Should heroes kill in some circumstances?

[Milk Tray Guy]

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?

Well Wonder Woman's a warrior born and bred. Killing an enemy if necessary is as natural to her as it has been to armies throughout history. Yes she has compassion, but she knows there's a time and a place for it.

If Superman has "no choice" but to kill Zod that answers itself - he has no choice, there was no other option (I'm not talking about the specific example in MoS here, because those particular circumstances have been debated over and over).

As for "should Batman kill the Joker"; if he was in a situation where there was no other option in order to save life, yes clearly - no other option is the key phrase. If we're talking the Red Hood argument of why hasn't Batman killed the Joker for previous harm caused and any harm he may possibly cause in the future, that's entering a whole new area of debate. In any case I can't see Batman ever doing that - for precisely the reasons that he gave to Jason Todd.

 

[Broseph44]

Yes of course.

 

[scifiwolf]

Yes

 

[kguillou]

In the case of Injustice Gods, I personally think Batman was being completely ridiculous when he claimed Superman went too far killing Kalibak and hordes of Parademons that were actively eviscerating thousands of innocent lives during their invasion. WTF was Batman expecting?! I think Batman has this stubborn mentality that it is better to go down and lose innocent lives but maintain your moral integrity then to temporarily compromise it to save lives in the short term.

 

[KevanG]

I think the justice system in comics should be a bit more harsh when it comes to people like The Joker. Less 'lock them in cardboard prisons' and more 'if you just killed a thousand people, then you get the chair/lethal injection'.

The 'good guys' can cause just as much destruction and loss of life in trying not to kill as the bad guys do intentionally. MOS being a good example, the whole Civil War airport fight scene is another where they wrecked an airport and that was less than ten moderately powered individuals beating each other up.

I get that comics and movies like to have interesting villains return but the fact that there's so many people like literal Nazis (Red Skull) or Mass Murderers (Joker) or beings that revel in slaughtering people (Carnage), you'd think that just for the sake of limiting the obvious and continual slaughter of civilians, some of those with less 'strict morals' like The Punisher, would be given free reign on some targets.

Think Batman in Batman Begins "I won't kill you. *Punisher enters the room* But I don't have to save you."

 

[Enriquespy]

Not all of them.

fictional superheroes have the advantage of being able to not kill anyone no mater how bad the circumstances, and come out victorious because it's fiction. If they kill anyone is because the writer wanted them to do so.

 

[idiot09]

Not all of them.

fictional superheroes have the advantage of being able to not kill anyone no mater how bad the circumstances, and come out victorious because it's fiction. If they kill anyone is because the writer wanted them to do so.

Yes for some characters there are rules. But in my perspective(I know you wont agree), its not very hard for a writer to stick to rules, and that doesnt deserve as much artistic merit as when you craft a story, that challenges the character to break the rule. It reminds me of a snippet from a Zack Snyder interview with Mark Hughes :

MH: That’s the exact point that I made about the Superman killing moment in Man of Steel. The statement in that movie [Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan] that resonates with me is, “How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life.” So what good are superhero’s rules and codes of ethics if you don’t challenge it? It’s easy to stick to an unchallenged rule.

ZS: One-hundred percent. One-hundred percent.

MH: The so-called no-win scenario is the only way to test a hero’s rules and ethics.

ZS: And it’s the only way to move forward with a hero, because otherwise the hero drowns in the mire of his own morality, in that he never can go forward, he never can evolve. He becomes an allegory, he’s a lesson, like, “This is the way to be, kids,” not a real story. He becomes like one of the Ten Commandments. He’s not like an actual [person].

MH: Like “Just Say No,” like it’s just that easy.

ZS: Yeah, literally. So you give him a real-world scenario, and that’s when we all grow up.

 

[Tra-El]

Everything Hughes and Snyder said in that interview is 110% exactly how I feel about the subject. I remembered that. Thanks for saving me text and time, idiot.

 

[JOE]

No, for the simple reason that they keep their enemies alive, Batman in particular. He could have killed the Joker 100 times, but didn't because of his rule. Then to see him slaughter random thugs, it makes no sense. Why not do the same to the Joker and be rid of your problems for good? It's lazy, a hero will always finds a way to preserve life. Against all odds they will find a way.

 

[Enriquespy]

But in my perspective(I know you wont agree), its not very hard for a writer to stick to rules, and that doesnt deserve as much artistic merit as when you craft a story, that challenges the character to break the rule.

That's an easy way to get "Artistic merit". Forcing a character to brake his rule, just means that the writer decided to brake the rule he noncommittally put upon him "To test him". Not really that original and it just means that the character can't abide by his own rules or that it really wasn't such an important rule.

 

[souperman]

I think sometimes they try to do "unexpected" things to spice it up. Also, by breaking the rules, at its best, makes for a different story. With certain characters the public knows what to expect and by breaking these rules a bit, they try to interject a bit of uncertainty and surprise.

As its worst, it is not necessary and gratuitous and without reason.

 

[idiot09]

TNot really that original and it just means that the character can't abide by his own rules or that it really wasn't such an important rule.

Or that sometimes lives of others, matter more than your own moral code and beliefs. Sometimes there is much more at stake, than one's own belief systems. Thats how someone can challenge a character, and make him grow. YMMV.

I think we can all agree pre-emptive killing is wrong, and no hero should do it. The interesting part comes here :

Suppose a hero has a no kill code. Say Daredevil. A villain threatens to destroy a block of the city with a bomb, if he doesnt kill him, and gives him a gun. DD thinks he is faking, and tries to talk him out of it, but he destroys a block. Then he threatens to destroy another block. So does DD kill him? Is he immoral for killing him? I dont think so.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Defenders S3 explored this in the last episode that I liked. DD did make a pragmatic choice, while LC was not able to.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Suppose a hero has a no kill code. Say Daredevil. A villain threatens to destroy a block of the city with a bomb, if he doesnt kill him, and gives him a gun. DD thinks he is faking, and tries to talk him out of it, but he destroys a block. Then he threatens to destroy another block. So does DD kill him? Is he immoral for killing him? I dont think so.

I'd have no problem with DD killing the bad guy in that scenario (I take it the area hasn't been evacuated) if there was no other way to stop him - but I suspect there might be fans who would criticise the writers for putting DD in that no-other-option situation in the first place, forcing them to see an aspect of their hero that they may not like or at least feel comfortable with.

 

[idiot09]

I find stories where characters face "no-win" scenarios very exciting.

 

[Micromind]

No, for the simple reason that they keep their enemies alive, Batman in particular. He could have killed the Joker 100 times, but didn't because of his rule. Then to see him slaughter random thugs, it makes no sense. Why not do the same to the Joker and be rid of your problems for good? It's lazy, a hero will always finds a way to preserve life. Against all odds they will find a way.

Eh, the "No Kill" rule of Batman in comics has other reason too, the need to keep running those stories featuring famous villain and hero.

The "business" dictates that you don't kill-off your precious characters like Joker.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I find stories where characters face "no-win" scenarios very exciting.

So do I, so long as it's not overused because then like anything it starts to lose dramatic impact. Unfortunately one writer might decide to place their hero in a 'no-win' situation, possibly something that particular writer has rarely - if ever - done before, but if the 'no-win' is starting to occur more frequently across the medium as a whole then this writer's story's impact could still be lost. I'm not saying that's happening, but it's possible.

 

[Enriquespy]

I don't always see the necessity or creativity or growth in forcing the story to make a character kill. Sometimes there is a good story in it, yes, but I don't find it necessary or transcendental.
If it's conceivable to make a scenario where the only moral, physical and logical solution is for this "no kill rule" character to kill so what? There is no character evolution here, just scripted determinism. I'd find it more interesting if in spite of it all, they manage to maintain their rule.

But I guess at this point is a matter of preference.

 

[Murdock103]

Yes. I cannot think of a single hero, where put in the right circumstances, would rather keep their moral code if it meant an innocent lost their life.

I'd actually argue that most heroes don't have a no kill rule, but rather a no execution rule.

Ifthey can stop their enemy at that moment without killing them, they will. If there simply isn't any other way, I have no issue with heroes killing.

 

[FunkMiller]

Yes. But comic book characters are fictional, so there's no reason why they should have to if the storyteller does not want them to.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Yes

Only if Superman permanently kills off Jared Leto's Joker. I will accept that.

 

[The Guard]

Yes. I cannot think of a single hero, where put in the right circumstances, would rather keep their moral code if it meant an innocent lost their life.

Only thing that comes to mind are certain versions of Batman.

It's basically a moral handicap in some versions of the character, where he knows he probably should kill in a given circumstance...he just can't bring himself to do so.

 

[Predator jp]

it really depends.
personally i don't wanna see more lighthearted heroes killing some villains.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Yes. I cannot think of a single hero, where put in the right circumstances, would rather keep their moral code if it meant an innocent lost their life.

Only thing that comes to mind are certain versions of Batman.

It's basically a moral handicap in some versions of the character, where he knows he probably should kill in a given circumstance...he just can't bring himself to do so.

Have to agree with Murdock. And I can't recall any time where Batman has knowingly let an innocent person die simply because he doesn't want to break his own rule.

 

[The Guard]

Have to agree with Murdock. And I can't recall any time where Batman has knowingly let an innocent person die simply because he doesn't want to break his own rule.

He hasn't, that I can recall, aside from letting The Joker, etc, live, and all the lives lost as a result of that. But there have been situations where he basically indicates that he's willing to.

 

[Ravagex]

Well if the world is coming to an end you may as well go all out.

Thats why I absolutely loved CW's Arrow first season. That version of Oliver Queen never hesitated to kill anyone. He was like a mixture of Batman/Punisher and it worked wonders, I never cared about the people he killed.
Batman and Superman has some special rules in this set, thats why everyone went berserk last time. Batman's very existence relies on not killing, people question "Why he didnt kill Joker like this to save himself a whole lot of trouble?" when he shoots someone.

And then Superman, the very immortal beacon of hope losing his grip and killing his rivals? That brings the question of "How come they break a God this easy?".
I've seen him forgiving the killer of Lois once at comics. Thats his purpose. He is a cursed God amongst comic universe. He has emotions like all of us but he cannot reveal them. Because he is a beacon of hope and he cant afford to disappoint us lesser beings that look up to him in our darkest hours. All he needs to be is a stone cold savior and we should respect his unbreakable iron will after everything he carried through. That is all.

Green Lantern also has these restrictions in my book. Being considered Guardian of an entire sector he is as responsible as Superman in many cases. He cannot afford to kill anyone but imprison them forever in light shackles at darkest corners of galaxy.

However, I wouldnt mind Aquaman beating his enemies half dead and feeding them to Megalodons. Or Flash incinerating enemies via fraction force. I believe its all about responsibility. GL has responsibilities towards Guardians, Superman to humanity and Batman...To himself.