker is insane and not just an awful, evil human being? Who analyzed that? We never see any records of his supposed mental condition. Heck, did he ever even get diagnosed? How can we be certain that he didn't fake it in court, convince everyone in order to escape the death penalty that would get so much support from police officials and victims nationwide. Batman could simply have deduced its all a sick act to trick others into believing he's not accountable for his actions. Therefore Joker is killed because he was a bad person, not because he was crazy. Riddler, Harvey and the rest ARE crazy so they stay alive. But then we have another problem. Penguin, Bane, Deadshot...people who are clearly not insane yet still kill thousands for their goals. They should face the same fate since they are malicious. But then what about those henchmen they have. Are they not also accountable? I mean someone who works for a mass killer and clearly doesn't care should also be held accountable. But he can't just assume they haven't been coerced or forced. So then Batman would have to spend weeks studying each possible henchman to see if they deserve death? That's not feasible. So what? Is he gonna cherry pick and kill randomly? And then we have the inevitable. Copycats. People who admire his new style and also want to enforce their own justice. But these people are killers who are of their own volition and mentally stable. Does Batman just let them off because they THINK they're justified and if he doesn't then how is he better than criminals? He's killing people for doing what he did!! And if he's not he's letting Gotham fall into absolute chaos. At some point either Batman becomes a monster or he allows others to be monsters.
Well I could go on but I think we have enough. These are the major in story explanations I could give you. Hopefully at least one of these convinces you and makes your playing experience more enjoyable. If not, thank you for taking the time to read all this and if you want I could try and give you more reasons. Again thank you for reading and have a good day
.
Most of my argument is built off of the first season, as I have no interest in playing the second season. If there's any misinformation, let me know and I'll make some edits! There are also spoilers for the following things in this post:
Batman: Arkham City (MASSIVE spoilers)
Life is Strange (GIF)
The Killing Joke (Ending spoilers)
The Walking Dead Game: Season Two (GIF)
The Dark Knight Returns Part Two (MASSIVE spoilers)
So beware spoilers!
“If peace can only come through killing someone, then I don't want it.” - Hiro Mashima
Besides the fact that killing someone, for any reason, is an extremely serious thing to do, there's also the fact that getting revenge blood for blood makes you just as bad as the person you're getting revenge on.
I live in the United Kingdom, where the death penalty set up by the state has been abolished, but in some states in America - I think there are thirty-one, a pretty large majority - the death penalty is 'awarded' if the crime is severe enough, and that requires almost unwavering certainty. It varies by state. However, the difference between Batman and a court of justice is that there needs to be a discussion, a trial, and a fair judgement. If Batman snapped a thug's neck because otherwise he'd get hit in the chest with a tire iron, the question then becomes:
"Who gets to kill Batman?"
Because he's just killed someone. And the reason people encourage Batman to kill is 'look, this person killed someone'. There's a certain level of hypocrisy that comes about if Batman finally decides to kill people, because he became the Batman after his parents were murdered. Surely it'd contradict his entire raison d'être.
Killing someone, even if it is legally and morally justifiable, is still the ending of a life. If they have a family, you've made sure that the family will never see that person again. Maybe they wanted to go to college. Maybe they were going to propose to their partner once they got away from the life of crime. Batman - hell, no man - should get the right to make that call alone.
In the States, people still protest against the death penalty, with placards that read stuff like:
"Vengeance is NEVER right!"
"Stop killing to say that killing is wrong!"
"We remember the victims - but not with MORE killing."
Even the Bible itself has rules against murder:
Exodus 20:13 - Thou shalt not murder.
While I don't 'subscribe' to the Christian faith, this quote does shed a lot of light on things, for me. If people all these years ago were able to recognise that claiming someone else's life shouldn't be encouraged, surely Batman would realise that killing someone is going to be reviled as much as the criminals he's squaring off against. I do understand that these criminals that we fight are, a lot of the time, horrible people:
The Penguin: Stages a shooting at a public debate. Determinantly burns someone's flesh from their face.
Two Face: Destroys an apartment block, killing innocents to destroy some of Lady Arkham's drugs.
Lady Arkham: Drugged many people to do her bidding, masterminded the Penguin's actions, killed a couple in their own home.
While the people we fight are absolutely despicable in their actions, who gave the mantle of 'executioner' to Batman? Is he even encouraged by the state? Not really. In the first game - hell, the first episode - Batman gets shot at several times by the police. Food for thought, y'know?
"I don't fully understand why ours should be such a fatal relationship, but I don't want your murder on my ... hands..." - Batman, The Killing Joke comic.
In the Batman game, Arkham City, the Batman is faced with a dilemma at the end of the game. He holds the antidote to the disease that's killing the Joker, and he's trying to justify giving it to him. He realises the horrific things the Joker does, and that giving him the antidote might not be the best idea, saying:
He realises the vicious cycle they're in. The decision is ultimately made for him, however, when the Joker tries to grab the antidote and ends up spilling it. However, after the Joker furiously asks if the Batman is finally happy, the Batman admits something as he watches the Joker die. His voice is filled with remorse, even after the fact the Joker had just stabbed him in the shoulder. He holds eye contact when he speaks. He's being genuine.
The reason? He knows that if he let the Joker die, then the Joker would win. The Joker embodies chaos, and misery and death and psychosis. He relishes in tormenting other people, in tearing families apart and injuring innocents. He loves it. It's what makes him happy. If the Batman was to deliberately get rid of the antidote, or to deliberately kill the Joker at any point, then he's guilty of killing someone, in the same way that the Joker is guilty of killing people. I genuinely don't think Batman would take the 'permanent' option to destroy the Joker, if it involved killing him.
In the animated film, The Killing Joke, the ending has Batman admitting he can't see how the feud between himself and the Joker is going to end happily, lamenting that it's likely to end in one of them killing the other, but he doesn't want that. The full scene is here:
It's oddly poignant, but - most importantly - it shows Batman's 'human' side. This is his arch enemy, and he still can't bring himself to hurt him when the Joker looks away and goads him on. They even share a laugh at the end. The ending is still debated, however, as the posture of Batman gripping Joker and the way the Joker stops laughing even as the Batman continues does make some people believe that the Batman finally snaps and kills the Joker. However, pay attention to what the Batman says:
This is integral to his character. He doesn't like hurting people, and he doesn't want to kill people. The idea that he's going to start killing in this game seems like a push, to be blunt, considering how the most powerful scenes in Batman come from him showing restraint and not giving the villain what they want. Granted, there are mediums where the Batman decides to try and stop the Joker once and for all. One of the most horrific is 'The Dark Knight Returns, Part Two', where the Joker goes on a massacre and the Batman gives pursuit. If you want to watch it, you can here. It's properly gory, though.
Both the Batman and the Joker know what happens, now that the Joker's won. Because he has. He proved his point, that everyone is corruptible. When Batman lost control and tried to kill him, the Joker had corrupted him beyond redemption. Killing is reviled in this world, for good reason, and now everyone thinks the Batman is guilty of it. Notice how, when the young couple think the Batman snaps the Joker's neck, they both scream and run away. Because he's become a villain, to them. Even though the Joker is hated, and people are scared of him, Batman killing him isn't an option. But, because it looks like he did, because he lost control, the Joker's won.
Killing someone is really tricky, even if it's state-sanctioned. I really don't think one man should gain that responsibility. Even if that person is a super hero.
"That's like trying to stop a storm by blowing harder. Ridiculous. You can't protect by killing.” - Brandon Sanderson
Killing someone to stop them from killing is, as the quote says, like blowing on a storm, or pouring gasoline onto a fire. You're only adding to the crisis of killing. Certainly, there's a difference between John Wayne Gacy and Batman - were he to kill - as one murdered thirty-three teenage boys, whereas Batman would be killing to stop a criminal. But it's an extremely slippery slope, killing someone.
You also open up a particularly wriggly can of worms - when is killing acceptable? For example, Person A might find it acceptable to kill in self defence. Person B, however, may think killing is always reprehensible. What makes Batman justified to make the call on when it's acceptable to kill? What if the police disagree and try to kill him? Does he get to kill them, too?
Once Batman kills one person, what's to stop the next criminal from trying to kill him, arguing 'you murdered someone, so I have to defend myself'? Moreover, the most heinous crime is murder. To kill. Batman is already, y'know, beating people and throwing them around and breaking bones and such. However, despite this, he has a line in the sand. That, for me, is what makes Batman so awesome to me. Gotham City is filled with evil criminals, some who have the sole objective to break the Batman, but he chooses not to sink to that level. He rises above the criminals and scum, aiming to stop, not destroy.
If Batman kills, then the criminals win. Because they've proven their point - that Batman is no better than them. Lady Arkham tries to argue that they're the same, in the first season. In The Dark Knight, the Joker tries to drag everyone down to his hideous level. He succeeds when he makes Harvey Dent snap and go on a killing spree across Gotham. Batman's whole rule is so he doesn't let the criminals win, and he still gets to protect Gotham. The protector of a city doesn't need to murder everyone who opposes him.
Harvey Dent sums it up really well, in The Dark Knight:
Becoming the villain, by committing the same crimes Batman finds so deplorable, is an unacceptable result. Batman is aware of this, so he strides to stay away from the allure of the 'permanent' solution.
Hopefully some of that was helpful! I had a lot of fun writing this post, as the ethical debate of justice based killing is one that has no one 'right' answer. I've shared my opinion in the way I thought was most easy to read, with quotes and a gif for each subheading and points to back it up. While I can see the allure of wanting to see Batman climb into the dark pit of killing people, I'd rather he remained this hero that does everything but that.
EDIT: Formatting thing. Sorry ;-;
Fair enough, other vigilantes who emerge may not be as "thorough" as Batman and could wind up killing the wrong people or just petty criminals. But still, that is something that could be dealt with swiftly when it arises.
When did Penguin say that exactly?
Penguin says that when Bats confronts him at the Skyline club. Penguin was telling Bats that he should thank him for getting rid of Falcone.
Bats can say: I don't kill my enemies.
Penguin responds: Maybe that's why you've got so many? Might be time to reconsider.
I thought to myself that Oz had a point.
why dont you wanna play season 2?
I'd definitely recommend Batman Season 2, it has the forums positive, for once. As of right now anyway, if you're hesitant I'd say wait for more episodes and see how people feel.
Great post! I agree with most of what you said and I really enjoyed reading it.
Just so you know... season 2 is really good.