The Joker vs. Tyler Durden

[Arnox]

Let's say both are set loose in fictional New York City starting out with only a few friends/followers each. Who do you think would win in a battle for city dominance?

[Idiosyncrasy]

Do we have Batman? If yes, Tyler Durden. If not, Joker.

Reasoning:
Tyler Durden is a bit mentally unstable, and he does have a knack for building a cult-like following, but he does have a level of grounded thinking. He doesn't believe in big government, but he believes in humanity and self actualization. The Joker, on the other hand, is beyond mentally unstable. He's crossed into psychopathic territory, with no moral boundary to restrict his actions. He is also more resourceful in how he operates (i.e., better explosives). While both characters exude a disregard for their own well-being, The Joker has bigger goals and he is willing to sacrifice more to accomplish them.

But Batman has already proven that he can take him down.

Joker > TD

Batman beats Joker. Joker beats TD. TD beats Batman?

[Arnox]

Do we have Batman?

We do not.

Consider this though. The Joker's followers are either paid goons, mentally unstable, or have been blackmailed into service. All of TD's followers, however, admire him and perhaps it could even be said that they worship him if you really wanna stretch it. So, The Joker may indeed stop at nothing to get what he wants but TD has a more loyal and dedicated army. Also keep in mind that TD's followers are much more varied in specialization. They could be anyone. From dam workers to marines.

[Shiva]

If we're going from dark knight joker v film durden. Joker easily wins. Whilst Durden is basically a god amongst men, he leads a ragtag crew of urban explorers, anarchist types and petty criminals who aren't particularly violent.

The joker has gangs of heavily armed hardened criminals and huge disposal income. He'd use his crime gang connections and have all fight club members murdered within a fortnight.

[MoaningLisa]

Joker, no contest.

now, Joker VS Bane, thats the real question. the joker never set out to take over gotham, but probably could have...bane did, and succeeded.

Batman villains are the best of the best.

even if Durden's followers are more loyal, loyalty doesn't kill. thugs with guns kill...and the Joker can come up with some pretty mean thugs, even if he kills them all

[Arnox]

even if Durden's followers are more loyal, loyalty doesn't kill. thugs with guns kill...

See, now I don't know guys. They didn't seem to have any reservations about cutting off the Narrators balls. And yes, while killing is very different from mutilation, I think loyalty in the end would get them to do it anyway.

[GothicSeraph]

now, Joker VS Bane, that's the real question. the joker never set out to take over Gotham, but probably could have...bane did, and succeeded.

Batman villains are the best of the best.

In a way the Joker just wanted to cause chaos, and succeeded. Bane was just a BAMF with a group of terrorist militia guys. Tyler Durden was awesome and all but wasn't he the dreams of a schizophrenic guy?

[Idiosyncrasy]

Tyler Durden was awesome and all but wasn't he the dreams of a schizophrenic guy?

I'd say Tyler Durden was more of a manfiestation of the narrator's desires of what he wanted to be than a dream.

[mizled]

The Joker for sure, but just as soon as he got comfortable with his dominance of Gotham, Keyser Söze would come along and  kill him, kill his crew, kill their kids, he'd kill their wives, he'd kill their parents and their parents' friends. He'd burn down the houses they live in and the stores they work in, he'd kill the people that owe them money.
And like that, he'd be gone.