drummodino said:
People are saying by breaking his code he'll just end up killing every villain who shows up. To me this is a flawed way of thinking. Soldiers kill people. Police kill people. WHEN THEY HAVE TO. Someone like Superman who has been raised to have sterling moral values will not kill lightly. He will do it only when he has to - like a hell of a lot of people today. These people aren't psychos or maniacs. They are heroes - doing it so that no one else will have to. They are the protectors of our society. So to me a Superman willing to kill, but not wanting to is a far more heroic and respectable superhero than one who won't.
(Next post if you want to hear my actual thoughts on Supes specifically.)
^This. I have always hated comics like Kingdom Come and other similar media for heroes like Superman that always portray the idea that if this "no kill" hero decides to kill, that they'll just morph straight into a totalitarian dictator or psychotic serial killer, (or both) when the hero would have had to be a complete psychopath already for that to happen. What would REALLY happen in all likelihood is the hero might give the deceased a moment of silence, deal with the body, maybe muse over it for a while, then get right back to saving people like always. A hero deciding to kill once, or even several times doesn't make them a villain, especially if it's only done after it's become obvious that the villain(s) are completely irredeemable, any more than a villain taking pity on and saving say, a puppy suddenly makes them a hero.
I think what I hate most is that the villain that the hero kills for this to happen MORE than deserves it by any objective standard. The Joker is a complete maniac that has killed untold millions of people and will only ever kill more, Darkseid is a pure evil sociopath dictator that tortures and kills his own people by the millions and wants to kill the ENTIRE universe, etc. yet, if a "no kill" hero decides to kill them, somehow that makes them evil. No, the opposite in fact, that makes them GOOD. Heroes who refuse to kill villains that are complete monsters despite plenty of opportunity are just as responsible for the deaths that those villains cause from then on as the villains themselves.
I hear what people always say about this "heroes aren't supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner!" Uh... why not? I can understand them not killing some random thug that they could easily stop and who could possibly be rehabilitated or a villain who's crimes are much more subtle, but a mass murdering sociopath who makes their crimes painfully obvious and it's quite clear will NEVER change? The Judge and Jury system exists because of the ambiguity of guilt or innocence in most crimes, if all crimes and who committed them were plain for all to see like with comic book villains then there would be no need for it. I mean, lock em up the first time, second time even, but after that the heroes are pretty much aiding and abetting by not killing them after that.
I think the worst thing about these "hero jumps right to evil if he kills" stories like Kingdom Come and so forth is that their intended to be and used by the fans as justification for continuing the "no kill" mindset of the heroes. It's the worst because those stories are WILDLY exaggerated versions of the worst case scenario of a hero killing, and as such doesn't justify the position in the least. It's saying "heroes shouldn't kill because (points to Kingdom Come or whatever) THIS would happen" Uh... no, it wouldn't, at least not if the writers were writing the comics in a if not realistic at least a halfway logical manner, instead of like they're shooting up enough drugs to O.D. a small country's worth of people.
Besides all that, we all know the REAL reason why heroes don't usually kill villains, because then the writers would have to come up with a new villain EVERY month, and that would be a strain on the imaginations of even the most imaginative writers.
