why heroes dont kill

That whole, "You kill the villain you're no better than them" speech is dumb. People like Wolverine and his X-Force squad have killed a good handful of villains before and sure they're a little messed up because of it but they eventually got over it because they know had that villain been allowed to live and escaped from jail like they inevitably will, they'll end up killing countless civilians each and every time. How many people has Joker killed after escaping from Arkham how many times? Batman does nothing about it after he's thrown into the easily escapable jail cell and apparently Gotham's courts haven't done anything considering the clown prince is still laughing and hasn't had a needle injected in his arm

Because they don't. We all have lines that we don't cross and I think it's important that heroes do as well.

STOP Putting spoilers many people havent watched the man of steel. I havent. Are you retarded. THANKS TO SPOILING ME THE MOVIE YOU MORON

It seems to me that a really good lawyer could sue the justice system, superheroes etc. for all the murders, injuries, damage that has been caused by the villains that are not removed PERMANENTLY from society. Big bucks.......anybody?

They wouldn't be heroes if they killed. I'm surprised no cop has shot Joker on sight, when he's in jail.

In Comics:

1. Because it's morally wrong

2. The would become murderers, thus, criminals

3. They don't want to cross a line that can lead down a slippery slope

In Real Life:

1. If they kill all of their villains, they would have no one left to fight, thus, the comic would end

2. The Joker is too good of a character to kill.

Gosh I wish I could remember what Batman says because he's explained it multiple times now as to why he doesn't do things like kill the Joker. He's explained in Batman under the hood animated film,in Arkham City video game,some comics,and other places..but most of the time he pretty much said that if he killed the Joker then he would be no better then him or any of the other guys he locks up. Bats holds himself together and tries to not let himself fall to the madness that his villains embrace their selves in. Superman has killed if I recall but only in very extreme situations and only when he had no other choice

When it comes to if a hero has to kill a villain..I think Thor explained it perfectly in a recent issue of Uncanny Avengers. Thor-"We are warriors,and warriors,in times of conflict,must kill an opponent when there are innocents at risk and no other options."

There are plenty of soldiers who have killed people and don't go down this slippery slope you speak of. Part of being a hero (or any type of leader) is being able to make the tough decisions and having people trust you to do it. If you're afraid you're on the verge of going crazy, you probably shouldn't be pretending to be a hero. The slippery slope argument is a weak excuse for characters who can't control themselves. Captain America is a perfect example, kill during a war, and still be a great leader after.

Because of the comics code.

@laserlambert:

Comics code hardly exists anymore in regards to killing.

You can have people like wolverine killing left and right, and Joker kills people all the time.

I don't think that's the main issue.

OP, there are like 50 of these threads, one of which isn't more than two months old.

As for the question, most superheroes don't kill because they need to have a moral code to separate them from sociopaths. The public wouldn't accept someone as a hero if they go around disregarding the law and murdering anyone they decided needed to die. Superheroes like Superman and Batman are not authorized by any government or public body to be able to kill like a soldier or the police.

In Batman Begins, Bruce says that since he has mercy and criminals don't, him not killing is important. It sets heroes above vigilantes. Heroes need a moral code because if they start killing, how long before Batman starts to torture or badly maim criminals? How long before Superman decides the human government isn't working and he should just take over and force everyone to obey him. A story can be made about a hero killing, but it should be a last resort and they should show remorse for the action.

@trollheim: @trollheim: Not a very good comparison. DBZ may have top quality action, but the villains are nothing secial. DBZ is not known for.deep, well thought out interesting characters. For the most part, they just are what they are.

The reason we look up these "heroes" is because they have unshakeable morals and represent the human ideals that our world strives for. That's why so many people look up to Superman more than say, the Punisher.

*No comment on Man of Steel.*

Then look at Metal Gear. Most of the villains are killed off and they're incredibly well written.

@deaditegonzo: Does it though?

I refuse to believe that killing super villainous beings such as Joker (or any of Batman's rogues for that matter) and Luthor would lead to a slippery slope that results in the Justice Lords or Injustice: Gods Among Us. Why should it? Who says its about "being better than them." That kind of superiority complex leads to heroes being the accomplices of villains in some cases (as Luthor pointed out in JL). If they were truly heroes, they wouldn't care what people think about them and just get the job done. Particularly if you know that putting away the bad guy never really quite cuts the mustard. Otherwise, why would you bother? To uphold some unrealistic ideal that no one is interested in following? To make yourself feel better?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying these guys should off anyone that commits a crime - again, none of this has to lead to dictatorship. However, when dealing with someone with the history and lethality of, say, Doctor Octopus, at some point a line has to be drawn...is all I'm saying.

@trollheim: Again, it isn:t the same. In.comics, the best villains help define the heroes with complex relationships between them. Killing the very popular villain,.logical from an instory POV, takes something away from the hero in a way. And it isn't easy as 1, 2, 3 to.replace all that history and conflict with a new villain.

@blackwind:

Exactly. We can argue about wether Bats' right or wrong all day, but bottom line is:

Batman's rogues gallery is to well known and loved by fans for him to start killing them off.

It just won't happen.

God I wish people would think of it like that, it's getting pretty ridiculous with the name calling and fighting on this thread. It's comics, not real life, if heroes started killing their villains they would have to keep making new ones.

@ximpossibrux would you really want Deathstoke be killed in canon? and for what, to have comics to be more realistic? Come on! Only way I'm fine with killing is if it's Elseworld or a movie like MoS or Batman TDK

@battle_forum_junkie: eh their would be some villians i would be fine with dying like ventriloquist and the great white shark

From a meta standpoint, heroes can't kill off their villains simply because of sales.

From an In-Universe standpoint, I'd say it's more of the justice systems fault because the heroes job is just to beat up and capture the bad guys while the authorities handle the rest. But for some reason, they can never grow a pair and properly punish the villains, thus this leads to the villains breaking out and killing more innocents.

Seriously, Gotham would be one of the safest cities in America if the law system would just stop being stupid and throw Joker in the electric chair already.

@ownagepants: Joker did get the electric chair but he got better.

Its to keep morals in place would you let a kid watch superman if he killed every villain heat vision everywhere it is just bad but it seems iron man is shooting everyone full of lead in iron man 3

@ownagepants: Democrats

Because Suicide Squad is a great idea and is often a great book. Where is big momma Waller gonna get recruits if Batman, Superman and everyone kills em all?

Check out the Justice League episode, Justice Lords (I think the comic Superman/Batman had a story arc similar to this as well) if you want to know why superheroes should not kill. You don't want to live in a society where superheroes use their powers to its fullest capabilities. Not unless you want to live under their dominion. All it takes is justifying killing a guy like the Joker before you start justifying killing or imprisoning anyone that may pose a risk to society.

the obvious ethic aside, there is another reason to point out is interrogation work better if the villain still alive. Criminals may know something important it is very important reason not to kill them.

Speaking of police protocols, most heroes are not cops or even deputized. Police already have enough to question the heroes for breaking and entering, assault, leaving at the scene of a crime, property damage and other felonies.

Soldiers and Cops kill and we consider them heroes. But it's a paradox! Once you kill, you're just like them! How can these two facts co-exist? A hero killing? Simple. I just blew your mind.

Because heroes are seperated in two categories the tradional law abiding heroes and the anti heroes that beleive the end justifie the means. Me I never cared for anti heroes but they serve a purpose, so to all those wanteing the tradionalist to kill I say this stop enforcing demanding they should kill. If you want heroes to kill go read Punisher, Wolverine, Authority, Deadpool and a bunch of Black Ops team books thats were you should be reading Anti Heroes if you hate tradional super heroes.

Porque it separates them from the villains.

but people like cops are authorized by law to use lethal force if necessary. What happens if a cop or a soldier just starts killing people without provocation? They get jailed and dishonorably discharged, right?

Granted, heroes like Batman have been provoked many times, but they are not authorized by law to kill even though it's what's needed, it's not there place to do so, it's the law's. If they kill without the law's authorization they are, by definition, murderers.

@battle_forum_junkie: @addikhabbo: wow you brought back an onld one this was one of the first forums i ever talked in.

That's wartime, it's different.

Why? Because it is.

the question is why these vilians cant be detained better of given a death penalty

I have no problem with a hero not killing his villains, but those times when the hero goes out of their way to rescue a villain that I have an issue with. For instance there was once a story arc where Captain America had to save Red Skull from Magneto, what the hell is that? Cap knows for a fact that Red Skull is an irredeemable monster and a constant threat to the entire world, what possible good could come out of him still being alive?

@battle_forum_junkie: So what you're telling me is, once Superman becomes a cop, he can kill so long as its legal?

@joshmightbe: Publicity.

Well, yes. If he becomes a cop then he will have the authorization to take a life when necessary.

People need to stop always starting these threads over and over. It's pointless, the reason villains are never killed permanently is not because of in-universe reasons most of the time. It's real world reasons, lack of creativity on the part of the writing stuff or the fact that the conservatism of the readership means that introducing a new villain is usually an effort doomed for failure. The vast majority of comic readers (which unlike people in this site like to believe) are not the people who come on the vine. There's a reason why some comics with unoriginal storylines sell like crazy. Too many readers like seeing the joker over and over (this is not meant as a negative comment on him as a character).

So what does the editorial staff and the business line do, since they are in this business to make money? They keep them around so they can be used again. So what happens it creates a constant vicious circle of ever increasing ridiculousness as to why these villains are either not dead, or imprisonned so deep and securely that they would never escape. So the only choice is for everyone in this universe with the authority to punish and enforce the law to be either actually horribly incompetent or for situations to be so horribly farfetched and ridiculous as that the villains can still be around. And at the end, what happens, a character with a firm no killing police finds himself in an ever increasing spiral of stories where no progress or change is made as the core concept of the character has as a building block his opposition to killing.

Now, people. Please, enough of these "why doesn't batman kill the joker?" threads. They are pointless and no appropriate in-world satisfactory explanation exists. He's alive because he makes money and readers keep him alive.

That's it, end of story.

Mostly because of a guy named Fredric Wertham. He wrote a fun book called "The Seduction of the Innocent" in '54 (which is, by the by, full of all kinds of scientific inaccuracies as well as out-and-out lies) blaming comic books-- and by association superheroes-- for pretty much anything that ailed the youth of his day. Despite it being a deplorable example of scientific research it caught on rather well and stirred up quite the firestorm and nearly destroyed the comics industry. For decades thereafter comics would watch their step, following to the letter the Comic Code Authority's draconian standards of wholesomeness. Among these were that heroic characters were always to respect and uphold the law and never allowed to kill. Over the decades people grew accustomed to these shackles and even placed great value upon them, giving rise to the nonsensical but vehemently defended no-kill code.

To both amusing and irritating results, people seem only to apply this misapprehension of morality to superheroes and not the heroic figures of any other genre. After all, Indiana Jones kills dozens of German soldiers and Luke Skywalker ended thousands of lives when he blew up the Death Star.