Do you believe that morals hinder superheroes?

  • 95 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes because the people of Gotham have never heard about Batman's actions before*rolls eyes*. Just because it isn't easy doesn't mean it can't be done..Also get real dude it's comics. Sure realistically it might sound good to kill him but guess what In the comics he'd just be brought back just like a majority of characters that get "killed off" thus making it pointless. Could've been prevented? Yeah Uncle Ben's death could've been prevented. Frank Castle's family could've been saved. Krypton might not have blown up..You could come up with a million what ifs but that wouldn't justify the action so your "counter" argument just got debunked. Also if the Joker didn't do something then someone else could've easily done something just as bad to Barbara,Jason,or whoever else. Did the Joker kill Damian? No. Did the Joker almost kill Catwoman like Hush did? No. Your "it could be prevented" argument lacks

Sure we stated our opinions however you just don't grasp how weak your logic is. By your logic we might as well kill every single villain in Marvel and DC then what would be accomplished? Injustice's Superman is a result of what happens when a hero goes down the path you want Batman to take

@dark_passenger it's because people have some delusion that killing the joker=lots of lives saved. People are going to die no matter how it happens..Just because "less" die if Joker dies doesn't mean it's better. People still die no matter what. The only real way lives would be "saved" as so many people here seem to think would be if they were to stop every single villain.

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: less die does equal better how does it not? If you're trying to save as many lives as possible it seems like that'd be better. Of course people are going to die, but Joker kills people for fun he is sadistic and evil. "Would be if they were to stop every single villain" exactly. I believe that's what the poster who asked the question is getting at. Do morals hinder heroes? Yes if they killed their villains less innocent people would die. Not saying that this would make them any more heroic at all for the record if anything they'd be antiheroes, but that's not the point. The point is does it hinder them? I'm of the opinion it does

Avatar image for eternal19
Eternal19

2178

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: killing the joker would save lives. ot doesn't matter if people keep dying its a heroes job to save as many as possible. killing joker would save hundreds if not thousands of lives. I don't see how that isn't a good thing. batman doesn't have any good reason for allowing him to live. is the life of an evil man really more important than thousands

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54  Edited By Gambit474

@gambit474: less die does equal better how does it not? If you're trying to save as many lives as possible it seems like that'd be better. Of course people are going to die, but Joker kills people for fun he is sadistic and evil. "Would be if they were to stop every single villain" exactly. I believe that's what the poster who asked the question is getting at. Do morals hinder heroes? Yes if they killed their villains less innocent people would die. Not saying that this would make them any more heroic at all for the record if anything they'd be antiheroes, but that's not the point. The point is does it hinder them? I'm of the opinion it does

Smh..You guys obviously missed the points. What's the point of the justice system if ONE MAN like Batman can judge whoever he wants? How is Batman better by killing him? I love how you guys outright ignored that I said even if they did kill him they'd just bring him back later on and guess what..The cycle would repeat. When it comes to the Joker killing him is not good enough. Rofl if they killed their villains then they'd wind up like the Punisher who half the Marvel Universe thinks is psycho and viewed him as just as bad as the villains he kills. All you guys obviously look at is "more lives will be saved" while ignoring what the consequences would be for doing such a thing. A hero is no better than a villain if they have to break their morals just to stop crime..Any hero that compromises what they believe in is weak. How many lives have been lost by the Green Goblin? Shouldn't Spider-man go out and kill him too? How about the Red Skull(any version)..Shouldn't Captain America go out and off him as well? Like I said..You guys obviously ignore things like Injustice's Superman when the hero decides to go that route. Batman makes a habit of breaking bad guys' bones and hurting them in barbaric fashion..How does that make him better than the Joker? Oh I forgot,because he doesn't kill.

@eternal19 Batman's stated his reasons before..As I already mentioned one of them was because death would not be good enough for the things he's done. If one life stops a hero from going down the path of no return then yes..It is indeed worth it. Lol people obviously don't understand the consequences of actions. Let's say Batman does kill the joker..Who's next? Two-Face? Bane? Poison Ivy? Next thing you know Batman's out on a killing spree and whattya know..He's not that much different from the Joker

Avatar image for eternal19
Eternal19

2178

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: so, death is not a good enough punishment for the joker. its better to just let him live and kill more people. that's the stupidest reason I've heard yet. I see no problem with batman killing those people, they are all evil people and the world would be better off without them. if all batman is gonna do is throw them in arkham just for them to break out again and again and kill more innocents what's the point of batman. all he's doing is upholding a broken justice system, that values "morality" over protecting innocents.

Avatar image for mitran
Mitran

399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

sometimes

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: so, death is not a good enough punishment for the joker. its better to just let him live and kill more people. that's the stupidest reason I've heard yet. I see no problem with batman killing those people, they are all evil people and the world would be better off without them. if all batman is gonna do is throw them in arkham just for them to break out again and again and kill more innocents what's the point of batman. all he's doing is upholding a broken justice system, that values "morality" over protecting innocents.

As I've already stated the only reason they break out is because of storyline. I swear people have the weakest arguments dealing with the prison breakouts..No shit they're going to get out again. Hell Arkham Origins said it perfectly with Sharp saying that the prisons are the ones at fault for all the death..Not the Joker. If these prisons actually held them then why would Batman have to do anything more? "They are all evil people"..And yet who gives you the right to judge that? What's the point of having a justice system if one man can go around killing whoever he wants based on what he thinks is right or wrong? That's one of the main criticisms the other heroes have on the Punisher because he's a "psycho who kills based on his twisted sense of morals."

Your arguments are automatically disproved just with the fact that they'd bring the Joker back if he were killed. Your logic does not work in a comic book world where life and death are easily toyed with by storylines and writing

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: and you seemed to ignore the fact that I said they wouldn't be heroes but antiheroes which is what the Punisher is. How are they as bad as the villains? Joker and hob goblin kill for fun and the people they kill are mostly innocent. Bats or spidey killing Joker and Hub goblin isn't by any stretch of the imagination comparable. They are killing repeating murderers who are killing innocent people. Injustice superman wasn't necessarily a good guy either though he was a totalitarian that was imposing world order not simply taking out super villains that kill innocent people on a regular basis. As for your last part about Batman. Really? Batman torturing possibly handicapping people for their whole lives is better than instantly taking them out? Disagree. Again you're go to argument seems to be that's what makes them heroes. Which I 100% agree with. I mean that's pretty much the whole point of Superman. What we need to strive to be and all that, but the question is does it hinder them? And the answer is yes. Does it make them less heroic? Obviously but it certainly opens up their options and arguably saves more lives in the long run.

Avatar image for eternal19
Eternal19

2178

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: that's why a lot of people don't take comic books seriously because nothing matters. we know who's going to win we know the joker is just going to go back to arkham just to break out the next month. the joker is the one who commits the crimes not the cops. what's the point in having a justice system that cant protect its citizens? batman is already breaking the law, if he really wants to clean up Gotham get rid of the repeat offenders. there are plenty of heroes who are willing to kill and are still heroes. superhero comics try to pretend that they are all dark and modern when in reality they are still stuck in the silver age, where the world is black and white and where "real heroes don't kill" which is complete bs. cops are heroes and they kill when necessary.

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60  Edited By Gambit474

@dark_passenger said:

@gambit474: and you seemed to ignore the fact that I said they wouldn't be heroes but antiheroes which is what the Punisher is. How are they as bad as the villains? Joker and hob goblin kill for fun and the people they kill are mostly innocent. Bats or spidey killing Joker and Hub goblin isn't by any stretch of the imagination comparable. They are killing repeating murderers who are killing innocent people. Injustice superman wasn't necessarily a good guy either though he was a totalitarian that was imposing world order not simply taking out super villains that kill innocent people on a regular basis. As for your last part about Batman. Really? Batman torturing possibly handicapping people for their whole lives is better than instantly taking them out? Disagree. Again you're go to argument seems to be that's what makes them heroes. Which I 100% agree with. I mean that's pretty much the whole point of Superman. What we need to strive to be and all that, but the question is does it hinder them? And the answer is yes. Does it make them less heroic? Obviously but it certainly opens up their options and arguably saves more lives in the long run.

I'm not ignoring anything so assume more bud. Batman's already an anti-hero so that shows how much you know about him. Yet how did it start for their Superman? He killed. He crossed the line. All it takes is one step into the void and off to the looney bin they go. So it's perfectly fine for Batman to go around critically injuring people..Ok by that logic it's ok for the cops to do it too and anyone else who feels that it's just to do such a thing to another human being. Oh wait I forgot..If Batman does it then it's ok but if a cop does it then it's police brutality. People have no proof that it'd save lives in the long run except their opinions and what they "think" would happen. You guys still have nothing to disprove that the Joker would just be brought back again and the process would continue. You want to punish the Joker? Throw his ass in the Phantom Zone or something..but kill him? Smh..Any justification to kill the Joker can easily be disproved.

Eternal cops also kill when they have no other choice. Not because "it's the best choice"

Avatar image for eternal19
Eternal19

2178

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61  Edited By Eternal19

@gambit474: wonder woman has killed and you don't see her acting like the punisher. superman also killed doomsday and he is the same as he always was.its all about self control. your argument is invalid

Avatar image for eternal19
Eternal19

2178

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: the only argument you've given against killing the joker is that the writers will bring him back. if they can bring him back from the dead. what makes you think they will keep him in the phantom zone. all this shows os that superhero comics aren't about writing new exciting stories. they are about recycling the same crap over and over because people will buy it

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63  Edited By Gambit474

@eternal19 said:

@gambit474: wonder woman has killed and you don't see her acting like the punisher. superman also killed doomsday and he is the same as he always was.its all about self control. your argument is invalid

Rofl invalid..You wish. They also don't deal with things that would break any other person's psyche on a regular basis like Batman does..Gj getting debunked there. Also WW and Superman only kill if they have no other choice..They don't make a habit of it and their adversaries are LEAGUES worse than the Joker, or are you going to tell me the Joker can cause more damage than an unstopped Doomsday? Because if so then I'd take the pleasure in acknowledging nothing you'd say afterwards as credible. Bullshit..I've given plenty of arguments. You guys simply ignore them or have nothing to counter them with because you know they prove you wrong. Oh so now it's ok to acknowledge that they'll bring him back from the dead if they kill him but do any other punishment and it's bad? The only way he'd get out of the Phantom Zone would be if someone let him out or he got help. You're the one with an invalid argument

New and exciting stories..Oh yes superheroes doing what they don't normally do is so "exciting." You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think that's what stories are like now

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64  Edited By DARK_PASSENGER

@gambit474: cops kill people all the time so I don't see your point there at all. Any argument to "kill" the Joker as far as comic logic goes is mostly irrelevant due to him being resurrected by plot device "x", but to be actually killed as in never allowed to exist ever? More lives are saved by him "truly" dying. So throwing him in the Phantom Zone for ETERNITY is better than being dead and that's it? Again 100% disagree. You seek to want to use Injustice Supes as a benchmark. Lois and his unborn sun was murdered(something that wouldn't have happened if Bats just killed Joker) and the emotional distraught that effected him is what caused his totalitarian nonsense. Not just because he killed. He's killed Zod before and didn't act similarly at all.

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: cops kill people all the time so I don't see your point there at all. Any argument to "kill" the Joker as far as comic logic goes is mostly irrelevant due to him being resurrected by plot device "x", but to be actually killed as in never allowed to exist ever? More lives are saved by him "truly" dying. So throwing him in the Phantom Zone for ETERNITY is better than being dead and that's it? Again 100% disagree. You seek to want to use Injustice Supes as a benchmark. Lois and his unborn sun was murdered(something that wouldn't have happened if Bats just killed Joker) and the emotional distraught that effected him is what caused his totalitarian nonsense. Not just because he killed. He's killed Zod before and didn't act similarly at all.

Yet even more BS..Cops,unless they've done wrong,do not fire unless you give them no other choice. Hell they show that in shows like CSI,NCIS,Law and Order,and such. Majority of the time they don't do it with ease either. Oh yes because him being stuck for eternity is so much worse than a TEMPORARY death..You disagree with sound logic and thus further show how easily your arguments get debunked. Yet again with the what ifs if Batman killed Joker..Sometimes I wish they'd do it then have someone else go on a killing spree just so you guys would see how full of it you are. Superman lost something personal in Injustice compared to Zod bud..In the end you guys obviously don't know what consequences mean. All that matters to you is that more lives get saved..What a close minded view of the world

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

And I'm going to steal this quote from @deathpoolthet1000 when he said this in a thread similar to talking about why Batman shouldn't kill

"Because killing means life is worthless, if life is worthless, there is no reason to save people."

It's not Batman's place to decide whether the Joker lives or dies...That is to be up to the justice system otherwise why even bother having cops in Gotham if you're just going to throw the rulebook out the door and leave everything up to Batman? It's Gotham's job to decide what to do with the joker and what his punishment should be. Also as I've seen it said in other discussions...The Joker pretty much embodies everything Batman is not. The two complete each other and if one were removed than the other would cease to exist. This has actually been shown before in their animated films(yes that means they're not canon..however a good look at what could happen),and I think somewhere in the books too,where if you take away Batman..The Joker just becomes dull and has no purpose for himself. Batman would become exactly what he's fighting against if he were to kill him..Batman himself has even admitted that that would be the case if it were to happen

There's already been discussions like this on the forums

Should Batman kill the Joker

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67  Edited By DARK_PASSENGER

@gambit474: I'm not sure about your state bit in mine even if a "villian/badguy" raises a firearm the cops have full and legal authority to kill them. Um again are you reading my post? Him being stuck for eternity(arguably in torment) is way worse than him being killed permanently and that's it. That's what I was getting at. A comic book "death" doesn't equal actual death. I'm saying Batman actually KILLING Joker would save more lives in the long run anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Others have gone on killing sprees like the Zod Supes killed and guess what? He DESERVED to die. "All that matters to you is more lives get saved"? Um a heroes job is to save innocent people. more INNOCENT lives getting saved = a good thing. I'm not being close minded at all. You're making a bunch of excuses for known murderers and killers who every time they break out kill and murder innocent people. I've admitted that that's what makes them heroes is doing the "right thing" "taking the moral high ground" but that's laughable. It's blatantly proven for over 60 years now that Joker is going to kill people no doubt about it at all. He's going to break out and murder or torture some innocent family or persons it's all but guaranteed. Is that the nature of comics? Sure but to say stopping such an individual wouldn't decrease the frequency or level of violence in said "universe" is ridiculous....

Avatar image for herx
Herx

532

Forum Posts

624

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 1

One thing that i have yet to hear (sorry if it has already been said) is that although they are "forces for justice" super-heroes are still (mostly) level headed individuals. While joker can kill hundreds and thousands of people with a giggle and a blink of the eye due to his madness and Doomsday because of his animalistic nature Sup's and Batman are not psychopaths nor are they ferile creatures. Killing someone (if you are a level headed person), even if he/she is a monster of a person, is not an easy thing to do. It would wreck havoc on that persons mind for a long time, changing them from the person he once was. You see these things in real life police investigations (and dramas) where officers who have shot/killed an assailant have to undergo psyceatric assessment as well as a full on internal investigation to judge whether the killing was just or not. There are coping systems in place to deal with these situations, but with super-heroes such as superman or batman there aren't any really and without those facilities the mental condition of the hero may degredate into the "i did it once before. why not again? he's nearly as bad as he/she was. whats the differerence?" mindset. In that case each villain/crime isn't being judged on its own individual basis but instead on a comparison level which invalidates the entire notion of impartial judgment which most heroes have. And, also, lets not forget the hypocrasy of the situation "I killed a man who killed thousands. But i am the better man/woman as in my mind what i did was right and many other people agree with me". Certain heroes do kill though (wolverine, black widow, John Stewart, stormwatch red etc.) but what many of these characters have in common is the fact that they have previously worked for the military or organizations which "teach" them how to kill and how to cope with a kill and in those organizations its not a question of justice and guilt and right and wrong, but life and death.

The major issue, really, is the judicial systems of these imagined worlds. Joker is a psychopath and he knows it. He knows that, in a court of law he is going to get the insanity plea and be sent to Arkham (the worst psycheatric treatment center in the world) where he can manipulate the doctors and orderlies by playing mindgames so that 8 months down the line he's back on the streets killing again, where he'd be caught by batman again and go through the same scenario all over again. If the courts could prove that the joker was aware of his condition but unwilling to treat it due to his enjoyment of it he'd likely be treated differently (high security isolated cell in an actual super-prison rather than a psycheatric hospital and a death sentence). When Otto killed Massacre it wasn't because a "hero" couldn't see any other options, but because a man attempting to become better than that hero (a superior spiderman) deemed the actions necessary, it wasn't all about the criminal but also how Otto's mind worked as a former villain and killer and how he placed (essentially) a villains interpretation of justice on someone else.

Also i think that "superman vs the elite" just sums up this argument allot.

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69  Edited By Gambit474

@gambit474: I'm not sure about your state bit in mine even if a "villian/badguy" raises a firearm the cops have full and legal authority to kill them. Um again are you reading my post? Him being stuck for eternity(arguably in torment) is way worse than him being killed permanently and that's it. That's what I was getting at. A comic book "death" doesn't equal actual death. I'm saying Batman actually KILLING Joker would save more lives in the long run anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Others have gone on killing sprees like the Zod Supes killed and guess what? He DESERVED to die. "All that matters to you is more lives get saved"? Um a heroes job is to save innocent people. more INNOCENT lives getting saved = a good thing. I'm not being close minded at all. You're making a bunch of excuses for known murderers and killers who every time they break out kill and murder innocent people. I've admitted that that's what makes them heroes is doing the "right thing" "taking the moral high ground" but that's laughable. It's blatantly proven for over 60 years now that Joker is going to kill people no doubt about it at all. He's going to break out and murder or torture some innocent family or persons it's all but guaranteed. Is that the nature of comics? Sure but to say stopping such an individual wouldn't decrease the frequency or level of violence in said "universe" is ridiculous....

You're the delusional one as is anyone who supports what you think. Him being in the Phantom Zone would be one of the best punishments because guess what..He wouldn't be able to escape. I'm not making any excuses..I've already said earlier in the thread that the only ones entitled to deem someone deserving to die are those who answer to a mystical power such as Ghost Rider,The Spectre,and such because their characters are RIGHT in their judgement unlike normal human beings like Batman. Laughable? What's laughable is you guys thinking saving lives means more than anything else..If they went the route you guys want then there would be no stories. No loses. No tragedies. Everything would end in a "happily ever after" and guess what? It would be boring as hell. How would Spider-man be if Gwen,Ben,and whoever else close to him hadn't died? Would the Punisher even exist if his family wasn't killed? Would Superman had even existed if Krypton never blew up? Face it bud..People need to die because it strengthens or creates these characters. Spider-man and Batman both became stronger and tougher after the tragedies they went through. Does it make it right in who got hurt? No,but they definitely wouldn't be as hardened as they are now if they never happened in the first place

Sure Joker being killed REALISTICALLY would save more lives..Happy now? HOWEVER being that this comics where that LOGIC DOES NOT WORK..That would never occur and would never stand because he would be brought back and the cycle would repeat. If Joker doesn't exist then neither does Batman. All you guys can do is constantly repeat yourselves "omgz more lives wuld be saved!!111"

Avatar image for sc
SC

18454

Forum Posts

182748

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#70  Edited By SC  Moderator

Morals are inherent to individuals, so its a bit like asking if brains hinder superheroes, the answer can be yes, no or maybe depending on 'a' or 'the' context or circumstance. Traditionally high, good, righteous or virtuous standards could potentially be a hindrance but it would depend on other factors as well and that applies as much as four how effective they could be and with both vice versa.

Some characters may be more willing to risk where other characters are not, some characters idea of what ends justify the means will also differ. Some characters perceptions are more accurate than others, some characters are more competent than others. This is how you can end up with variation with both moral qualities and outcomes.

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71  Edited By DARK_PASSENGER

@gambit474: so Joker can escape death, but not the Phantom Zone?..... "there would be no stories, no losses, and no tragedies"? Exactly I'm not saying these "necessary" tragedies don't create these heroic characters. I'm saying if you killed the villains who constantly kill every time they break out of the prison you put them in would save more lives than not preventing such nonsense. And if Batman didn't exist neither would the Joker considering Batman was first........

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@herx: I don't consider myself a "level headed person" and if I knew these characters were going to kill 1,000s if not more so of people I wouldn't bat an eye of taking them out. Wouldn't feel any remorse whatsoever. You don't have to be feral to figure this. If you killed a man who has in fact killed thousands and in all likelihood kill a thousand more you ARE the hero not the bad guy.

Avatar image for eternal19
Eternal19

2178

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73  Edited By Eternal19

@gambit474: I do know what I'm talking about and I don't like the hostile attitude. when your whole argument hasn't made any sense at all. this whole argument was about whether having morals hinders being a hero. and you bring up comic book logic and say that because the law is so stupid it makes for better stories and then insult me like an angry child after I have done nothing to you

Avatar image for eternal19
Eternal19

2178

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: nothing you have said has helped your point. batman doesn't need the joker batman comics could do just fine without him. you act like writers came up with no kill codes to prove a point. they didn't. originally batman killed, the only reason they added no kill codes was because of censurship. if you really think about it killing joker would be the best thing batman could do for Gotham. nothing you have said is a better option

Avatar image for phoenixofthetides
PhoenixoftheTides

4701

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes. I don't find most of them to really be that heroic because they rarely deal with what happens when you fail to live up to your moral ideals. The most compelling heroic legends in myth and epics generally dealt with a tension between private or personal morals and/or failure and redemption. Superheroes generally exist in a quasi-moral environment, wherein their claims of moral conflict is a superficial mask for the need to continue justifying the existence of their superhero identity and their villains (i.e. their reason for existence). A real moral story would be if Batman, for example, killed the Joker for all the right reasons, and had to deal with his internal moral conflict while being lauded or his sense of justice while being criticized by other characters.

That's why superheroes are ultimately so bland (especially the most powerful). IMHO, the most interesting are the ones closer to street level, who aren't whining about their self-inflated morals because they are mortal and can die if they put their morals ahead of survival (at least in the terms of their storylines - we generally know that Iron Fist or Colleen Wing aren't going to be killed during a story). When you introduce a real tension between a character's ideals and their reality, then they start to transcend the tropes of the superhero genre.

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

You two have already been debunked multiple times..

  • Batman would never be the same if he were to cross that line
  • It's up to Gotham to decide the Joker's fate..Not Batman who is already breaking the law by being a vigilante
  • Killing a character who would just be back later on would not save lives when they'd just wind up being lost again once he's brought back
  • There is always a better way to punish the Joker instead of killing him and nothing you say otherwise is correct in any form or fashion

and the list goes on and on. Hostile attitude? Insult you? Oh please..If I wanted to insult you I would've called you names and said far worse right now..All because your argument consists of nothing but denying whatever I say and having nothing else to say than it would "save lives"(the same generic argument every person has for being for Batman killing the Joker)doesn't mean I've insulted you. You two are acting like your opinions are equal to facts when they are certainly not. I always find this subject amusing because the ones for killing the joker can never come up with any other argument than the "saved lives" bit. Get back to me when you actually bother to pay attention to what the consequences would be instead of thinking of nothing else but "innocent lives." Hell you don't even see the weakness of your saving lives argument when the Joker would just be brought back if he were killed. What next? Do you just kill him again? And again? Batman will never kill the Joker in canon and have it be a lasting effect

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77  Edited By DARK_PASSENGER

@gambit474:

1. Irrelevant to the question

2. Irrelevant to the question and Gotham is equally as guilty as Bats

3. Something I've already addressed. If he were to permanently kill him as in writers aren't allowed to bring him back

4. What better way is there? No matter what you do hell break out and kill more people for the fun of it.

Anyway the question is "do morals hinder superheroes?" They do. Does it make them less of a hero? Sure but that doesn't mean more lives wouldn't be saved. Obviously in comic books where death for heroes or villains is practically never permanent than its a non factor. But if they stayed dead most of these heroes could've hung up their capes awhile ago.....

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474:

1. Irrelevant to the question

2. Irrelevant to the question and Gotham is equally as guilty as Bats

3. Something I've already addressed. If he were to permanently kill him as in writers aren't allowed to bring him back

4. What better way is there? No matter what you do hell break out and kill more people for the fun of it.

Anyway the question is "do morals hinder superheroes?" They do. Does it make them less of a hero? Sure but that doesn't mean more lives wouldn't be saved. Obviously in comic books where death for heroes or villains is practically never permanent than its a non factor. But if they stayed dead most of these heroes could've hung up their capes awhile ago.....

Not wasting my time reading any of that. The fate of the Joker should be left in the hands of Gotham..because obviously their punishment isn't realistic because if he escapes that many times from prison then the obvious choice would be to issue him the death penalty. Have they done such? No. Nothing you say will prove me wrong because Batman is not in the right place to kill the Joker no matter what you believe. Yet again..Get back to me when you understand the consequences of actions instead of having nothing else to bring up instead of lives being saved. Debunked yet again

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: again you are completely ignoring the question. You haven't debunked anything. Morals do hinder superheroes. Tell you what go play a game of basketball where your team has to play by the rules and the opposing team can do whatever they like to win.....

Avatar image for New_World_Order
New_World_Order

14895

Forum Posts

197

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No.

Morals a large part of what makes them heroes.

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: again you are completely ignoring the question. You haven't debunked anything. Morals do hinder superheroes. Tell you what go play a game of basketball where your team has to play by the rules and the opposing team can do whatever they like to win.....

Still not taking any time to read that. What's funny is people like you need to go take a class in Ethics if you think it's so right for someone to ignore their morals in order to accomplish something. Nothing you've said has had any relevance because all you've done is ignored everything that would go BAD if Batman were to do such a thing all because "more lives would be saved in the end." How's that old saying go.."If you don't stand for something then you'll fall for anything"..Any hero that's willing to compromise what they believe in shows that if they break once then they'll break multiple times afterwards. Compromise=Weakness.

Like I've already said Joker's fate should be left up to the city because it is their right by the law..Not Batman's. The Joker receiving the death penalty accomplishes what the deluded want but it would be done in the RIGHT WAY because it is their place to judge..Not Batman's. Morals do not hinder heroes..Those who want them to break what they believe in do

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: how would you know if nothing I said had relevance if you're completely ignoring what I write? Ok so what would go bad if Batman killed the Joker? So you wouldn't kill 1 person to save 100s, 1000s, how about millions? I guess I do have to take an ethics class because I wouldn't have a 2nd thought as to kill said person. Gotham is just as guilty as Batman and if they're not willing to do what needs doing then someone needs to

Avatar image for roboadmiral
roboadmiral

577

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

No, morals do not hinder superheroes. That is not to say that heroes don't often take stances or behaviors that limit their effectiveness but that is not the same thing. A moral is a guiding principle, not a hard and fast rule. It doesn't come with built in actions or inaction. Morals are purely conceptual, they exist only in your head.

The more important topic is the application of morals. If you defined every superhero entirely by their morals, they would all be very much the same and difficult to distinguish from one another. The great difference is in the transition into action and applying those morals. Take the moral of "truth" for example. Most people we would classify as moral place great value on truth. How exactly they apply truth is where things get tricky. The extreme would be to maintain absolute truthfulness at all times, and in no way ever saying anything other than precisely what you think, feel, or know. Another person who also values the truth might place certain restrictions or limitations on just how honest they are. They might choose to be somewhat less than honest when the honest truth might harm or distress another person, or choose to let something dishonest pass unchallenged when the falsehood is so minor as to be harmless or the benefit to be gained by calling it out is negligible.

I think superheroes often do adhere to overly strict codes but that stems from a lack of understanding the difference between a moral and the application of a moral. While morals can be held absolutely, it should also be understood they are the input, not the output. While a moral can be absolute, an action should be tailored to the given situation.

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84  Edited By Gambit474

@dark_passenger said:

@gambit474: how would you know if nothing I said had relevance if you're completely ignoring what I write? Ok so what would go bad if Batman killed the Joker? So you wouldn't kill 1 person to save 100s, 1000s, how about millions? I guess I do have to take an ethics class because I wouldn't have a 2nd thought as to kill said person. Gotham is just as guilty as Batman and if they're not willing to do what needs doing then someone needs to

So we've established that you obviously can't read..Not surprising since you keep pestering me with your same argument over and over. Saving lives means absolutely nothing if they're just going to bring the character back later on. Killing the joker and how many lives it would say DOESN'T MEAN SHIT if they're just going to bring the Joker back later on which they would. Rofl Gotham is just as guilty..Gotham isn't guilty of anything bud nor is Batman because the only reason they do such things is because it's STORYLINE. Face the facts mr.know it all..Your logic would only work IF IT WERE IN THE REAL WORLD, not the comics. Comic book logic>your viewpoint on killing the joker. Oh good I'm glad you wouldn't have a second thought because if you wound up killing someone who was actually innocent or was mistaken for another..Oh wait I forgot you wouldn't understand the consequences of such actions.

You obviously show that you don't know Batman at all and obviously don't read his books if you have to actually ask what would go bad. Batman himself has said on multiple occasions as to what would happen if he were to do such a thing. You really need to just drop it,agree to disagree,and quit responding to me because all you've ever got is that it would save lives. I don't care how many lives would be saved..A hero that's willing to break what he believes in just to take the convenient way out deserves no form of respect and is no longer a hero(or an anti-hero because even they have morals). Hell I can use games like The Last of Us which dealt with such things..Is it worth killing one girl(Ellie)just to save X amount of people instead of looking for a better way? An innocent girl who did nothing wrong but omgz so long as it saves thousands of people it must be done according to your kind of logic.

Avatar image for princearagorn1
PrinceAragorn1

31807

Forum Posts

53

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No.

Avatar image for strider1992
Strider1992

18531

Forum Posts

5604

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 10

Morals make heroes. No Morals makes righteous murderers.

Avatar image for deactivated-61bde0e570bb9
deactivated-61bde0e570bb9

3110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I was having this discussion with my co-worker just the other day.

From the sense of practicality, it makes perfect sense. How many years has Joker annoyed the frig out of Batman? How much pain and suffering does Bruce have to deal with before he finally just says "screw it", hunts down Joker, puts 50 bullets into his brain, buries him 7 feet under the ground and then nukes the entire area? He'd finally have a peaceful life, one of his most dangerous enemies would be burning in hell, and after that kind of display, who in the multiverse would ever again have the balls to start shit in Gotham?

There was a line in Minimum Carnage that really resonates this idea. Kaine just put a stinger through Cletus. Venom is all pissy, saying "That's not the way heroes work". And Kaine basically says:

"So when does it end? At a certain point, it's stops being his fault, and he kills because we let him"

I think truer words we're never spoken, the irony of it being from Kaine, who's killed plenty of people. Why is something as dangerous as Carnage even allowed to live?

Another way to look at it is to read the Marvel Universe VS series, aka Survivor 118. In this story, a virus begins to turn to people into savage cannibals who form tribes against eachother. The virus is uncurable, and slowly it takes over everyone. In the beginning, the heroes try to contain it, isolate it etc. But it doesnt work, the virus is just too widespread. Eventually, as Punisher points out, it breaks down to kill or be killed. But some of the Heroes hesitate, try to walk away with their goodliness intact. It does nothing but get them killed.

Same thing with the fantastic New Avengers series. The entire god damned multiverse is falling apart. Drastic problems call for drastic solutions. Cap tries to be the hero, tries to do the good thing, the right thing. It merely prolongs the inevitable, and does nothing to solve the problem.

But from a writing standpoint, it makes sense as to why heroes don't kill. If all the villians die, who would they fight? And there's the whole good and evil thing too. People like to see Heroes doing good things, it lets them know that maybe the world isn't such a shitty place after all.

Sorry for the epic long rant, but i hope i made my point clear.

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rd189 said:

I was having this discussion with my co-worker just the other day.

From the sense of practicality, it makes perfect sense. How many years has Joker annoyed the frig out of Batman? How much pain and suffering does Bruce have to deal with before he finally just says "screw it", hunts down Joker, puts 50 bullets into his brain, buries him 7 feet under the ground and then nukes the entire area? He'd finally have a peaceful life, one of his most dangerous enemies would be burning in hell, and after that kind of display, who in the multiverse would ever again have the balls to start shit in Gotham?

There was a line in Minimum Carnage that really resonates this idea. Kaine just put a stinger through Cletus. Venom is all pissy, saying "That's not the way heroes work". And Kaine basically says:

"So when does it end? At a certain point, it's stops being his fault, and he kills because we let him"

I think truer words we're never spoken, the irony of it being from Kaine, who's killed plenty of people. Why is something as dangerous as Carnage even allowed to live?

Another way to look at it is to read the Marvel Universe VS series, aka Survivor 118. In this story, a virus begins to turn to people into savage cannibals who form tribes against eachother. The virus is uncurable, and slowly it takes over everyone. In the beginning, the heroes try to contain it, isolate it etc. But it doesnt work, the virus is just too widespread. Eventually, as Punisher points out, it breaks down to kill or be killed. But some of the Heroes hesitate, try to walk away with their goodliness intact. It does nothing but get them killed.

Same thing with the fantastic New Avengers series. The entire god damned multiverse is falling apart. Drastic problems call for drastic solutions. Cap tries to be the hero, tries to do the good thing, the right thing. It merely prolongs the inevitable, and does nothing to solve the problem.

But from a writing standpoint, it makes sense as to why heroes don't kill. If all the villians die, who would they fight? And there's the whole good and evil thing too. People like to see Heroes doing good things, it lets them know that maybe the world isn't such a shitty place after all.

Sorry for the epic long rant, but i hope i made my point clear.

But of course all of it was pointless because Carnage wound up coming back anyways which defeats the purpose of the action. Comics don't allow most characters to stay dead therefore people fail to comprehend that their real world logic doesn't work on a world that breaks reality on more than one occasion. Kaine's also not in the right place to state who should or shouldn't die when he's done some terrible things in his past and is known as a murderer himself

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89  Edited By DARK_PASSENGER

@gambit474: I can't read? "Not wasting my time reading any of that", "still not taking any time to read that" your words not mine. I've already admitted and agreed that in a comic book world it would be irrelevant because they could just bring them back. I Simply said if they couldn't bring them back; one less evil person to worry about(paraphrasing). you are adding a stipulation in my proposal. Never did I say said person would have a chance of being innocent. I asked would you kill someone to save 100s, 1000s, how about millions? Never was it in question whether said person was innocent at all? Again way to completely miss the point. I don't know why you deemed it necessary to curse and seemingly get upset, and frankly I don't care I just thought this site was different and have gone out of my way to not swear/curse for said reason and to not get banned. Again I've ADMITTED that would stop to what makes them heroes?!?!?! Instead of squealing "Batman shouldn't kill the Joker!!!!!" Actually read the question "do morals hinder superheroes?" Not "should Batman kill the Joker?" Not "does it make them less of a hero?" Etc. Just does it hinder them? Again would it not be a "hindrance" for you to play by a specific set of rules while your opponent doesn't have to? I'm not saying you won't win. Which heroes will always do because of the "storyline" but to say they aren't at a disadvantage at least on SOME level is completely ridiculous. Agree to disagree. As a side not I do read Batman(admittedly not one of my favorites) but to presume I don't know the character or read his books just because I disagree with you on an overarching idea of all heroes is again absurd. For the record just because Batman said he would go to a dark place(yeah because that's a non issue???) or any such thing is irrelevant he hasn't done it so how would he know?

Avatar image for deactivated-61bde0e570bb9
deactivated-61bde0e570bb9

3110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rd189 said:

I was having this discussion with my co-worker just the other day.

From the sense of practicality, it makes perfect sense. How many years has Joker annoyed the frig out of Batman? How much pain and suffering does Bruce have to deal with before he finally just says "screw it", hunts down Joker, puts 50 bullets into his brain, buries him 7 feet under the ground and then nukes the entire area? He'd finally have a peaceful life, one of his most dangerous enemies would be burning in hell, and after that kind of display, who in the multiverse would ever again have the balls to start shit in Gotham?

There was a line in Minimum Carnage that really resonates this idea. Kaine just put a stinger through Cletus. Venom is all pissy, saying "That's not the way heroes work". And Kaine basically says:

"So when does it end? At a certain point, it's stops being his fault, and he kills because we let him"

I think truer words we're never spoken, the irony of it being from Kaine, who's killed plenty of people. Why is something as dangerous as Carnage even allowed to live?

Another way to look at it is to read the Marvel Universe VS series, aka Survivor 118. In this story, a virus begins to turn to people into savage cannibals who form tribes against eachother. The virus is uncurable, and slowly it takes over everyone. In the beginning, the heroes try to contain it, isolate it etc. But it doesnt work, the virus is just too widespread. Eventually, as Punisher points out, it breaks down to kill or be killed. But some of the Heroes hesitate, try to walk away with their goodliness intact. It does nothing but get them killed.

Same thing with the fantastic New Avengers series. The entire god damned multiverse is falling apart. Drastic problems call for drastic solutions. Cap tries to be the hero, tries to do the good thing, the right thing. It merely prolongs the inevitable, and does nothing to solve the problem.

But from a writing standpoint, it makes sense as to why heroes don't kill. If all the villians die, who would they fight? And there's the whole good and evil thing too. People like to see Heroes doing good things, it lets them know that maybe the world isn't such a shitty place after all.

Sorry for the epic long rant, but i hope i made my point clear.

But of course all of it was pointless because Carnage wound up coming back anyways which defeats the purpose of the action. Comics don't allow most characters to stay dead therefore people fail to comprehend that their real world logic doesn't work on a world that breaks reality on more than one occasion. Kaine's also not in the right place to state who should or shouldn't die when he's done some terrible things in his past and is known as a murderer himself

I included that little catch point. From a writer's stand point, there would be no drama, plus where does the proverbial line in the sand stop? In uncanny x-force, the team went to the future. At that point, they were killing people for having bad thoughts.

And yes, I realized the irony of the statement being from Kaine, who's killed hundreds of people himself. He even said so in a later issue, "Someone should have stopped me when they had the chance"

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rd189 said:

@gambit474 said:

@rd189 said:

I was having this discussion with my co-worker just the other day.

From the sense of practicality, it makes perfect sense. How many years has Joker annoyed the frig out of Batman? How much pain and suffering does Bruce have to deal with before he finally just says "screw it", hunts down Joker, puts 50 bullets into his brain, buries him 7 feet under the ground and then nukes the entire area? He'd finally have a peaceful life, one of his most dangerous enemies would be burning in hell, and after that kind of display, who in the multiverse would ever again have the balls to start shit in Gotham?

There was a line in Minimum Carnage that really resonates this idea. Kaine just put a stinger through Cletus. Venom is all pissy, saying "That's not the way heroes work". And Kaine basically says:

"So when does it end? At a certain point, it's stops being his fault, and he kills because we let him"

I think truer words we're never spoken, the irony of it being from Kaine, who's killed plenty of people. Why is something as dangerous as Carnage even allowed to live?

Another way to look at it is to read the Marvel Universe VS series, aka Survivor 118. In this story, a virus begins to turn to people into savage cannibals who form tribes against eachother. The virus is uncurable, and slowly it takes over everyone. In the beginning, the heroes try to contain it, isolate it etc. But it doesnt work, the virus is just too widespread. Eventually, as Punisher points out, it breaks down to kill or be killed. But some of the Heroes hesitate, try to walk away with their goodliness intact. It does nothing but get them killed.

Same thing with the fantastic New Avengers series. The entire god damned multiverse is falling apart. Drastic problems call for drastic solutions. Cap tries to be the hero, tries to do the good thing, the right thing. It merely prolongs the inevitable, and does nothing to solve the problem.

But from a writing standpoint, it makes sense as to why heroes don't kill. If all the villians die, who would they fight? And there's the whole good and evil thing too. People like to see Heroes doing good things, it lets them know that maybe the world isn't such a shitty place after all.

Sorry for the epic long rant, but i hope i made my point clear.

But of course all of it was pointless because Carnage wound up coming back anyways which defeats the purpose of the action. Comics don't allow most characters to stay dead therefore people fail to comprehend that their real world logic doesn't work on a world that breaks reality on more than one occasion. Kaine's also not in the right place to state who should or shouldn't die when he's done some terrible things in his past and is known as a murderer himself

I included that little catch point. From a writer's stand point, there would be no drama, plus where does the proverbial line in the sand stop? In uncanny x-force, the team went to the future. At that point, they were killing people for having bad thoughts.

And yes, I realized the irony of the statement being from Kaine, who's killed hundreds of people himself. He even said so in a later issue, "Someone should have stopped me when they had the chance"

Yeah it's pretty much one of the things Batman brings up if he crosses that line..It'd be a path he'd never return from. Where would it stop? Batman already brutally injures or cripples people..Did that guy just steal that lady's purse? Don't worry Batman will kill him. Stuff like that is what I think those who are for heroes like Bats killing tend to ignore because they don't understand the consequences of such actions.

Something I forgot to mention is that even if they did kill the Joker..Every time a villain is killed and brought back they usually do something worse than before to make that "impact" that they're back. When Joker "disappeared" for a while after he got his face cut off, he came back and was more deadlier than normal.

Avatar image for deactivated-61bde0e570bb9
deactivated-61bde0e570bb9

3110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rd189 said:

@gambit474 said:

@rd189 said:

I was having this discussion with my co-worker just the other day.

From the sense of practicality, it makes perfect sense. How many years has Joker annoyed the frig out of Batman? How much pain and suffering does Bruce have to deal with before he finally just says "screw it", hunts down Joker, puts 50 bullets into his brain, buries him 7 feet under the ground and then nukes the entire area? He'd finally have a peaceful life, one of his most dangerous enemies would be burning in hell, and after that kind of display, who in the multiverse would ever again have the balls to start shit in Gotham?

There was a line in Minimum Carnage that really resonates this idea. Kaine just put a stinger through Cletus. Venom is all pissy, saying "That's not the way heroes work". And Kaine basically says:

"So when does it end? At a certain point, it's stops being his fault, and he kills because we let him"

I think truer words we're never spoken, the irony of it being from Kaine, who's killed plenty of people. Why is something as dangerous as Carnage even allowed to live?

Another way to look at it is to read the Marvel Universe VS series, aka Survivor 118. In this story, a virus begins to turn to people into savage cannibals who form tribes against eachother. The virus is uncurable, and slowly it takes over everyone. In the beginning, the heroes try to contain it, isolate it etc. But it doesnt work, the virus is just too widespread. Eventually, as Punisher points out, it breaks down to kill or be killed. But some of the Heroes hesitate, try to walk away with their goodliness intact. It does nothing but get them killed.

Same thing with the fantastic New Avengers series. The entire god damned multiverse is falling apart. Drastic problems call for drastic solutions. Cap tries to be the hero, tries to do the good thing, the right thing. It merely prolongs the inevitable, and does nothing to solve the problem.

But from a writing standpoint, it makes sense as to why heroes don't kill. If all the villians die, who would they fight? And there's the whole good and evil thing too. People like to see Heroes doing good things, it lets them know that maybe the world isn't such a shitty place after all.

Sorry for the epic long rant, but i hope i made my point clear.

But of course all of it was pointless because Carnage wound up coming back anyways which defeats the purpose of the action. Comics don't allow most characters to stay dead therefore people fail to comprehend that their real world logic doesn't work on a world that breaks reality on more than one occasion. Kaine's also not in the right place to state who should or shouldn't die when he's done some terrible things in his past and is known as a murderer himself

I included that little catch point. From a writer's stand point, there would be no drama, plus where does the proverbial line in the sand stop? In uncanny x-force, the team went to the future. At that point, they were killing people for having bad thoughts.

And yes, I realized the irony of the statement being from Kaine, who's killed hundreds of people himself. He even said so in a later issue, "Someone should have stopped me when they had the chance"

Yeah it's pretty much one of the things Batman brings up if he crosses that line..It'd be a path he'd never return from. Where would it stop? Batman already brutally injures or cripples people..Did that guy just steal that lady's purse? Don't worry Batman will kill him. Stuff like that is what I think those who are for heroes like Bats killing tend to ignore because they don't understand the consequences of such actions.

Something I forgot to mention is that even if they did kill the Joker..Every time a villain is killed and brought back they usually do something worse than before to make that "impact" that they're back. When Joker "disappeared" for a while after he got his face cut off, he came back and was more deadlier than normal.

As Wolverine would say, some people just need killing though. Can you really disagree that it's just dumb that Carnage is allowed to breathe oxygen?

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93  Edited By Gambit474

@rd189 said:

@gambit474 said:

@rd189 said:

@gambit474 said:

@rd189 said:

I was having this discussion with my co-worker just the other day.

From the sense of practicality, it makes perfect sense. How many years has Joker annoyed the frig out of Batman? How much pain and suffering does Bruce have to deal with before he finally just says "screw it", hunts down Joker, puts 50 bullets into his brain, buries him 7 feet under the ground and then nukes the entire area? He'd finally have a peaceful life, one of his most dangerous enemies would be burning in hell, and after that kind of display, who in the multiverse would ever again have the balls to start shit in Gotham?

There was a line in Minimum Carnage that really resonates this idea. Kaine just put a stinger through Cletus. Venom is all pissy, saying "That's not the way heroes work". And Kaine basically says:

"So when does it end? At a certain point, it's stops being his fault, and he kills because we let him"

I think truer words we're never spoken, the irony of it being from Kaine, who's killed plenty of people. Why is something as dangerous as Carnage even allowed to live?

Another way to look at it is to read the Marvel Universe VS series, aka Survivor 118. In this story, a virus begins to turn to people into savage cannibals who form tribes against eachother. The virus is uncurable, and slowly it takes over everyone. In the beginning, the heroes try to contain it, isolate it etc. But it doesnt work, the virus is just too widespread. Eventually, as Punisher points out, it breaks down to kill or be killed. But some of the Heroes hesitate, try to walk away with their goodliness intact. It does nothing but get them killed.

Same thing with the fantastic New Avengers series. The entire god damned multiverse is falling apart. Drastic problems call for drastic solutions. Cap tries to be the hero, tries to do the good thing, the right thing. It merely prolongs the inevitable, and does nothing to solve the problem.

But from a writing standpoint, it makes sense as to why heroes don't kill. If all the villians die, who would they fight? And there's the whole good and evil thing too. People like to see Heroes doing good things, it lets them know that maybe the world isn't such a shitty place after all.

Sorry for the epic long rant, but i hope i made my point clear.

But of course all of it was pointless because Carnage wound up coming back anyways which defeats the purpose of the action. Comics don't allow most characters to stay dead therefore people fail to comprehend that their real world logic doesn't work on a world that breaks reality on more than one occasion. Kaine's also not in the right place to state who should or shouldn't die when he's done some terrible things in his past and is known as a murderer himself

I included that little catch point. From a writer's stand point, there would be no drama, plus where does the proverbial line in the sand stop? In uncanny x-force, the team went to the future. At that point, they were killing people for having bad thoughts.

And yes, I realized the irony of the statement being from Kaine, who's killed hundreds of people himself. He even said so in a later issue, "Someone should have stopped me when they had the chance"

Yeah it's pretty much one of the things Batman brings up if he crosses that line..It'd be a path he'd never return from. Where would it stop? Batman already brutally injures or cripples people..Did that guy just steal that lady's purse? Don't worry Batman will kill him. Stuff like that is what I think those who are for heroes like Bats killing tend to ignore because they don't understand the consequences of such actions.

Something I forgot to mention is that even if they did kill the Joker..Every time a villain is killed and brought back they usually do something worse than before to make that "impact" that they're back. When Joker "disappeared" for a while after he got his face cut off, he came back and was more deadlier than normal.

As Wolverine would say, some people just need killing though. Can you really disagree that it's just dumb that Carnage is allowed to breathe oxygen?

The alternative isn't better..If they killed Carnage then how are they any better than him? The thing about Wolverine's saying though is it could apply back to him because Wolverine,like Kaine,has hurt a lot of people..Some of them being innocent. I only give guys like Spectre,Ghost Rider,and such the right to kill because they answer to a higher power and their characters are actually able to judge someone if they're truly guilty or innocent..Whereas with guys like the Punisher,Wolverine,and such there's always been that occurrence where they almost killed someone who wasn't bad.

But like I said if they do get killed or whatever they always wind up doing something worse when they come back. The comic book world doesn't allow characters to stay dead so "killing" them is nothing but a temporary solution. The only way these guys would get put away is if the writers wanted them to stay gone

Avatar image for dark_passenger
DARK_PASSENGER

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gambit474: "Did that guy just steal that lady's purse? Don worry Batman will kill him" a purse thief is a HUGE difference from killing the Joker!!! I feel like YOU don't understand Bats if you think that IF he would take Jokers life he would take a purse snatchers there is OBVIOUSLY a HUGE difference between the two. If you don't have the respect and admiration that the FREAKING Batman couldn't figure THAT out...... seriously dude.....

Avatar image for strictlyanime
StrictlyAnime

2179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95  Edited By StrictlyAnime

I'd say so, there are a number of heros, good guys, protagonist or anything of the sort who let the moral of not wanting to kill stop them from making the big choice. Even if that villain is the most vile person to exist.

Avatar image for gambit474
Gambit474

2196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#96  Edited By Gambit474

I'd say so, there are a number of heros, good guys, protagonist or anything of the sort who let the moral of not wanting to kill stop them from making the big choice. Even if that villain is the most vile person to exist.

And yet if they compromise what they believe in then how can they be trusted? The Punisher for ex has no problem with killing however he's taken it so far that he's targeted the heroes before if they've portrayed behavior that he didn't agree with. One of the defining factors is how is the hero any better if he kills them..Murder is the answer to murder? Street level I don't agree with like Punisher,Batman,and such if they went the killing route..I only see the exception if it's someone entitled to do it,as I've mentioned before of the characters answering to higher power,or characters that obviously can't be contained through normal methods. A prison obviously isn't going to hold a guy like Darkseid(well normal prisons anyways).