Should heroes kill in some circumstances?

[writer0327]

Alright. If you are consistent with your moral then then I understand where you're coming from. I respect that

It must frustate you though that most of the heroes kill in these films. But its cool to see atleast you are consistent with your code to ALL heroes.

Yep. Sure does.

 

[Predator jp]

the codes are very popular even beyond this genre.
people love hitman with some kinds of moral codes like no kids no women, or thief who don't steal from the poor.

 

[B]

Yes.

However obviously under the correct conditions & circumstances. The best comparison would be with the police as C. Lee said, they should not actively be going out to kill anyone ever, but if in the moment it's deemed the only way to stop them from doing whatever they're about to do, then IMO it's fine.

It must be executed, no pun, flawlessly. The manner in which Superman killed Zod for example in MoS was done extremely well. Not only because the situation presented pretty much left Superman with a choice of either stopping him or letting a family die but also because after he'd killed him he was immediately angered, sad, disappointed that he had to kill him.

Now compare that to Batman in BvS, when he went to save Martha he appeared to kill 4(?) guys with the Batwing that were shooting at him with the .50 cals from the truck, he killed 2 albeit you could argue indirectly, when he kicked one guy into the other who'd just pulled the pin on the grenade, then he killed the Russian guy & his accomplice with the LMG when he was about to kill Superman's mother.

How many of those were really truly necessary? You could argue none or you could argue all, it's a very touchy subject particularly with certain heroes that typically stand by a moral code. But for me I think every hero, even those that would be breaking their own code, as long as the situation & circumstances call for it.

 

[Primal Slayer]

The hero would likely already know these circumstances before charging in. Before going up against Darkseid, Batman knows he's going to need a little help or he will have devised a plan to take advantage of his weaknesses.

In the event that the hero is outclassed and/or outnumbered by an opponent, the hero has to find other ways to resolve the problem. Maybe brute force won't work, maybe its time to use cleverness, knowledge of the villain, intelligence or even friendships and connections with other heroes. These are the characteristics that make them heroes, that they have abilities to solve problems that others cannot.

Superman didnt go into battle with the intention to kill Zod. He pleaded with Zod and it came to a point where it was either kill Zod and save an innocent family or keep Zod alive and let the innocent family die.

No hero goes into battle with the intention to kill. It's a last resort.

 

[Rocanrol]

I am not in favour of a license-to-kill for the heroes. There at least should be a swaying, an inner conflict within the hero to anwer this impossible questions. And if there's a polarization inside the character, we should see the consequences of this path, both violent and passive behaviour.

Each hero within his own personality would take a varying response, but this is where they shine as characters, and within a shared universe, they gain even more complexity and depth when forced to choose which compromises they are willing to take to work as a whole for a greater good.

Taking example from DCEU, Superman was narratively lead to this impossible choice in MoS, taking this godly, elevated and overpowered character to a state of impotence, with an internalization of a real human sentiment.
He mourned the death of his enemy, and not only because it meant the losing the last connection to his origins, but because he wasn't able to save him.

 

[writer0327]

Remember: It is the moral code of the hero that makes him/her a hero. Take away morality and the hero is no longer a hero. Force the hero into going against his/her moral code and the hero loses.

I know people want to plug the real world type situations into these stories, but the fact is they are stories and totally under the complete and total control of the story creators. So let's talk about reasons. To me, there is no justifiable reason for a hero to kill. I get what a lot of people have said about "What if the hero has no other choice?", but these are stories, so from a storytelling perspective, the real question should be "What does killing the villain do for the story?" Because ultimately that is the question. Not if the hero has justifiable reasons to kill, but how does it make the story better if he does.

It's fair to say that this dilemma of killing villains as a last resort would only heighten the story if killing violates the moral code of the hero, correct? The Punisher, for instance, has no problem killing villains, and therefore this dilemma means nothing to him and would do nothing to heighten the story. (It would actually be more interesting, at least from a character perspective, if the Punisher tried not to kill anyone....but who wants to watch or read that?)

However, consider other heroes and their adherence to their moral code. I feel that the best heroes are heroes that don't kill, the best stories are those where the heroes manage to bring their villains to justice despite overwhelming odds. I wonder if people think it would have been better for Aang to kill Ozai. Once the hero crosses that boundary, what's to stop him/her from killing again? Screaming out in agony that you had to do it the first time? Maybe. But what happens if the hero runs into the exact same situation again? What then? Will the hero find another way this time? Well then, why didn't the hero find another way the first time?

And again, if the hero is written as an agent of the government with the right to execute lethal force against whomever he/she sees fit... fair enough, the hero can kill. But that's not often seen in the superhero realm.

 

[TheRedWraith]

If they do it once, then they apply that same discerning eye to the situation to decide whether or not it is necessary to do again. The fact the they did kill the villain once does not mean they didn't try to find other ways, it just means that they'd rather not to but their was either no ways that would have worked, or that even if they worked, many many more would have died in the interim to execute such plan and after all, what is a hero if they don't the save the innocent/victims even at the expense of their own piece of mind. The whole situation brings to mind a great quote, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

The addendum to this all is that the norm would be the hero succeeding without having to kill their enemy, but if that is the only thing that ever happens then the stakes go away, (or worse if the "hero" lets people die through inaction just so they don't have to kill, they either cease being heroes or it makes them weaker heroes) so every once in a while you throw in a kill scenario to keep that stake alive.

 

[Rocanrol]

Remember: It is the moral code of the hero that makes him/her a hero. Take away morality and the hero is no longer a hero. Force the hero into going against his/her moral code and the hero loses.

I agree with this point, to an extent. Good heroes are defined by good villains, that put their morals and ethics, intelect and knowledge, bravery and strenght to a test and make him strife and progress. Every narrative should cohesively push the hero to make a choice and live with the consequences, good or bad. A character that compromises is interesting and is always worthy to make a character study of such highlighted, archetypical protagonists like superheroes are.

I know people want to plug the real world type situations into these stories, but the fact is they are stories and totally under the complete and total control of the story creators. So let's talk about reasons. To me, there is no justifiable reason for a hero to kill. I get what a lot of people have said about "What if the hero has no other choice?", but these are stories, so from a storytelling perspective, the real question should be "What does killing the villain do for the story?" Because ultimately that is the question. Not if the hero has justifiable reasons to kill, but how does it make the story better if he does.

It's fair to say that this dilemma of killing villains as a last resort would only heighten the story if killing violates the moral code of the hero, correct? The Punisher, for instance, has no problem killing villains, and therefore this dilemma means nothing to him and would do nothing to heighten the story. (It would actually be more interesting, at least from a character perspective, if the Punisher tried not to kill anyone....but who wants to watch or read that?)

It's not about plugging "real world type situations", but real world sentiments.

I'm not in favour of the hero always killing, or normally killing, but really depends on the character. I wouldn't like Superman killing every single major villain, because that's not how the character behaves, and normally would be reproachable if done in the comicbook medium, but in a movie?
If the narrative and the story demands it, i'm ok with that. Because i'm not in favour of plot armor nor deus ex machina either.

For me, the real question is "what I want to tell about this character?". For what reason would he kill for? A plethora of reasons, if the need arises.

Yes, MoS could have driven the story better, the dialogue needed a rework, i didn't like Krypton, Lois Lane, nor Superman's eugenics miracle origin and wasn't thrilled about the phantom engine either.
But the character development was almost flawless (except for a few misteps with Pa Kent), the palpable inner conflict, his personal growth and mastery of his powers and finally his self, the further dettachment with mankind, the temptation of giving to his most inner, childish and egotistical desires and refusing them, almost like carving his heart out, to choose Earth and humanity.

And to accomodate that story and drive that conflict they wrote Dru-Zod as a mirror image of Kal-El; an opposite and equal. What could you do with this great villain, an unstoppable force revenge-driven? You cement the decision and its weight with the killing; an irreversible consequence.

Give MoS Superman the Phantom Zone Projector and every baddie turns in a Scooby-Doo villain.

However, consider other heroes and their adherence to their moral code. I feel that the best heroes are heroes that don't kill, the best stories are those where the heroes manage to bring their villains to justice despite overwhelming odds. I wonder if people think it would have been better for Aang to kill Ozai. Once the hero crosses that boundary, what's to stop him/her from killing again? Screaming out in agony that you had to do it the first time? Maybe. But what happens if the hero runs into the exact same situation again? What then? Will the hero find another way this time? Well then, why didn't the hero find another way the first time?

And again, if the hero is written as an agent of the government with the right to execute lethal force against whomever he/she sees fit... fair enough, the hero can kill. But that's not often seen in the superhero realm.

Most superheroes are not state-sponsored so they are in fact ciminals.

But I see your point, not every inner struggle or character development should have the protagonist kill or suffer from someone being killed. But this goes the other way around to, and plot armor doesn't gives no one the Disney treatment.

I, as a mature reader, want mature and complex characters. Not gritty, dark and edgy, but mature. But i'm not in favor of babyproofing either.

 

[2kt09]

But I see your point, not every inner struggle or character development should have the protagonist kill or suffer from someone being killed. But this goes the other way around too, and plot armor doesn't give no one the Disney treatment.

I, as a mature reader, want mature and complex characters. Not gritty, dark and edgy, but mature. But i'm not in favor of babyproofing either.

writer0327 spoke of something prevalent - the notion of half-assing the moral quandary and this is spot-on. Most if not all situations are in fact seeped into the circumstances of killing which writers feel the need to dumb down to "killing is wrong". It doesn't take a fictional story to realize there's a human responsibility for taking a life. The story is why OR how.

However, consider other heroes and their adherence to their moral code. I feel that the best heroes are heroes that don't kill, the best stories are those where the heroes manage to bring their villains to justice despite overwhelming odds. I wonder if people think it would have been better for Aang to kill Ozai.

Spoiler

Once the hero crosses that boundary, what's to stop him/her from killing again? Screaming out in agony that you had to do it the first time? Maybe. But what happens if the hero runs into the exact same situation again? What then? Will the hero find another way this time? Well then, why didn't the hero find another way the first time?

And again, if the hero is written as an agent of the government with the right to execute lethal force against whomever he/she sees fit...fair enough, the hero can kill. But that's not often seen in the superhero realm.

Spoiler

Aang wanted to stop his opponent in a way that didn't end in the kind of loss he coincidentally escaped from and never knew about, the kind of loss he and his friends have encountered directly or indirectly just enough to realize there must be a way to end this nightmare with the best possible outcome. It would be just as mature or even more so if Aang has to accept that killing the final boss will undoubtedly create ripple effects he is willing to take on head on since that's a valid closure to his arc. The issue instead remains that the loophole devised is bigger than any other this universe established. The level of plot armor its distant sequel takes advantage of and abuses to its own detriment.

An agent of the government is almost always utilized to put the magnifying glass on the government. The individual becomes too easy to disregard.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Found this from a couple of years back,

"To Kill Or Not To Kill, That Is The Question

I have to confess, I never grow tired of reading people’s opinions as to whether superheroes should or should not kill... "


http://comicwhisperer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/to-kill-or-not-to-kill-that-is-question.html

Some of the guy's examples are actually from Elseworld type stories, but whichever side of the fence you're on it's an interesting read.