Should heroes kill in some circumstances?

[acedrake]

I am asking because it seems there are some circumstances in which the hero just can not stop some bad guys the usual way, or no matter how many times said villain is sent to prison he or she comes out eventually and kill a few thousands more until they are back to prison and out again, rinse and repeat.
And if so, when should heroes kill. Be honest please. And remember, they are not real.

 

[idiot09]

Yes.

 

[kguillou]

I am SO glad someone created this topic, I think its a hugely interesting point of debate.

Its funny because i'm in the middle of reading the Injustice Gods books (HIGHLY recommended btw, some of the best DC I've ever read) and its all about that moral grey area of when do heroes cross that line.

There's one part of the story where Kalibak and hordes of parademons are invading earth and they are literally wiping out thousands of innocent people and Kalibak literally tells Superman that reason this is happening is because they KNOW Superman would never take a life and that is why they will keep coming back and destroying more innocents. Superman says "no more" and kills Kalibak and eviscerates his horde of parademons. The people cheer for Superman but Batman laments on how Superman has gone too far because he killed hordes of parademons. But what was Superman to do? Was he to spare all those monsters' lives somehow? Should the Avengers have spared those Chitauri in the Battle of NY? I think its all about circumstance and it is necessary when there is no other option.

 

[_Superman_]

I say yes. Even in the comics Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and more have killed when they had too.

 

[Quasimod0]

Yes ,absolutely. I do like it when they try their best to not cross that line when it's not needed though. Also I don't like it when certain heroes kill without much thought to it, like Batman. I wouldn't like it if Daredevil started killing in his show either.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Yes.

This.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I am asking because it seems there are some circumstances in which the hero just can not stop some bad guys the usual way, or no matter how many times said villain is sent to prison he or she comes out eventually and kill a few thousands more until they are back to prison and out again, rinse and repeat.
And if so, when should heroes kill. Be honest please. And remember, they are not real.

It can be an extremely effective dramatic device when superheroes who try to avoid killing are occasionally left with no choice but to do so, providing readers/fans with food for thought and discussion/debate. We get to experience the character's own turmoil over what they've been forced to do (some more than others, Wonder Woman for example tends to accept it far more easily than Batman) and future storylines can deal with the 'fall-out' of the killing - either on a personal ('victim's' relatives) or public (the hero being called to account) level. Some of my favourite CB stories are those that ask questions about heroes' actions - or lack of them.

Its funny because i'm in the middle of reading the Injustice Gods books (HIGHLY recommended btw, some of the best DC I've ever read) and its all about that moral grey area of when do heroes cross that line.

Some of the best CBs I've read in years

 

[Rocanrol]

Yes they should because grays are interesting and important in character development. Personally I like complex, human and relatable characters or emotions conveyed by these characters.

But at the same time death should be narratively planned, invest gravitas to the situation because, at the end of the day, is not a comendable action.

If the character is particularly polarized with this choice it should be showed the consequences of this pathos.

 

[AnneFan]

Of course.

 

[metaphysician]

Depends on the hero. Some should never kill ever, some should be entirely willing to kill when its appropriate, most should be somewhere in between ( that is, having a definition of "appropriate" that is notably more stringent than a cop or soldier, but isn't "never" ).

 

[Greenlite]

this is the new shaft thread? good

 

[writer0327]

In other words, should the hero be judge, jury, and executioner?

Only if the hero is an extension of the law, acting as an agent of the government of the land. Otherwise, let the law of the land put the villain to death after the hero has apprehended them. Heroes should be just that....heroes. And yes, I know heroes already operate outside of the law in many cases, but killing is different. There is no circumstance in which a hero should have to kill. They should be smart or wise enough to find another way.

My two cents anyway.

 

[2kt09]

That circumstance is simply put a live-action flick. There doesn't have to be gore shown to keep the rating in check, but it's easier to not think twice about the hero actively not trying to kill when said hero is a cartoon.

Though, I guess people might be more interested in the manslaughter distinction.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Like with real life heroes, sometimes killing is necessary.

The bigger issue is how to handle it, tonally. For instance, maybe a situation where our hero's best option is to snap his enemy's neck is not something that really fits with Superman.

 

[C. Lee]

Yes....heroes should kill in some circumstances. Consider them like the police. They shouldn't actively try to kill bad guys, they should attempt to capture first.....BUT....if a guy has a big old butcher knife at someone's throat and they start to cut them.....bullet to the brain.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Yes....heroes should kill in some circumstances. Consider them like the police. They shouldn't actively try to kill bad guys, they should attempt to capture first.....BUT....if a guy has a big old butcher knife at someone's throat and they start to cut them.....bullet to the brain.

Couldn't Superman just heat vision the knife? Or Batman use his batarang and knock the knife away? Or Flash just run up and snatch the knife away?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

For a guy like General Zod from the pocket dimension who killed an entire planet and threatened to kill another, killing him was the only possible option to save other planets.

The opening arc in Justice League animated series had their first battle as a team end with them killing a force of alien invaders that wanted to enslave the planet and kill the opposition.

YES. Superheroes should not shy away from killing when necessary.

 

[Polux]

Yes.

x 1.

Couldn't Superman just heat vision the knife? Or Batman use his batarang and knock the knife away? Or Flash just run up and snatch the knife away?

 

[C. Lee]

Couldn't Superman just heat vision the knife?

Yes.

Or Batman use his batarang and knock the knife away?

Yes.

Or Flash just run up and snatch the knife away?

Yes.

But what if for some reason Superman couldn't use his heat vision, or Batman didn't have a batarang, or the flash has temporarily lost his speed. The point of the thread is to discuss if there would ever be a reason for a hero to kill someone.....so for the discussion you have to come up with a reason that they can't just easily use their powers thus negating the possibility of killing.

 

[idiot09]

I have had this debate with my friends a lot of time. The problem is what starts out as a philosophical debate about ethics and morality, people have to drag in things character can or cannot do, because of their "profession" that has nothing to do with morality. For eg its okay for Capt or WW to kill because they are soldiers/warriors, but not for Superman because he is not...but isnt he exactly that when he is fighting to save the world/city? So the morality argument turns into different rules for different folks.

Another thing that is problematic is these type of discussions turn into movie specific debates that has been done ad nauseum.

My take as I said before is an emphatic yes. The way I view it is its a moral thing. Heroes dont go out to kill as a first resort. Its the very last. Try not to kill them. If you cant save innocents, or are putting innocent lives at risk for them, do the necessary thing. If you hold a holier than thou attitude, and that results in innocent people dying, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. You are not a hero. Which is why police officers can kill when necessary. You are right, these heroes are not the law, but thats what vigilantes are. When you become one, the same rules should apply.

Its a very subtle thing which very few stories can correctly address.Which is why when stories like Injustice ring hollow for me. Batman holds onto his sanctimonious attitude, when logic speaks otherwise. Its a stupid thing to say if he kills once, he will keep killing. Thats a slippery slope fallacy. Batman is a smart guy, he should be able to judge which situations need lethal force, and which dont, and if he cant he should hang the cowl. And Superman who starts as a kill when necessary attitude, soon becomes Punisher-esqe and starts killing willy nilly and goes into the world domination thing. Both extremes, no moderation. The same issue I have with Action comics #775 as well. I hope to read a story one day(Recommendations are welcome), where heroes/villains dont go to one extreme with these ideals, and actually do the sensible thing, and dont fall prey to the whole taken to the extreme characterization.

Well thats my elaborate thoughts on the matter. TLDR : Yeah kill when necessary, but use proper judgement.

 

[The Shape]

Sure. Also depends on the individual hero and whatever specific brand of justice they're dishing out.

 

[Greenlite]

So we've established heroes can kill Parademons?

 

[C. Lee]

So we've established heroes can kill Parademons?

Casper the friendly ghost would get a free pass for killing Parademons.

 

[Rocanrol]

Yes....heroes should kill in some circumstances. Consider them like the police. They shouldn't actively try to kill bad guys, they should attempt to capture first.....BUT....if a guy has a big old butcher knife at someone's throat and they start to cut them.....bullet to the brain.

But what if for some reason Superman couldn't use his heat vision, or Batman didn't have a batarang, or the flash has temporarily lost his speed. The point of the thread is to discuss if there would ever be a reason for a hero to kill someone.....so for the discussion you have to come up with a reason that they can't just easily use their powers thus negating the possibility of killing.

^Exactly.

This kind of choices should not be taken lightly, although it shouldn't be a stupidly unbreakable code of conduct.

Superman is a god-like being, a walking power fantasy. Is not by any means relatable to anything in our reality, but it can have relatable human emotions. What kind of struggles could have a god? Isolation and alienation from his kin, fear of being alone, the impotence of not being strong enough... So the story should push the hero to his limits (character arc) where he has to choose. Although MoS killing of Dru-Zod was polemic at least, it made a struggling Superman, worrying about what purpose and responsabilities he have, what means home, what means family and what means kin; take a stand and end an unavoidable and otherwise unstoppable threat.

That decision has WEIGHT.

So we've established heroes can kill Parademons?

Organic machines of war, conscienceless or amoral, mindless slaves of a world conqueror and death god. Should heroes feel guilt when destroying a machine? Tracing a parallelism... do parademons are killed or are destroyed? If there's an invading force we could argue that Earth do not have up to date xeno-laws.

 

[acedrake]

What about unstoppable killing machines like Doomsday or Zod and company. In MOS superman had no choice but to kill Zod. How can superman stop him? Specially on how early in his career he had to choose. He chose humans over his own people. Should batman kill the joker? Why is it OK for wonder woman to kill Ares? Should batman be considered as accessory after the fact for his choices of keeping dangerous criminals in prisons?