Are there any exceptions to Batman's no-killing rule?  Eg. Would Batman kill:   zombies? (Solomon Grundy) aliens? (Darkseid) animals &amp; plants? (idk, thb) artificial life? (Brainiac, HARDAC) Immortals? (Ra's al-Ghul) Unwilling life? (Doomsday) Irredeemable mother**kers? (child murderers?) Non-direct killing? (Throwing live grenade back at the thrower)   Sorry, but watching the new BvS movie has gotten me thinking about these stuffs. Any answers from any main, non-elseworlds interpretations (eg New 52, Old 52, DCAU, etc) are welcome.  EDIT: Just to be clear, I was talking about possible situations where he would cross the line. Although the answers so far have been helpful (thank you, @HBhatia), I was actually referring to situations where if he would/would not cross the 'established' no-killing rule, such as facing Solomon Grundy, Darkseid, Ra's al-Ghul, HARDAC, Brainiac, etc. I do apologize if my question was unclear.
97407
Inspired by  question, I have to admit I don't know a lot about the Comic Book Batman, but I know a fair amount about his other incarnations.   I know for example, that the 1989 movie had him kill the Joker. He vehemently wanted the Joker dead and had no compunctions about taking a life. I also know that he had a rule against killing in The Animated Series that he never broke, and that he very nearly broke it in Batman Beyond.  But as far as the comic books go, when did Batman develop a rule against killing his foes? Does he ever kill them rather than deliver them to the proper authorities?
110334
So, Michonne's pet walkers: who were they, and where did they come from? Is it ever revealed?  I guess this question would be directed more towards the comic book fans, since the best answer in the show has been "they deserved what they got, they weren't human to begin with". Other that that she always clams up at the subject.  I have my theories, but because she is so reluctant to reveal anything about herself it's really difficult to put any stock in those theories...
17846
The third bullet of the sentinel feat text reads:     When a creature makes an attack   against a target other than you (and that target doesn't   have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a   melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.   This reads to me as saying if both I and the target of the original attack have sentinel, then I can't take the reaction attack.  Is this correct?  If so, does anyone have insight into why?  I could maybe understand if the text is actually in error and meant to say "and the attacking creature doesn't have this feat," but it pretty clearly doesn't actually say that.
82821
If you cut Deadpool exactly in half, which half would regenerate and grow the rest of his body?  Or would both halves regenerate a complete Deadpool?  Has this happened in the comics? (I haven't had a chance to read them ALL).  Would this be a plausible way to 'clone' Deadpool?  Edit: I should also clarify that I'm talking about the possibility of him being split down the middle, not severed at the waist, which has happened in a comic and his legs simply grew back.
45223
It was suggested to me recently that Annihilator sacrifices (such as 's) are only chosen during resolution, rather than while they're going on the stack.  Do I choose those sacrifices during resolution? What part of the comprehensive rules backs that up?  I can't find any clarity on the internet, in the rules, on the MTG Salvation wiki for Annihilator, or in the ability's rulings. It seems reasonable, but I'd like to know what's behind it. Plus, if I can choose and then later  some stuff, all the better.
8746
Which wording with kill should be used here:     He committed a crime (killing/by killing) a bird.   My guess is the answer would be by killing. But I am really confused with the answer killing.   My questions relating to this sentence are:   Which one is correct and why? (or are they both correct?) If one of them is incorrect, why is it incorrect? (or, if both of them are, why?) If they are both correct, what is the difference in meaning? If they are both correct, what is the difference in their grammar?
67459
I just saw the movie . When I had first seen the title of the movie I had assumed the movie to be a violent one with a lot of killing and hatred. But the story is completely different! Based loosely on the novel Oil! it's rather about the story of an 'oilman'.  So my doubt is; how is the title of the movie justified? Why didn't the makers name the movie The Oilman (I have read they didn't name it Oil! because it isn't directly based on the book) or Daniel Plainview or something like that? What is the significance of the title in relation to its story?
63431
I've seen the  here before, as well as on many sites on the web.  I've also seen different info on what was covered.  I'm not a huge X-Men fan, but I do enjoy the characters and stories, so I know I'm probably missing out on a lot, and may have missed the obvious along the way because I didn't read a particular series or something like that.  I had a relative die from leukemia a few years ago and that reminded me of basic junior high science: that red and white blood cells are produced in the bone marrow and must be able to reach from the marrow into the blood vessels.  The leukemia my relative had was the kind where the "bad" cells would surround the marrow and prevent the new "good" blood cells from getting out to the rest of the body.  So just how much of Wolverine's skeleton is covered with Adamantium?  If it's the whole thing, there'd have to be openings for new red blood cells to get out if he is to remain alive.  I've never seen a reference to this issue, is it ever addressed?  That also raises another issue along the same line: Are hard to reach areas, such as ball and socket joints covered?  If not, then stress on other covered areas could be transferred to the weaker uncovered areas, which would lead to breakage there.  And if joints like that are covered, is there anything to say how it was done?  Are there openings or gaps in the Adamantium covering on his body?  Are there any references to any of these issues that deal with them?
53710
In Arkham Horror you have to roll a cumulative number of successes equal to the number of players to knock off a doom token from the Elder God's health. If you reach the number of players worth of successes do you then stop counting for the player and move on or do you count the extra successes against the next doom token?  We played it so that you kept on adding them but it meant that we turned Nyalothotep into mince meat quite quickly (One Character was blessed had a fight of 6 a shotgun and Fight +1 skill card though)
5883
I just finished Episode 5 and wondered, if there were alternative endings or game branches. I brought the whole group with me, and am wondering what would have changed if different people accompined me, and if the episode is possible to play out differenly.      On my playthrough, Lee killed the stranger, and on the run back to Christa and Omid, was to weak to continue. Clementine shot him. Kenny died along with Ben after he fell off the building. And Lee was cut off Christa and Omid after they went over the "bridge" first.
55992
Regularly in ,  appears to lose her temper and comes very close to killing someoine in anger. AFAIK she never follows through in the show.   But anywhere in canon, does she ever kill a mortal?  She decapitates  in a baseball court, but she's not really a mortal anymore:     The fight takes place in a baseball court and is by Ares transmitted to the world. The fight is brutal, as Diana fights blind, first by a piece of cloth, then by snake venom she pours into her own eyes. But Diana is victorious in the end as once again, Medusa is .   Some examples of WW almost killing mortals:     Once when she believes Superman has been killed:                                      And once when some bank robbers interrupt her day off:
65573
I think I misunderstand Horcruxes here - are they used up? Or do they just exist to stop the person dying but are not actually 'used up' in the process? By this logic someone could be killed infinite times and still not die?
64978
There are many innocent civilizians in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Assuming I don't do so in sight of a police officer, are there any consquences to killing civilizians, or am I free to soak Detroit red with the blood of its people?
5600
The full prophecy by Trelawney, the part my question is about in bold:     "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who  have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies ..."    – Sybill Trelawney (to Dumbledore)    I am interpreting      for neither can live while the other survives   as: Harry can't live while Voldemort survives and vice versa. But why? It clearly worked until the end of book 7. One could argue with Dumbledore's thery of the self-fulfilling prophecy. But clearly Voldemort was smart enough to see that there was no mechanism that would kill him just because Harry stayed alive.    and either must die at the hand of the other    Again: Why? If somebody else destroyed all Horcruxes and then killed Harry, Voldemort would be just as vulnerable and could be killed by anyone. On the other hand, Harry could have been killed by anyone - his mum's protection transferred to Voldemort by Harry's blood was only helping against Voldemort.  I guess that I am interpreting this part of the prophecy in the wrong way or maybe there is an alternate, less obvious and more tricky one. So my question is: What exactly does the highlighted part of Trelawney's prophecy state?
70800
Did DC Comics ever say if Superman works out? I mean, above and beyond fighting crime and saving the world, what does Superman do to stay physically fit? If he didn't excercise and there was a peaceful lull in crime, would he get a pot belly?
80973
In Batman #1 in the New 52, when we visit the Batcave for the first time, we see a dinosaur:     What... is up with that? It is a completely awesome cave decoration - but what else is it? Is it a non sequitur or is it a call back to an earlier storyline? I imagine it's the latter – a life-size T-rex model is an expensive piece of decor, even for Bruce Wayne.  Bonus points: are there any other relics from past storylines visible in this Batcave?  Update: here's a shot of the other panel that gives us a view of the "showroom" (including the huge dice).
108368
I was reading over some of the weapons in the rules today when I came across the net:     When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.   Now this could be interpreted in one of two ways.   When you attack with a net that's the only attack you can make. You can only attack once with a net but can take your other attacks as normal.   If I'm basing my choice off of the Rules As Intended, I think what was meant matches up with option #2, but I might be wrong.  Which interpretation is correct?