Should Superhero Writers Simply Stop Bringing Up The 'No Kill' Rule?

[Cicada 5]

It's pretty common for non-killing heroes to have stories where they are faced with the conundrum of whether or not their methods are effective. While the no killing rule was initially enforced by the comics code, writers have long since seen the advantage of using popular villains again and again. Since we both know guys like Joker, Luthor or Osborn aren't going anywhere, maybe writers should simply not draw attention to the fact that the heroes are pretty much letting mass murderers run around unchecked?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Go read Superman vs the Elite, or watch the animated adaptation.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

No.

It's part of the whole deal, and it's a significant part of each character... ya know, where they draw the line.

If anything they should explore it deeper. Like if the hero beats up the homeless man stealing two loafs of bread from privately own bodega. Homeless man is just stealing cause he's hungry, sure, and maybe he has a family to feed but so does the small business owner.

This examples stems from the Superman novel Man Of Tomorrow, in it Lois is talking to clark and they see this take place and Lois starts giving Clark shit about not stopping the guy. It comes down to Clark not feeling comfortable stopping a unarmed criminal stealing bread.

However the punisher? Boom. Headshot.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Seriously?

And because of low content...

Spoiler

Content Removed, Size Too Large To Display

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

As far as I know Batman is the only one with a blatant NO KILL rule. I don't recall anybody else openly ruminating on this tenet. It's kind of a given that heroes don't kill, and that's that.

 

[JoJo]

It's a bit awkward but if they're going to keep their heroes on a no-kill rule, it's better have some explanation rather than none. Otherwise the glaring question of "why don't they just kill them!" is likely to bug the reader and maybe even break their suspension of disbelief.

 

[twistedmic]

However the punisher? Boom. Headshot.

I doubt that the Punisher would even bother with a shoplifter, unless the person physically ran into him. And even then I doubt that Frank would execute someone for stealing bread. He typically goes after bigger and more dangerous targets like the Mafia, sex slavers, street gangs and drug rings/dealers.

And it really isn't all that fair to blame Batman or Superman for all of the death and destruction that their respective villains have wrought. Batman has caught the Joker multiple times and turned him over to the police, it's the legal/prison system that has screwed up and allowed the Joker to escape repeatedly and kill more people. The courts could order the Joker to be executed,a Gotham cop could shoot him to death while in custody and make it look like the Joker was trying to escape or he could be dosed up with heavy duty tranquilizers the minute he gets admitted into Arkham (or whatever other institute or prison he gets sent to).

 

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

Wow, you really reposted this entire topic?....Okay :/

It's mostly because it's easier then trying to replace all the iconic villains.
Remember all those silly villain of the week comics during the sliver era were they had to come up with something new every issue? The writing gig is hard enough without having to return to those days.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

However the punisher? Boom. Headshot.

I doubt that the Punisher would even bother with a shoplifter, unless the person physically ran into him. And even then I doubt that Frank would execute someone for stealing bread. He typically goes after bigger and more dangerous targets like the Mafia, sex slavers, street gangs and drug rings/dealers.

Well the punisher is very inconsistent on how Fucked up in the head years. He ranges from a good guy with no choice but to kill to a monster who doesn't care about justice but only killing. As such it's hard to pin down his personality a lot of time.

And it really isn't all that fair to blame Batman or Superman for all of the death and destruction that their respective villains have wrought. Batman has caught the Joker multiple times and turned him over to the police, it's the legal/prison system that has screwed up and allowed the Joker to escape repeatedly and kill more people. The courts could order the Joker to be executed,a Gotham cop could shoot him to death while in custody and make it look like the Joker was trying to escape or he could be dosed up with heavy duty tranquilizers the minute he gets admitted into Arkham (or whatever other institute or prison he gets sent to).

you know I would like to see a comic book deconstruction on comic prisons and why people keep escaping.

 

[happyninja42]

Bottom line, it's a byproduct of having a serial comic, that's been perpetuated over decades. If you're going to keep the same villains around (and of course they are, because if you try and change anything within a comic mythos, the fans lose their fucking shit), then they can't die, and you have to keep coming up with ways for them to escape punishment, and get out to do bad stuff again....so the hero can stop them again....so they can escape again...so the hero can...eh, you get the idea.

Yes, it makes for some annoying trends when you look at it long term "Batman doesn't actually improve anything in Gotham, he barely keeps things from getting shittier at best", but that's just how it is. I mean, if someone actually tried to...you know..end the Batman comics, by saying "Ok, so after 60+ years of fighting crime, Batman has finally broken the criminal choke hold on the city, and the citizens of Gotham are free to live their lives in relative safety from crime." If someone tried to officially do that, it would end a ridiculous amount of money for DC, and the internet would explode with all the nerd rage from the fans, who can't stand to see anything change with their beloved character. It's basically financial suicide for DC. So no, nothing will ever change with comics, they will always get away, and the hero will always not kill them, because if he does kill them, again, the fans will flip their shit about "Destroying Batman! You raped my childhood!" blah blah.

Just deal with it. As illogical as it is, given the long term representation of these villains, to let them live, it's just not something any sane writer at DC is willing to do with a comic line. And even when they do have the guts to shake things up, eventually a new writer will come along, and retcon what they changed. "Oh, it wasn't actually Spiderman that died, that was a clone of spiderman, the real spiderman is just fine see?! Keep buying these comics!!" And again, you go back to status quo.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Go read Superman vs the Elite, or watch the animated adaptation.

.
Yikes, I think the animated version did it better. Personal opinion. Pretty great example BTW, nice taste you have there.
.

It's pretty common for non-killing heroes to have stories where they are faced with the conundrum of whether or not their methods are effective. While the no killing rule was initially enforced by the comics code, writers have long since seen the advantage of using popular villains again and again. Since we both know guys like Joker, Luthor or Osborn aren't going anywhere, maybe writers should simply not draw attention to the fact that the heroes are pretty much letting mass murderers run around unchecked?

.
It's a question of target-audience. Who are you writing this comic for? If the answer is "children", then you stick with the rule. You can't have the good guy murder bad guys. It's spiderman, the friendly neighborhood spider, not spider-punisher Xtreme, avenging the death of his Aunt all over NYC and repaying his debts (student loans) with blood. Oh, social commentary as well! Kill some bankers, Spiderman.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

The decision is rooted in 3 things (that I can think of).

1) Killing is bad

2) Everyone deserves their day in court

3) MONEY!

I take issues with 1 and 2, though I understand it's really about 3. There are always circumstances where not only is it a moral option to kill, but perhaps an obligation to kill. The Joker is one such scenario. He's been caught. He's had his day in court. Multiple times. There is no curing him. There is no containing him. Every time he gets out, more innocent people get hurt, killed or worse. At some point, Batman has to realize that the system has utterly failed to contain this special case and every time he turns him over to the police, he is saying that he is holding his own moral conscience above the people he's trying to protect. He is saying that the ability to say "I'm not a killer" is more important than not letting the city be exposed to nerve gas on a regular basis. For this reason, I take serious issue with him. It's a horrifically selfish act that produces horrifying results on a regular basis.

It's also justified by saying that if Batman kills the Joker, he'll start killing everyone until he starts killing people stealing loaves of bread for their loved ones. It struck me as particularly bad reasoning, as if it's an all-or-nothing scenario. I suppose Travis roams the countryside slaughtering dogs after he shot Old Yeller.

 

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

It's also justified by saying that if Batman kills the Joker, he'll start killing everyone until he starts killing people stealing loaves of bread for their loved ones. It struck me as particularly bad reasoning, as if it's an all-or-nothing scenario. I suppose Travis roams the countryside slaughtering dogs after he shot Old Yeller.

Well, that's kinda from the line of logic that Batman is just as mental as the people he fights, which isn't unreasonable.
Guy spends more money then most countries even have to dress up as a bat and beat the shit out of criminals and that's BEFORE we go on about the years of crime-fighting.
You know how in Special Victims Unit, they often talk about how no one gets assigned there for too long because of the mental stress of dealing with sex crimes? Batman has been doing that but for ALL Crime in Gotham.

Now, again, the whole "All or Nothing" thing does bug me, Hence why I kinda like Marvel's approach more where each hero has their own limits and code, like how Spiderman wouldn't kill someone but Iron Man would totally blow apart entire rooms full of bad guys with missiles and lasers.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Honestly this is a rule who's application is going vary wildly from character to character, and even from story to story. To whit, I understand in the Dark Knight Saga why Batman didn't kill: beyond seeing murder before his very young eyes, the series' reasonably realistic tone means that if Batman had started picking off crooks like after dinner mints, local and federal authorities would start taking notice. With Superman it's usually because outside of a handful of his rogues gallery he can win the fight by virtue of showing up.

On the flip side, I don't think the Green Lanterns should hold themselves to that as rigidly as they do; they're a law enforcement agency and as such should be allowed to use escalating force appropriately. Wonder Woman I feel is a sort of balance between the two philosophies: like Superman her abilities far outstrip anything most normal criminals can bring to the party so she shows up and everyone throws their hands up in the air like they just don't care. However, her upbringing is that of a martial society in Ancient Greece - a culture that was not shy about putting brigands, conquerors and mimes to the sword when it was required.

The decision is rooted in 3 things (that I can think of).

1) Killing is bad

2) Everyone deserves their day in court

3) MONEY!

I take issues with 1 and 2, though I understand it's really about 3. There are always circumstances where not only is it a moral option to kill, but perhaps an obligation to kill. The Joker is one such scenario. He's been caught. He's had his day in court. Multiple times. There is no curing him. There is no containing him. Every time he gets out, more innocent people get hurt, killed or worse. At some point, Batman has to realize that the system has utterly failed to contain this special case and every time he turns him over to the police, he is saying that he is holding his own moral conscience above the people he's trying to protect. He is saying that the ability to say "I'm not a killer" is more important than not letting the city be exposed to nerve gas on a regular basis. For this reason, I take serious issue with him. It's a horrifically selfish act that produces horrifying results on a regular basis.

It's also justified by saying that if Batman kills the Joker, he'll start killing everyone until he starts killing people stealing loaves of bread for their loved ones. It struck me as particularly bad reasoning, as if it's an all-or-nothing scenario. I suppose Travis roams the countryside slaughtering dogs after he shot Old Yeller.

Yeah but how much of the Department of Justice's job does Batman have to fucking do? The DC universe has the superheroes more or less running side by side with all the regular law enforcement, they haven't supplanted them. At some stage while perhaps Batman shares some of the blame for Joker, that finger is just as easily pointed at every bent cop and prison guard who has ever been complicit in Joker's escape. Break outs funded by other villains who bring serious hardware, fair enough, it's an asylum not a military base but Jesus Christ you'd think Gotham's police and prison guards would eventually get the fucking hint and stop accepting bribes. Or the U.S. Attorney General would try and have the Joker tried as a terrorist; which should be the fastest slam-dunk trial in fucking history and then gives him the death penalty.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Well, that's kinda from the line of logic that Batman is just as mental as the people he fights, which isn't unreasonable.
Guy spends more money then most countries even have to dress up as a bat and beat the shit out of criminals and that's BEFORE we go on about the years of crime-fighting.
You know how in Special Victims Unit, they often talk about how no one gets assigned there for too long because of the mental stress of dealing with sex crimes? Batman has been doing that but for ALL Crime in Gotham.

There's truth in that. My main point is Batman is actually a horrible protector of the city. I'd still argue that even he could keep things in control or failing that, Superman et al would step in. I must confess I take issue with them not killing as well.

Yeah but how much of the Department of Justice's job does Batman have to fucking do? The DC universe has the superheroes more or less running side by side with all the regular law enforcement, they haven't supplanted them. At some stage while perhaps Batman shares some of the blame for Joker, that finger is just as easily pointed at every bent cop and prison guard who has ever been complicit in Joker's escape. Break outs funded by other villains who bring serious hardware, fair enough, it's an asylum not a military base but Jesus Christ you'd think Gotham's police and prison guards would eventually get the fucking hint and stop accepting bribes. Or the U.S. Attorney General would try and have the Joker tried as a terrorist; which should be the fastest slam-dunk trial in fucking history and then gives him the death penalty.

That's true and it's covered by "Batman can't trust the system to contain him" bit. He's on the front line making the decision to hand him over to the broken system rather than just not giving Joker another chance to screw things up. If they haven't done it by cycle 10, why should Batman rely on them to make the right decision on cycle 30? Similar to how Batman knows that the Joker will kill, he knows the system will fail like clockwork.

 

[JimB]

Why ban the topic? It has a lot of fertile ground. The ground may be well-trod, sure, but there isn't a new idea left in fiction, so who cares? It's new to someone.

Since we both know guys like Joker, Luthor or Osborn aren't going anywhere, maybe writers should simply not draw attention to the fact that the heroes are pretty much letting mass murderers run around unchecked?

Shit. There was this quote I read, but I've forgotten too much of it to reproduce it. Something about how when superheroes decide to kill, they have taken one costumed murderer off the street and put another one on it.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

That's true and it's covered by "Batman can't trust the system to contain him" bit. He's on the front line making the decision to hand him over to the broken system rather than just not giving Joker another chance to screw things up. If they haven't done it by cycle 10, why should Batman rely on them to make the right decision on cycle 30? Similar to how Batman knows that the Joker will kill, he knows the system will fail like clockwork.

That system was broken as fuck before Batman even existed; it's failings are not his fault or his problem. There's more Bruce Wayne could do to help reform them of course, but there's such a basic failing of human decency in Gotham that I wholly understand the occasional comics who decide to have the place nuked/gassed/forcibly seceded from the Union. the city is fucking cancer, the Joker is it's most malignant tumor but he is not it's only one or it's first one.

 

[Cicada 5]

Why ban the topic? It has a lot of fertile ground. The ground may be well-trod, sure, but there isn't a new idea left in fiction, so who cares? It's new to someone.

Since we both know guys like Joker, Luthor or Osborn aren't going anywhere, maybe writers should simply not draw attention to the fact that the heroes are pretty much letting mass murderers run around unchecked?

Shit. There was this quote I read, but I've forgotten too much of it to reproduce it. Something about how when superheroes decide to kill, they have taken one costumed murderer off the street and put another one on it.

There are already people in the DCU worse than the Joker. Darkseid who rules a planet were torture is considered an expression of love; Ra's la Ghul the leader of a vast terrorist organization; Sinestro who once instigated a war just to get the Green Lanterns to adopt lethal force and so many others.

Even ignoring the stupidity of leaving guys like Joker alive, there's other issues with the way this rule is implemented.

1) It's Inconsistent

Most of the time the question of killing/not killing comes up, it's inregards to humans. But the heroes of the DCU have shown to have an almost wanto disregard for the lives of non-human sentients. Superman has killed Parademons, sentient robots, a version of Bizarro whom he claimed wasn't alive and more like an automaton despite evidence to the contrary. Batman has killed vampires, attempted to kill Swamp Thing and Braniac at least once, once told Gorilla Grodd his rule didn't apply to apes and shot Darkseid with intent to kill in Final Crisis. And you can't say he didn't have intent, since the bullet was made of material that toxic to New Gods.

I wouldn't have an issue with this if it was acknowledged that they were hypocrites. But this hypocrisy is almost never acknowledged as hypocrisy by the narrative. The only incedent I can think of was when one of Max Lord's spies flat out said that people would be more shocked by Diana killing Max than her killing Medusa because the latter didn't even look human.

2) Fates Worse Than Death

A lot of the non lethal methods used by superheroes are actually more horrendous than merely killing them. An example is when Wally West discovered Inertia had killed Bart. His response was to hunt Inertia down and use his powers to rob the villain of all his speed, rendering him an immobile (but fully conscious and completely aware) statue... which he then placed in the Flash Museum, to stare at a statue of the man he killed for all eternity.

Hell, many of Batman's moves could, if not kill his opponents, leave in agonizing pain for the remainder of their days. That no normal humans have died by his hands is borderline comical.

 

[RedRockRun]

I'd find it more interesting if killing was actually discussed. It feels like a cop-out when heroes just fight, but no one dies - as if that's just the way things normally turn out. Compare that to Vash the Stampede who not only makes a point not to kill but endures pain and makes his life harder in order to uphold his rule. That anime shows how hard sticking to a no-kill policy truly is. Superhero movies just skate around it through slick choreography.

 

[Estarc]

It's a boring old trope, but there aren't any rules against that. A real hero will bloody his hands for the safety of the people, but at least having this trope lets us debate our personal stances on the issue.