Non-Violent Superhero. Is it possible?

[November Rain]

Right, i'm going to get back on this horse since i now have some time on my hands to reply accordingly

ahh, well that changes everything. I was under the impression that you were avoiding violence period.
[

not necessarily. It's quite clear that there is a necessity for most heroes to have a heavy hitter in their rogue's gallery. Any sort of confrontation with this person will lead to a fisticuffs but that doesn't necessarily mean that the hero involved is going to look for a knock out.

Spidey's done this in his 90s animation and in a few comics where he takes out regular thugs and leaves them hanging on webbing conscience but peeved. On instance that comes to mind is the first episode with the scorpion where he takes out some criminals upside down, one of them has a rocket launcher. they all rush to go and get him and he avoids all their blows and webs them up. he's isn't shown throwing a single blow, yet the confrontation is indeed a violent one.

What would happen when they tried to kill him? Frustration on their part would inevitably lead to that conclusion. Would he just elect to defend himself continuously without killing? What about an accidental death?

Well aren't villains at one point or another always trying to cause the deaths of their hero counterparts in an act of revenge or so forth. It would always be simpler for heroes to permanently get rid of their villains via death instead of continually allowing them to escape or get bail.

accidental deaths and so forths are all interesting parts that could worked into his character at one point or another, more than likely though i could see it just cementing his point as a reason for doing what he does, similar to how peter parker's reason for not revealing his identity was cemented by the death of Gwen Stacy.

a la Sherlock vs Moriarty.

indeed

Nice comparison. You basically refering to an authoritative figure who would defend but never initiate. That's more feasible.

Pretty much although a little bit more like a black belt who goes out on a night with his friends and trouble finds him in the shape of a drunken mess. He knows fully well he can destroy him but knows fully well the best thing would be to simply block his advances, restrain him and let him calm down (or wait for the appropriate authorities). A modern day superhero equivalent of this scenario would be for the black belt to smash the face in of his adversary and leave him in a bloody pile and run off before anyone sees...

Legislation would be the ideal place for a non-violent super-hero.

could you elaborate on this?

Or you could give him friends who didn't necessarily understand his ideal or purpose; they could provide a lot of conflict for him in dealing with problems and their personal reaction to him.

Truth be told, I would expect a lot of ordinary folk to treat superheroes (especially ones who work alone) with the same amount of fear as the villains themselves they are fighting. They would also i presume wish for people (no matter how bad), to be treated fairly. Obviously depending on his job/hobbies and the crowd he hangs around with may provide this.

But again if he was part of an affiliation (after being established for a while), then there is plenty of room for this conflict to come into play, with the aprehension of plenty of their foes (either he takes out someone hardcore in a non-violent manner and they look on in awe or he is struggling with one of his dangerous rogues and another team member just comes in a whacks them down, leading to a argument (or at least a build up in tension on the methods))

I can barely remember it, but I was pretty sure that Max never used violence. . .again, only because he had a lethal bodyguard.

yeah he had muscle, which is usually what happens in an affiliation, there is the adventurer, the brains and the brawn and other characters that fit around that, sometimes comical relief, sometimes not. but that works because it's part of a group and they all have their own input into the group. Similar to how hawk and dove work because they contrast one another but as a whole the unit is a violent one.

Was the Dove the one who used Jit-jit-su take downs? I never saw him hit anyone, but he would misdirect an assailant's balance.

I'll have another look on youtube. He still used misdirection to intentionally cause harm. He was looking to subdue his opponents.

Maybe morally, but perhaps differing from that. What if the main character has no sense of firm morality, but the journey is about finding that? You could have a character who committed some tragic mistake, only to spend the following period of time searching for some sort of redemption.

a character without a firm morality would be one like punisher in my eyes...

or perhaps do you mean depending on where he is in his development and from other outside inputs, it would reflect on his methods of crimefighting. passive one day, violent the next and so on and so forth in order to find a place that not only works for crimefighting but makes him sleep well knowing he doesn't think he's overstepping the mark?

That would test him, but it would take considerable balance to make him go to a certain point, but not cross a line that he may have set for himself, or one that the story alluded to.

Well spidey has been pushed to those limits before (all though his wall is killing another rather than being violent), all that is really needed is the right catalyst

It could work, but you'd definitely have to ensure that his nemisis' was/were notable in their own right. Villains are just as important as the hero, and each one could embody or showcase a certain weakness within the character. The interesting part would come in seeing how he found or discovered a solution to the query.

I don't think creating villains around a character has ever been a major issues. I think making villains is fairly easy once a good hero foundation has been set up.

The 'how is he going to do it' would probably be the catalyst for getting such a hero off the mark, it would have a mcguyver quality to it at points while perhaps detective skills and manipulation would also play a part.

He also would end up losing quite a fair bit or having to sacrifice a less of two evils for the sake of a greater good. It's not often you see heroes being bested, it could play out very well indeed (especially if readers know fully well the character is hardcore and not just a sissy who is bad at what he does).

Disrupting the internal harmony of a wholely good organization? Would the character do that? If he was so powerful, yet so wise, why wouldn't he allow the others to learn from experience?

Perhaps he is recruited and feels working in a team is more helpful on the larger scale.

Saying this though, joining a team does not necessarily mean you agree with all their methods.

Perhaps other heroes simply can't do what he does the way he does because their villain interaction (on the surface) is different. Maybehis views are idealistic and naiive, maybe other heroes have naiive views, most likely it will be a combination of both.

*heavy breathing*

Father No!

You Must Join Me! I will complete your training.

I don't consider star wars a comic based franchise, let alone a superhero comic one.

you hear of offspring of heroes all the time, villain offspring are either already born or turn out to be other villains. A relation would do, or maybe his dad may just have been a petty thug that a hero really roughed up and he took that on board (since he pops didnt deserve it). I'm not too sure yet, it's up in the air, there are a number of ways to go about it and it really comes down to what angle you are going to go down with the nature of this heroe's ability to stop crime (whether he's invulnerable or not).

Why? This is one of the best threads on here at the moment. I can't remember the last time I had this type of conversation in community.

Feel free to add more. You have some interesting avenues. It's nice to see you thinking of a creatively unique approach to an idea.

thanks and sorry for the late(ish reply)

 

[November Rain]

The use of pressure points could be a valid solution if the hero has the required level of expertise. The problem being, that when someone holds back in a fight, they tend to lose unless their skills are vastly superior.

well in order to use a pressure point self defence basis, one can imagine that you would need to be highly skilled. When i imagine this fictional system being used, i imagine a certain number of pressure points required to be pressed in a given order within a certain period of time of one another to be effective. Again this just adds more drama to a confrontation.

oh and spidey and supes hold back and are known for holding back regularly but they manage to shift stories and still come out victorious. A further level of restraint is still feasible without the loss of action or suspense.

Your second point in regard to a hero swearing never to hit someone is another restriction that can work until the fight goes against plan. Any canny villain will quickly work out which restrictions the hero is placing himself under and take advantage.

Well i would thoroughly expect for the villains to soon learn of his strategy and do their very best to take full advantage of their situations but this just means that more inventive ways of aprehension will also come into play so our hero isn't forever on the back foot. I mean even when something isn't going spidey's way, he's not going to go in wanting blood. Saying this though, if somewhere down the line he was forced beyond his control to act violently, it can all help flesh out the character in seeing how he deals with it (does he permanently change his methods, does he regret it, does he like it but still feel it's wrong etc...). I don't think those are bad things to consider, it is all pretty enriching i believe.

I agree that any form of psychic interference is extremely controversial although it seems like an easy solution for someone as powerful as Xavier to use to save lives. I agree also that a superhero film without violence seems unfathomable at the moment.

Well after watching the last stand, It seems that Xavier was initially the aggressor with his scene against Pheonix (who i relate to The Hulk in the last stand). She was misunderstood, caged, was made into a weapon. She only wished to be left i believe but she kept on getting prodded and pushed, by the x-men, by xavier, by magneto, everyone.

As for the non-violent element, for some reason it comes hand in hand which is probably one of the reasons this genre in general is seen as for kids with too much testosterone. I would love to say one of my favourite comic stories had no fighting in it but i simply can't. As for the violence although fantasy it shows that if you are above the law, you have the right to go around hitting other peeps, which although looks cool on screen I don't feel it should be a message that every single one of the greatest heroes emulate and give out.

The deflection of blows is not violent and as you say opens up opportunities for the aggressor. Continual attempts at deflection without suitable response will result in defeat as an enemy will eventually find a way through. The enemy has the advantage of not having to put up a defence and can therefore throw everything they have into their attacks.

Yeah defeat at times but there is nothing wrong with getting taken out. Every confrontation shouldn't end in a victory, comics have come along way, Villains should be worthy threats. Perhaps some of his villains, it simply would't help being violent with powers similar to sebastian shaws or something along those lines.

Any points that stack up in a villain's favour are all good ones in my eyes. Being a superhero is a terrible job with little rewards and it shouldn't be glamourised. This dude should at times be beaten to an inch of his life only to come out of battle with his moral code intact, knowing fully well he could have ended it with some letha pressure point attack (or if he's incredibly strong, then smashing a car into someone's face).

As for the intellectual criminals, I disagree strongly. The villains aren't necessarily rising above violence. They are using the best method available to them to get what they want. This also does not preclude them from using violence if this were a more effective option for example. (Out of interest, I made a thread on the portrayal of intelligent criminals in films yesterday). Additionally, violence may not even be an option for them at all depending on the strengths of the villain concerned.

you make a point, a means to an end. Saying this though i have always seen villains that haven't made any attempt at improving their fighting skills (obviously if you are likely going to be running into spidey or bats, you need to hone up on your skills, it's simple logic) as ones that don't require it and thus 'it is below them'. That's purely my perception though. In my eyes anyone who goes into supervillainary should be well skilled in combat, even if their true gifts are intellectual.

My general (slightly controversial) slant on the whole topic is that the use of violence to combat violence to defend the innocent majority is justifiable under normal conditions. As stated above, interesting thread

It is justifiable, i'm not going around saying it's all wrong but My views are that it isnt the only way to go about things and hence shouldn't be portrayed as 'the only option'

by opening doors to heroes that go about things differently will show it can be done and perhaps help cement that people can accomplish anything if they set their hearts and mind to it.


thanks for the post, sorry it took so long to reply...

 

[Daisy]

I was thinking about this the other day. Do people with lisps know they have a lisp? I'm not talking about gay men lisps, I'm stalking about Sylvester the cat lisps.

Not until someone points it out to them.

 

[Amalgamax]

Recently DC did a four-part graphic novel miniseries "Secret Identity". A Kansas teenager, who HATES the fact that his parents named him Clark Kent, discovers he does have all of Superman's powers. His activities consist of rescues - from explosions, tornadoes, train wrecks, etc. There are no super villains, and he never confronts any criminals.

When the government captures him and tortures him to find out where he came from and how he got his powers, all he does is escape. He never attempts to harm anyone no matter what they did to him. The one time there is a firefight between two groups all he does is disable their weapons.

 

[The IronMan]

Isn't there a marvel character by the name of aquarian who gets his strength by refraining from violence?Is this along the lines you're talking about?