Poll: Super-heroes and killing?

[WolfThomas]

I tried searchbar-ing this unsuccessfully.

So here we go, I see a lot of arguments about super-heroes about whether or not it's a good or bad thing if they kill or don't. For example Batman and Superman's rule of never killing what ever the circumstance compared to Wolverine and the Punisher's piles of corpses.

What do you think?

I see it as an issue that is polarized too often in comics. I believe Super-heroes should avoid killing an opponet but that there's situations where it's necessary to kill. Now I will divide this into too parts, government approved superheroes and vigilante superheroes.

I believe government approved Superheroes should have the similar rules to soliders and police. Certainly they do not want to kill, but if a criminal won't lower their gun a police officer will have to shoot them how is this different with Green Goblin and say a pumpkin bomb. They should have the authority to use deadly force when the lives of civillians, teammates or themselves is threatened. If they abuse this power it should be reviewed, but generally it like a police officer shooting a criminal, generally without a huge inquiry.

With vigilante heroes I believe they need to be try the hardest not to kill, but should have the same rights of self-defence as an ordinary citizen to kill in extreme circumstances that threaten their lives or other. However they must be prepared to face a police investigation/court hearing for their actions no matter how just it may be at the time. Whether or not they have to remove their mask is an issue for another day, but they should act with the same responsibilty all citizens have.

I think another important point is the level of a heroes abilities and that of the criminal. For example if Hawkeye killed Dr Doom (bah it's just a doombot!) with an arrow through the eye it's largely justified as Doom has both magic and crazy gadgets, you don't know what he could do. But if Superman threw the joker into space, I think it's an abuse of his powers, when he could have easily restrained him and left him for police (whether the justice system works is another issue I guess).

TLR? SUPER HERO KILL GOOD OR BAD GRRR!

 

[Betancore]

When it's necessary, sure. They wouldn't be much of a superhero if they just went around killing for fun. That puts them down to the level of the villain, right? Your point about the justice system is also pretty interesting - should the police and superheroes work together? Because if you allow the superhero to take the law into his/her own hands, then it's up to them whether or not they think they should kill. One person should not be allowed to play god. Just because you have superpowers, does not mean you have the right to kill your enemies, no matter how corrupt the justice system is.

 

[irequirefood]

They need to be able to kill only when absolutely necessary. If they don't, the villain will come back to haunt them, killing more and more innocents, which, in turn, will leave blood on the superhero's hands for not finishing them off when he/she had the chance.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

Creating a hard rule that no hero should ever kill just helps to make the whole genre less creative and blurs the lines between the achetypes.

As a general rule it seems like most Superheroes don't try to kill their enemies.
Individual characters like Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Iron Man or The Flash or hero teams like the JLA, Avengers or the X-Men never seem to go out of their way to kill their villains, but if it happens nobody really bats an eye at it. Given the high stakes of most Superhero/supervillain fights it's to be expected that some death is going to occur from time to time.

However you do have those characters who stand out. Wolverine and The Punisher are trained killers. It's part of what makes them stand out amongst the other heroes on the other hand you have Batman who will not kill another person.

Spoiler

This is why I had issues with the ending to JLA: Crisis on 2 earths. Batman just straps Owlman to his big Quantum bomb thing and sends him off to die. That's not just standing by and letting nature take it's course, that is Batman actively killing another person. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Anyway, I think it's best if most of the heroes of these stories try to avoid killing as much as possible. It helps to identify them as the heroes of the stories and makes the occasional hero related death more dramatic.

Take a look at the early Image titles like Youngblood for a good comparison. That was a team made up entirely of Wolverines and Punishers and it was completely asinine. All the drama is drained out of a story when the only answer to every crisis is to shoot it full of holes or cut it is half with your wicked awesome swords.

 

[Jumping_Over_Fences]

It all depends on the situation. Sometimes you have to kill someone to make sure things end up right in the end.

When Maxwell Lord threatened to take control of Superman (something he had already done) and the only way to stop him was to kill him, Wonder Woman was completely justified. That is what really upset me about the Justice League, they were pissed at her for doing that, even Superman was mad. They never kill, well, I believe, sometimes you have to.

I know Batman doesn't kill, but that is also the reason The Joker and many others, have reeked so much havoc on Gotham. The Joker will never be rehabilitated, he will just keep escaping. Sometimes you have to put the people over your own moral code. Batman, in this situation, is actually putting more people in danger, than if he just killed one person.

 

[WolfThomas]

When Maxwell Lord threatened to take control of Superman (something he had already done) and the only way to stop him was to kill him, Wonder Woman was completely justified. That is what really upset me about the Justice League, they were pissed at her for doing that, even Superman was mad. They never kill, well, I believe, sometimes you have to.

Yeah the Maxell Lord thing annoyed me, also in "What happened to the Man of the Future?", what Superman does at the end is completely justifiable and while he seems to enjoy the results of his overreaction, I can only wonder how many people he could have continued saving if hadn't have done what he did.