Non-Violent Superhero. Is it possible?

[Ronny Shade]

He could flirt with it.

Or give it contradicting commands because the logic patterns of french and chinese are different and make it's head explode.

 

[Iceman]

Or give it contradicting commands because the logic patterns of french and chinese are different and make it's head explode.

Or he could belittle it causing it to turn emo and attempt to slash it's wrists, but failing because they're made of hard stuff, causing it to turn further emo and try even harder to slash it's wrists and failing, causing it to turn even further emo..........

 

[Ronny Shade]

Or he could belittle it causing it to turn emo and attempt to slash it's wrists, but failing because they're made of hard stuff, causing it to turn further emo and try even harder to slash it's wrists and failing, causing it to turn even further emo..........

and it gets caught in an endless loop and it's head explodes

 

[Dangerous]

Non violent would suck.

 

[Iceman]

and it gets caught in an endless loop and it's head explodes

or it just decides to become nice and help out in the community.

 

[Dangerous]

Violence= Good.

 

[November Rain]

I don't recall the penultimate time I thought of a hero not being violent at all.


t:

FIRE, STOPPPPITTTTT

 

[Decay]

Well...in a way I always thought about this question and the answer is YES. Being a superhero means saving someone...giving someone a second chance to live. My point is that maybe if we think about superheroes we will end up thinking that they are among us. Maybe you are one.

 

[November Rain]

Yes, I wasn't saying psychic abilities necessarily have to be used in a violent manner but they could be used to calm an opponent, although the morality behind this is ambiguous as illustrated by some of Xavier's dilemmas in the past.

If a hero refrains from violence when he is under attack, he will not last long and will be unable to further help whoever he is trying to protect. The avoidance of violence can only really be considered an option when the hero is superior and can think about holding back. Supes is a great example as he constantly has to bear in mind the damage he can do to non super powered beings in combat, having to think both for himself and his opponent.

Batman is a hero who I think uses more brains than brawn and also uses the ability to escape from superior foes. The ability of the hero to defend himself/herself and others is the only level of violence that is absolutely necessary. After that, the hero can think about alternative ways to overcome his opponent.

Alright there are two ways to look at this from. The phsical equal or inferior hero or the physically superior being.

i the case of the former, the utilisation of techniques and a 'fighting' technique that allows for the hero to perhaps use pressure points within a body to render them unable to move (similar to those used in crouching tiger) would be more appropriate.

most heroes have a moral code, why not have a hero where he swears to never openly hit someone due to domestic violence suffered in his youth which means he needs to create (or use) a system around that aspect.

psychic work is a fine line, even to me, what Xavier apparently did to Jean Grey which led to the actions that were seen in the last stand (and also during the film) were well out of line even though his intentions seemed to be good.

the brain and brawn mix is always one that comes up and there are plenty of heroes that display this, certainly alot of the ones near human level feats but it's still always a mix. I can't imagine going to the cinema to watch a superhero based film about a character and there be no action scenes or even scenes were he doesn't come across as violent.

I don't see the deflection of blows as violent, although it normally opens up the opportunity for violence to be inflicted which is usually how confrontations end. it would be nice to see it happen otherwise...


i mean look at marvel, they have characters purely based on cutting loose, getting angry and going beserk on violent rages in order to deal with 'puny' people. The other end of the spectrum is feasible.

besides, we have criminals who were brought in that don't happen to be violent themselves and use their intellects to get ahead (although they do pose a threat and sometimes a homicidal one even though they are themselves beyond that).

If villains can rise above it, why cant the heroes.

 

[November Rain]

doctor strange?

strange is kinda violent, at least with his abilities.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

Is it possible to have a character rise up to the ranks of those of superman or spider-man that doesn't centre around violent means of dealing with criminals.

Um, no I don't think that the character would gain that type of popularity. Let's face it: many people enjoy Superman and Spider-man for their background story, sub-characters, personality, etc. . .but most people's initial attraction to a hero is probably determined by their physical capabilities.

So it makes me wonder exactly how important is the violence when it comes to telling a story. Do you have any favourite supehero tales where there is no violence at all?

Violence kind of grounds a conflict in reality imo; it's not necessary at every point, but it happens so much in real life[throughout man's entire history actually], so how could you present a society or the conflicts within and exclude violence? Criminals thrive on violence or the freedom that accompanies that type of behavior. Physical response has sort of been formulaic in most stories.

Would it be possible for the creation of a popular hero who (although he has violent and non violent rogues and has abilities to defend himself) doesn't inflict any violent acts on those against him. Would it ever work?

A super-hero attorney maybe.

or a being who elects to influence people mentally (also is prepared for the long haul of how impossible that would be), and sort of lead by example. Yeah, a super-hero like that is possible, but I don't know how popular it would be, if most people could relate, or if it would achieve the cult-like status of other heroes.

On a different note, the only hero I can think of that kind of fit that bill was Mighty Max. I don't think he used violence(can't remember specifically), but he had a guardian who did.

Does this show a dormant nature in us to wish to participate in simulated violence (whether as a voyuer(in film) or in a gaming experience)?

I'd think that violence was thrilling and the dangerous appeal of it adds another element to stories.

there's a lot there to think about, feel free to reply to the bits and bobs you desire.

Great thread.

 

[X-Punisher]

You are forgeting the one super hero that every good American loves

 

[November Rain]

Um, no I don't think that the character would gain that type of popularity. Let's face it: many people enjoy Superman and Spider-man for their background story, sub-characters, personality, etc. . .but most people's initial attraction to a hero is probably determined by their physical capabilities.

This person need not be a feathered footed individual. He could be the strongest hero of all, strong enough that his merest touch would lead to fatality and hence his reason for not enganging in violence.

also personally, i don't consider acting in self defence to be violent, so he could get just as much action as any other hero but instead of dealing that knock out blow, he decides to let the villain stay conscience which leads to his battles being more problematic. Perhaps he feels by simply recovering the stolen atifacts is better than putting someone away (which also gives a background into why his rogue gallery are always on the loose, instead of having them escaping every five minutes), so he engages long enough to retrieve and item than vanishes, leaving his villains increasingly frustrated.

which would require him to have great combat, detective and misdirection skills, while also having an edge and a moral guide to his alter-ego.

Violence kind of grounds a conflict in reality imo; it's not necessary at every point, but it happens so much in real life[throughout man's entire history actually], so how could you present a society or the conflicts within and exclude violence? Criminals thrive on violence or the freedom that accompanies that type of behavior. Physical response has sort of been formulaic in most stories.

I don't mind his villains being violent but that shouldn't represent the characters logic. No doubt he'll have to engage in a struggle but what if he has a right not to knock these people out or hit them. the police don't go around hitting everyone they come across, they (generally) offer a form of restrain, they don't have the right to punch the lights out of criminals, so why should all superheros feel the same of their supervillains. i know some superheroes are rooted in violence but it could offer a nice change to the norm to see someone not deal with this in the routine manner and see the consequence of his actions.

A super-hero attorney maybe.

or a being who elects to influence people mentally (also is prepared for the long haul of how impossible that would be), and sort of lead by example. Yeah, a super-hero like that is possible, but I don't know how popular it would be, if most people could relate, or if it would achieve the cult-like status of other heroes

the more i think about it, an attorney/detective batman/daredevil combo-esque character is the vision i'm getting. Maybe someone who's alter ego deals with the effects of violence on people on a day to day basis. perhaps an old criminal psychologist who can see how the villains aren't benefitting from a violent approach being used in their being captured (either loop hole in law which releases them from custody or that it enhances revenge etc). so he/she decides to do it their own way.

As for being iconic, it's all in the delivery, i see a heavily dialogue based individual, lots of thought, perhaps haunted by himself, always wanting to take the easy (violent way out) but unable to. Could really work, it seems like a fresh enough angle.
.

On a different note, the only hero I can think of that kind of fit that bill was Mighty Max. I don't think he used violence(can't remember specifically), but he had a guardian who did.

I never really got mighty max but he did have that big dude with the babarian looking features.

The closest i could get to was Dove from the JLU animation but he still engaged in a fight where he hit people so it's kinda different.

I'd think that violence was thrilling and the dangerous appeal of it adds another element to stories.

The story can be a violent story, those elements can still be there but it will all be one sided from the criminal side, the hero would always be on the receiving end of a up hill struggle. a struggle they have morally created for themselves.

imagine a scenario where Gwen Stacy dies and spidey goes after the goblin in a rage but then realises his morals prevent him from actually hitting the goblin even though it's the only thing he can think about. It just eats him up inside.

the character needs to deal with this frustration another way (if he can) and he grows a resentment for the criminals he sees at work and tries to help (especially when it's the goblin coming in).

anything like that. I can see it working in DC, i'm not sure it's light enough to be a marvel character. even though he himself is not violent, there is a lot of stuf going on to make him interesting enough as well as his rogues that begin to take advantage of this.

eventually when popularity grows he can become the moral background of an affiliation he joins, always disapproving with their methods and causing conflict with the good ol ways of getting things done.

heck his own angle maybe that he's the son of an old supervillain (has that ever been done before?).

i should stop brainstorming. I just want to show possibilities are there for it to become appealing and indeed iconic.

Great thread.

thanks, it's always nice to have a superhero thread in community everyonce in a while i think.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

This person need not be a feathered footed individual. He could be the strongest hero of all, strong enough that his merest touch would lead to fatality and hence his reason for not enganging in violence.

Good point.

also personally, i don't consider acting in self defence to be violent,

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

(which also gives a background into why his rogue gallery are always on the loose, instead of having them escaping every five minutes), so he engages long enough to retrieve and item than vanishes, leaving his villains increasingly frustrated.

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?

which would require him to have great combat, detective and misdirection skills, while also having an edge and a moral guide to his alter-ego.

a la Sherlock vs Moriarty.

I don't mind his villains being violent but that shouldn't represent the characters logic. No doubt he'll have to engage in a struggle but what if he has a right not to knock these people out or hit them. the police don't go around hitting everyone they come across, they (generally) offer a form of restrain, they don't have the right to punch the lights out of criminals, so why should all superheros feel the same of their supervillains.

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

i know some superheroes are rooted in violence but it could offer a nice change to the norm to see someone not deal with this in the routine manner and see the consequence of his actions.

Action-Man. j/k

the more i think about it, an attorney/detective batman/daredevil combo-esque character is the vision i'm getting. Maybe someone who's alter ego deals with the effects of violence on people on a day to day basis. perhaps an old criminal psychologist who can see how the villains aren't benefitting from a violent approach being used in their being captured (either loop hole in law which releases them from custody or that it enhances revenge etc). so he/she decides to do it their own way.

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

As for being iconic, it's all in the delivery, i see a heavily dialogue based individual, lots of thought, perhaps haunted by himself, always wanting to take the easy (violent way out) but unable to. Could really work, it seems like a fresh enough angle.

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.

I never really got mighty max but he did have that big dude with the babarian looking features.

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

The closest i could get to was Dove from the JLU animation but he still engaged in a fight where he hit people so it's kinda different.

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.

The story can be a violent story, those elements can still be there but it will all be one sided from the criminal side, the hero would always be on the receiving end of a up hill struggle. a struggle they have morally created for themselves.

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.

the character needs to deal with this frustration another way (if he can) and he grows a resentment for the criminals he sees at work and tries to help (especially when it's the goblin coming in).

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.

anything like that. I can see it working in DC, i'm not sure it's light enough to be a marvel character. even though he himself is not violent, there is a lot of stuf going on to make him interesting enough as well as his rogues that begin to take advantage of this.

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.

eventually when popularity grows he can become the moral background of an affiliation he joins, always disapproving with their methods and causing conflict with the good ol ways of getting things done.

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?

heck his own angle maybe that he's the son of an old supervillain (has that ever been done before?).

*heavy breathing*

Father No!

You Must Join Me! I will complete your training.

i should stop brainstorming. I just want to show possibilities are there for it to become appealing and indeed iconic.

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.

thanks, it's always nice to have a superhero thread in community everyonce in a while i think.

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.

 

[Revolver_Ocelot]

No child wants to read about a superhero who talks about his problems and feelings.

I can just see Batman staging an intervention for the Joker

Yeah, that'd be real fun to read

 

[Alpha and Omega]

You're probably right in most cases, but. . . if that superhero was Christopher Walken, I would have the strange compelling will to listen/read, if only for a bit.

 

[redmarvel]

If I recall correctly, Moondragon was pretty much of a Non-violent character.

Susan Storm could also use her powers in a semi-non-violent way... just cut off the air of the villain until he loses consciousness (she has done this to both the Thing and the Hulk)... they pass out but are basically unharmed.

 

[terry78]

Batman has beat on the Joker on more than one occasion, even though it's blatantly obvious he's much weaker than Bats. Not because Joker physically attacked him, but because of what he has done.

 

[November Rain]

If I recall correctly, Moondragon was pretty much of a Non-violent character.

Susan Storm could also use her powers in a semi-non-violent way... just cut off the air of the villain until he loses consciousness (she has done this to both the Thing and the Hulk)... they pass out but are basically unharmed.

susan has also bashed the likes of she-hulk and absorbing man at the same time into submission with her powers as well.

Rather than instances, i'm talking about a code similar to batman's non-gun one.

 

[November Rain]

No child wants to read about a superhero who talks about his problems and feelings.

I can just see Batman staging an intervention for the Joker

Yeah, that'd be real fun to read

Well the humanisation of all the most famous characters is what got them there in the first place.

There are ways to deal with a villain threat without enganging in violence, it just depends on the calibur on the writing.

It shouldn't be all about punch first and ask questions later.

Consider Spider-man 2 the movie. Parker's greatest MENTOR is seen robbing a bank, HIs VERY first Instinct after seeing his mentor in his tragic state is to go dress up as spidey and launch an attack on him. This continues right through the film...

and what happens in the end, spidey decides to engage in non violent confrontation with ock in order to eventually get him to do what was right. Even when his ENEMY attacked him, he didn't struggle and stuck to his guns.

why the hell didn't he try that out in the first place?

but to bring this to a point, Just because a person doesn't choose to inflict pain on another person does not necessarily lead to a bad story. there are plenty of good cat and mouse stories throughout history that don't necessarily have a violent confrontation yet contain all the required drama that leads to agood story telling.

 

[November Rain]

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.

they do know although they aren't always aware of it because they are used to it so their subconscience switches off the signs that it is on and only when interacting with other people whose facial expressions may change while engaging them will they then realise again.

similar to the way you probably haven't realised you've been breathing and blinking automatically all the way through today until you read this little segment and then come off automatic and start conciously (sp?) controlling it

 

[Iceman]

Alright there are two ways to look at this from. The phsical equal or inferior hero or the physically superior being.

i the case of the former, the utilisation of techniques and a 'fighting' technique that allows for the hero to perhaps use pressure points within a body to render them unable to move (similar to those used in crouching tiger) would be more appropriate.

most heroes have a moral code, why not have a hero where he swears to never openly hit someone due to domestic violence suffered in his youth which means he needs to create (or use) a system around that aspect.

psychic work is a fine line, even to me, what Xavier apparently did to Jean Grey which led to the actions that were seen in the last stand (and also during the film) were well out of line even though his intentions seemed to be good.

the brain and brawn mix is always one that comes up and there are plenty of heroes that display this, certainly alot of the ones near human level feats but it's still always a mix. I can't imagine going to the cinema to watch a superhero based film about a character and there be no action scenes or even scenes were he doesn't come across as violent.

I don't see the deflection of blows as violent, although it normally opens up the opportunity for violence to be inflicted which is usually how confrontations end. it would be nice to see it happen otherwise...


i mean look at marvel, they have characters purely based on cutting loose, getting angry and going beserk on violent rages in order to deal with 'puny' people. The other end of the spectrum is feasible.

besides, we have criminals who were brought in that don't happen to be violent themselves and use their intellects to get ahead (although they do pose a threat and sometimes a homicidal one even though they are themselves beyond that).

If villains can rise above it, why cant the heroes.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[3dman27]

the only non -violent superhero i can think of is the original dove from the HAWK AND THE DOVE

 

[Wolfwood]

The only way I can imagine a Superhero who could deal with Villains in a non-violent way would have to be indestructable. I think that's the only way he could save lives while still trying to convince a villain he's taken the wrong path.

If he's indestructable and can't be hurt, he can sit there all day trying to talk to the bad guy, while he tries stabbing/shooting/acid spraying/etc the hero. Maybe he'll eventually get through to him or atleast tire him out enough to be arrested.