• 86 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Nerdjoeyyy (24 posts) - - Show Bio

Do you think that A super hero should kill their foe? I know coming from a writers standpoint its way easier to never kill the foe so you always have them. But aside from that, would it be better for the world? What if killing gets to the heroes head and he himself becomes a villain?

#2 Edited by TheManInTheShoe (3876 posts) - - Show Bio

A superhero that kills is an anti-hero.

#3 Edited by DecoyElite (4019 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends on the character.

For the most part I prefer that my superheroes don't kill.

#4 Posted by dondave (34547 posts) - - Show Bio

A superhero that kills is an anti-hero.

I wouldn't say that, a lot of mainstream Superheroes kill, for example Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman, the Green Lanterns, Wolverine & Thor the list goes on. Killing doesn't automatically make you an anti-hero

#5 Posted by Wolverine08 (38805 posts) - - Show Bio

It depends on the character, and I don't prefer either. My favorite hero (Wolverine) kills people when push comes to shove, and my second favorite hero (Batman) is obsessed with not killing.

Online
#6 Edited by TheManInTheShoe (3876 posts) - - Show Bio

@dondave: Okay, but let's say someone who solves almost every difficult task by killing is an anti-hero. But I would say Wolverine is an anti-hero.

#7 Posted by XImpossibruX (5170 posts) - - Show Bio

@themanintheshoe said:

A superhero that kills is an anti-hero.

That's completely ridiculous.

Almost every video game hero after killing the final boss is some sort of anti-hero? No.

I've noticed people have some screwed up view of life and death after reading comics, that killing is soooo bad and how could they do that?!

#8 Posted by RustyRoy (11081 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends on the character and his situation, Superman should not kill because he's a public Icon(to the comic book people) and Batman shouldn't kill because it would ruin his relationship with the police force and truly make him an outlaw.

#9 Posted by JetiiMitra (8189 posts) - - Show Bio

Not always, and not all of them, but yes.

#10 Posted by The_Undying_Tombstone (234 posts) - - Show Bio

Do you think that A super hero should kill their foe? I know coming from a writers standpoint its way easier to never kill the foe so you always have them. But aside from that, would it be better for the world? What if killing gets to the heroes head and he himself becomes a villain?

Only as a final resort or when leaving them alive threatens more people than simply putting them away would.

#11 Posted by Aronmorales (9434 posts) - - Show Bio

I believe that a hero (anyone for that matter) should be allowed to take another's life under only the most extreme of circumstances.

#12 Posted by Spideysense44 (2979 posts) - - Show Bio

Well to me it depends on the villan if you have killed more than a majority of people you should be killed ecspecially if you always break out of prison

#13 Posted by 4donkeyjohnson (1629 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerdjoeyyy: No, they shouldn't. It also creates dumb stories like "it was my clone you killed!" so I feel they shouldn't kill

#14 Posted by thespideyguy (2645 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think the moral thing to do would be to look at human life like a numbers game.

#15 Edited by The_Titan_Lord (4696 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends on the character and the situation really.

#16 Edited by kgb725 (5958 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes some should one villain or an entire universe and some people will say who are they to determine but some are gods and others are above death itself

#17 Posted by roboadmiral (538 posts) - - Show Bio

Superheroes for some inexplicable reason are often treated as though they operate on an entirely separate rule set as the heroes from any and all other genres. If in the circumstance a hero from any other genre (be it fantasy, sci-fi, noir, etc) would reasonably use lethal force, it should be used by a superhero. The presence of tights and capes has no bearing on morality despite many people's behavior to the contrary.

#18 Edited by silkyballfro94 (1551 posts) - - Show Bio

As long as they clean up the mess and tell kids not to do drugs.

#19 Edited by Guardian_of_Gravity (2973 posts) - - Show Bio

To add on my answer on my Tombstone account, in the context of a war Heroes should be less hesitant to kill much like how Soldiers go to lethal force faster than police officers, but war has a whole different set of rules than crimefighting.

#20 Edited by LaserLambert (635 posts) - - Show Bio

@themanintheshoe said:

A superhero that kills is an anti-hero.

Anti-Hero doesn't have anything to do with WHAT a character does, it has only to do with WHY they do it.

I think adding thing after thing to a list of things characters CAN'T DO will ultimately leave you with less potential stories.

#21 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

It depends on the character and it depends on the context.

Should Batman or Superman kill? No because they are icons and their willingness to find better solutions is one of their defining characteristics.

Should Captain American or Iron Man kill? Yes because Cap is a former soldier, and Tony is a pragmatist, and the idea of a moral no-kill rule isn't associated with them.

#22 Posted by sousukesagara (137 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends on the situation, like the MOS ending.

#23 Posted by flazam (2470 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't mind supes that kill

#24 Posted by ccraft (5067 posts) - - Show Bio

I think its weird some heroes will just not kill no matter what the villain does. I liked how Spider Man was going out looking for this guy who shot Aunt May, and he was going to kill him too. So in certain situations yes heroes should kill or at least try and somehow the villain gets away.

At the end of Batman: Death of the Family, I think Batman should have "wanted" to kill Joker for what he tried to his family. Batman should have been beating the crap out of Joker like in Hush, it should have had that same effect. Batman then could have saw Joker fall of the cliff and Batman would have thought he killed the Joker. And you would have had a much big impact and a better understanding of Batman.

#25 Posted by Denam_Pavel (147 posts) - - Show Bio

Captain America should, Wolverine should, Spider-Man should not, Batman should not, Superman should not.

#26 Posted by HeckTate (1100 posts) - - Show Bio

It doesn't depend on the hero, it depends on the villain. A supervillain who robs a bank and holds some customers hostage so he can make his getaway but doesn't kill them doesn't deserve to be killed. Mass-murdering psychopaths or supervillains out to destroy entire planets/galaxies should probably be killed so they don't get out and kill millions more.

#27 Posted by WestfriesianMan (240 posts) - - Show Bio

A superhero that kills is an anti-hero.

If this is true, all soldiers that killed people in Iraq or Afganistan are Anti-heroes.

#28 Posted by RDClip (1117 posts) - - Show Bio

Superheroes should not kill.

In a legal context, they are for all intents and purposes vigilantes and thus are not given a license to kill, as it were. Soldiers, cops, federal agents, spys are all given that option by the powers that be.

In an idolistic standpoint, not killing is what makes them SUPER-heroes. It is the fact that they are better than the average person and always have a way of ending a fight without killing. It sets them apart and above just some dude with a shotgun.

In a realistic standpoint, it can become a slippery slope. If one day, a hero kills a serial killer then in a few months it make become acceptable in his mind to kill manslaughterers then rapists, then drug dealers, then embezzlers, then tax evaders. It can be likely that in a few years, that hero is snapping someone's neck for carjacking or breaking into a store after-hours.

In an ethical contex, superheroes' powers make them more responsible for other people. Even Batman has powers above normal people and thus takes responsibilty for those people. It should be inplied that superheroes are trying to make the world a better place. Summary executions are not exactly a sign of an incoming utopia.

Should there be comics about 'heroes' that kill? Sure, but they stop becoming SUPER-heroes when they start killing en masse, at that point they are anti-heroes (a central character who lacks the traditional heroic virtues) There is aways room for a Punisher-like character, it is just that it should not become the norm.

Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course. Just because Superman kills one dude in MoS, doesn't stop him from being a superhero. Just make it an isolated incident. If a superhero does kill, they should be pained about it. If they are to remain a superhero, they should have a redemption story explaining their guilt and the renewal of their heroic creed.

#29 Posted by i_like_swords (13130 posts) - - Show Bio

Anti-hero is a tough one, because it's not as black and white as if you kill someone or not. Soldiers kill, cops kill, even superheroes kill when they need to.

What I think makes an anti-hero is someone who is neutral. They can be selfish, unhelpful, have a lack of morals, and not do much to serve the public, but as long as they aren't actively fighting against good, I'd say they were anti-heroes. Deadpool is kind of a prime example. He's always concerned about money, tacos, boobies and getting revenge. His stories aren't about him saving the day, it's about cleaning up the room after he threw shit at the fan, or trying to get revenge on someone who stole his money. He's not doing anything particularly evil, nor good.

As for the thread.. people kill people. It's natural. Whether you see it as right or wrong is your perspective.

Online
#30 Posted by roboadmiral (538 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip said:

Superheroes should not kill.

In a legal context, they are for all intents and purposes vigilantes and thus are not given a license to kill, as it were. Soldiers, cops, federal agents, spys are all given that option by the powers that be.

In an idolistic standpoint, not killing is what makes them SUPER-heroes. It is the fact that they are better than the average person and always have a way of ending a fight without killing. It sets them apart and above just some dude with a shotgun.

In a realistic standpoint, it can become a slippery slope. If one day, a hero kills a serial killer then in a few months it make become acceptable in his mind to kill manslaughterers then rapists, then drug dealers, then embezzlers, then tax evaders. It can be likely that in a few years, that hero is snapping someone's neck for carjacking or breaking into a store after-hours.

In an ethical contex, superheroes' powers make them more responsible for other people. Even Batman has powers above normal people and thus takes responsibilty for those people. It should be inplied that superheroes are trying to make the world a better place. Summary executions are not exactly a sign of an incoming utopia.

Should there be comics about 'heroes' that kill? Sure, but they stop becoming SUPER-heroes when they start killing en masse, at that point they are anti-heroes (a central character who lacks the traditional heroic virtues) There is aways room for a Punisher-like character, it is just that it should not become the norm.

Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course. Just because Superman kills one dude in MoS, doesn't stop him from being a superhero. Just make it an isolated incident. If a superhero does kill, they should be pained about it. If they are to remain a superhero, they should have a redemption story explaining their guilt and the renewal of their heroic creed.

I'll go through this point by point we're on the same page.

As vigilantes, not only do superheroes not have a license to kill, they don't have a license to do much of anything. How many counts of assault, breaking and entering, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, theft of evidence, etc is the superhero community responsible for? What they are legally "licensed" to do is clearly an irrelevancy, at minimum, in the eyes of superheroes.

That carries the implication that ending the fight without a fatality is indeed the better way to go in all cases. But the criminal justice system, flawed as it is, is full of repeat offenders who only go on to do more evil upon their release. Furthermore, superheroes frequently fail to save the lives of hostages held by villains when lethal measures would have prevented an innocent fatality. It is even accepted among a great many people that there are deeds that make an individual worthy of death, making killing the moral choice.

The "slippery slope" argument is universally considered to be a logical fallacy. The extreme consequence you argue would occur is a purely hypothetical one. Anything beyond the point of the initial kill is unsubstantiated conjecture. It is possible that that may be the end, but there is no guarantee or proof that it is an inevitability or even the most likely possibility.

It is readily arguable that the world is a significantly better place when serial killers and rapists are no longer in it to continue destroying and abusing their fellow man.

There are characters of every genre that doesn't include capes and tights who frequently employ lethal force without any question of their morality. How many sentient beings did the Fellowship kill over the course of Lord of the Rings? In Star Wars, the heroes are all involved in a highly illegal rebellion against the legitimate galactic government and kill hundreds of thousands of legal government troops, yet the heroism of the rebellion is unquestioned. Some might argue that these are cases of war, rather than crimefighting, but the scale and level of destruction involved in the crimes perpetrated by supervillains outstrips real crime by miles and much more closely resembles all-out war.

I agree that for a hero killing should not be an easy thing, but the conclusion of such an event should not be a return to the vows of nonlethality that the proceeding events just proved impractical and ineffective, otherwise we really have learned nothing from these events.

#31 Edited by TheManInTheShoe (3876 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah, okay sorry, for making a post and giving my point of view. You don't have to quote me and tell me I'm wrong. It's annoying.

#32 Edited by HeckTate (1100 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll go through this point by point we're on the same page.

As vigilantes, not only do superheroes not have a license to kill, they don't have a license to do much of anything. How many counts of assault, breaking and entering, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, theft of evidence, etc is the superhero community responsible for? What they are legally "licensed" to do is clearly an irrelevancy, at minimum, in the eyes of superheroes.

That carries the implication that ending the fight without a fatality is indeed the better way to go in all cases. But the criminal justice system, flawed as it is, is full of repeat offenders who only go on to do more evil upon their release. Furthermore, superheroes frequently fail to save the lives of hostages held by villains when lethal measures would have prevented an innocent fatality. It is even accepted among a great many people that there are deeds that make an individual worthy of death, making killing the moral choice.

The "slippery slope" argument is universally considered to be a logical fallacy. The extreme consequence you argue would occur is a purely hypothetical one. Anything beyond the point of the initial kill is unsubstantiated conjecture. It is possible that that may be the end, but there is no guarantee or proof that it is an inevitability or even the most likely possibility.

It is readily arguable that the world is a significantly better place when serial killers and rapists are no longer in it to continue destroying and abusing their fellow man.

There are characters of every genre that doesn't include capes and tights who frequently employ lethal force without any question of their morality. How many sentient beings did the Fellowship kill over the course of Lord of the Rings? In Star Wars, the heroes are all involved in a highly illegal rebellion against the legitimate galactic government and kill hundreds of thousands of legal government troops, yet the heroism of the rebellion is unquestioned. Some might argue that these are cases of war, rather than crimefighting, but the scale and level of destruction involved in the crimes perpetrated by supervillains outstrips real crime by miles and much more closely resembles all-out war.

I agree that for a hero killing should not be an easy thing, but the conclusion of such an event should not be a return to the vows of nonlethality that the proceeding events just proved impractical and ineffective, otherwise we really have learned nothing from these events.

^All of this. Especially the slippery slope part, I really hate when people use a slippery slope argument like it's a solid point. Killing enemies should not be the norm for either superheroes or real life heroes. That being said, some people you can't just let live and continue wreaking havoc just because you feel like you're a better person for not putting them down.

There's also a huge element of this that I don't think I've seen mentioned in any of these posts, and that's the penal system that would take the place of killing the villain. In some cases we get glimpses of Arkham Asylum performing twisted, torturous procedures on their patients in the name of medical intervention or even just to try to gain a deeper understanding of the patients and their conditions. If the villain is going to be thrown into an institution where they're routinely tortured or likely to be killed anyway (Thunderdome-like conditions) doesn't that affect the initial decision to detain or kill the villain in question? I'm not suggesting that in those cases the hero may as well just kill everyone, I just think it should make a difference.

#33 Edited by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

No way. Jesus can't believe how many of you have no morals. Superheroes should NEVER kill. Technically both heroes and villains are criminals so the only thing that separates them would be the fact that heroes don't kill.

It's the legal systems fault that people like joker weren't put down a long time ago. Again, it's the only thing that separates the heroes from villains.

#34 Edited by Guardian_of_Gravity (2973 posts) - - Show Bio

@giantsfan576 said:

No way. Jesus can't believe how many of you have no morals. Superheroes should NEVER kill. Technically both heroes and villains are criminals so the only thing that separates them would be the fact that heroes don't kill.

It's the legal systems fault that people like joker weren't put down a long time ago. Again, it's the only thing that separates the heroes from villains.

Ergo every cop who kills a criminal and every soldier who shot up an enemy combatant is now an evil villain.

Thanks black and white morality!

Oh and thank you for insinuating that I'm an immoral harpy rather than a pleasant 23 year old mother of three.

#35 Posted by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

@roboadmiral: Use all the big words you want but tell me this. Since heroes are criminals like you said, if they kill, what separates them from the villains? Nothing. Vigilantism is a crime sure but killing leaves absolutely NO distinction between vigilantes and villains.

#36 Edited by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

@guardian_of_gravity: No did you even read? Cops and soldiers should kill seeing as it's their duty but superheros should not since they have no right.

#37 Posted by OrphanCrippler (206 posts) - - Show Bio

I think a superhero, who doesn't kill, is a villain. Spider-man doesn't kill and look how many lives his enemies have taken since their first appearances. All this blood is on his hands if you ask me.

#38 Edited by Guardian_of_Gravity (2973 posts) - - Show Bio

@giantsfan576 said:

@guardian_of_gravity: No did you even read? Cops and soldiers should kill seeing as it's their duty but superheros should not since they have no right.

Lord Doomy Murderslaughtersalot from the dimension of horrible tentacle rape and massacre has just murdered a billion adults and sexually violated a billion children.

Superman throws him into the sun where he burns and dies.

Was Superman in the right?

It may surprise you to know, but by virtually every legal definition, Superman would be well in his rights to kill him to stop him.

#39 Posted by roboadmiral (538 posts) - - Show Bio

@roboadmiral: Use all the big words you want but tell me this. Since heroes are criminals like you said, if they kill, what separates them from the villains? Nothing. Vigilantism is a crime sure but killing leaves absolutely NO distinction between vigilantes and villains.

Very well. What separates the heroes and villains is their morality. By your logic a serial rapist is morally superior to an individual who might kill a serial rapist on the grounds that the rapist hasn't killed anyone despite the fact that the rapist has done irreparable damage to the lives of numerous innocent people, and the vigilante has prevented any future rapes, provided justice for those that are past, and possibly rescued a victim of a crime in progress. I understand that my opinion on the matter doesn't provide a comforting, impenetrable line the way the no-kill code does.

#40 Edited by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

@roboadmiral: So if Batman intimidated the rapist, broke his leg, and left him for the cops you think he would rape again? You don't have to kill to stop criminals. And you saying "what separates them is their morality" is ironic seeing as if they kill they have very similar morals...

#41 Posted by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

@guardian_of_gravity: I'm not saying in extreme cases criminals shouldn't be killed. I'm saying the HEROES have no right to do it. They should be put on trial, then, if extreme enough, put to death.

#42 Edited by HeckTate (1100 posts) - - Show Bio

@giantsfan576: This sounds an awful lot like you're saying heroes can't kill but if they get villains arrested and the villain is given the death penalty you'd be ok with it . . . I'm curious as to how you draw that line. Is it just that heroes don't have the "right" of the law on their side to kill while a judge can sentence people to die "fairly?" How does a trial system factor in for supervillains? Obviously you can't really get a jury of their peers to weigh the case. Would they even get trial in that fashion or would they be considered war criminals? I feel like you didn't really think all the way through this.

#43 Posted by mikex20 (2769 posts) - - Show Bio

A hero shouldn't kill, but some villains should get the death the penalty. Joker should of gone the electric chair decades ago.

#44 Edited by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

@hecktate: Yeah I'm saying heroes don't have the right and they should be tried and put down if the trial sees fit. And are you kidding? How do they get a jury of peers for actual murderers in real life? They get people around the same age as them and have a trial. It would be the same for villains. Are you saying that because they're super-villains they can't have a trial for some reason? YOU didn't think this through

#45 Posted by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

@mikex20: Exactly. Finally someone gets it.

#46 Posted by Guardian_of_Gravity (2973 posts) - - Show Bio

@giantsfan576: There are times and places where someone is allowed to kill. Stopping someone from killing someone else is generally considered and okay time to kill a criminal under American law. In fact, not doing something when you could have demonstrably prevented their deaths can get you slapped with criminal charges.

Hence why Captain America frequently kills when there's no other viable way to stop a criminal from killing an innocent person. He tries not to go straight to killing, but all too often he's left with no choice. Thor follows the same statute.

#47 Edited by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

@guardian_of_gravity: To quote Batman on his ideas about someone saying, I had to kill him you left me no choice, from Batman: Arkham City "There's always a choice, ALWAYS."

#48 Posted by HeckTate (1100 posts) - - Show Bio

@giantsfan576: I'm saying that a villain who may not even be human, never mind actual citizenship for any particular country, can't really be put on trial by regular citizens. Hell, we don't even put terrorists on trial in this country anymore, they're detained indefinitely without trial or taken out with drone strikes. Also, how do you put someone on trial for killing people with, let's say telepathy. Our court system clearly says there has to be enough evidence to convict beyond a shadow of a doubt, and you can't really provide that for most of this. Not to mention that any actual evidence obtained by the superheroes would be entirely inadmissable in court because it was obtained without a warrant (actually every single one of these would open up counter-suits against the heroes for invasion of privacy, destruction of property, injuries caused, etc). Oh, and let's not forget that state mandated executions have to meet certain requirements in terms of humanism (no hanging, electric chair, firing squad, etc anymore) so there's the difficulty of administering a lethal injection to someone who might have skin harder than steel. Basically the options are have law enforcement target superheroes the same as they do criminals, or just allow superheroes to do what they want with the understanding that they are (for the most part) a benevolent force in society. I've thought this through. You're failing to take into account anything but the killing factor.

#49 Posted by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

@hecktate: Joker can be killed with a needle, if you're talking about someone that's skin is too strong for that like Doomsday, well, he can't be killed. Also, you're right. I'm failing to take into account anything but the killing factor seeing as THAT'S THE NAME OF THE TOPIC. And again, it is the legal systems fault that criminals like Joker have not been put to death after evidence against him (which there is). Also, in regards to telepathy killings, there is no evidence against it. It's a fictional world some things don't make sense, however, if the legal system can't prove a telepathy killing, superheroes can't either. (They may be able to detect it and claim they did it but why should people believe him.) For those special cases, the hero should detain the criminal in solitary confinement until he stops. It beats killing him seeing as, for the last time, IT SEPARATES THE HEROES FROM THE VILLAINS.

#50 Edited by The_Absolute (892 posts) - - Show Bio

Superheroes should not kill. In fact, people should not kill. That's why there are laws against it. The notion that well bad people kill, so good people can kill too, is juvenile. Soldiers, police, the courts should not kill or sentence death.

The argument is basically this, "I killed that person because ~". The justification following "because" becomes entirely subjective. Everyone who would make that statement has a reason, some personal motivation. Whether or not it's "good enough" depends on whom? Straw poll? General consensus? God?

And there is a difference between killing and murder. Technically, Spiderman killed Gwen Stacy. Albeit not by choice. And I believe therein lies the difference. Regardless of your motivations, if you choose to take the life of someone else, you're effectively choosing murder. A soldier's motivation is we have to murder them before they murder us. A policeman's motivation is we have to murder them to protect ourselves and the general public.

A villain becomes justified the moment a hero chooses to take a life. Because now, murder becomes debatable; and the ends now justify the means by which they are achieved. All the villain has to say is "What makes your means any different from mine?"