Should Wonder Woman kill villains?

[Burnouts3s3]

There's been a lot of talk about superheroes suddenly adopting a very dark attitude when it comes to fighting the guilty. I'm sure I don't need to remind everyone about the internet's overreaction over such scenes as Batman letting Ra's al Ghul die in Batman Begins or Superman snapping Zod's neck in Man of Steel.

This makes me wonder: what's Wonder Woman's code on killing?

Spoiler

Is it considered 'out of character' for her if she decides to kill a bad guy?

 

[Scarim Coral]

That image you used in the spoiler, if I recalled in that situation, Mavell Lord (the villain and the guy whose she snack his neck) was mind controlling Superman. While she did try to fight him but she cannot defeat Superman so she only stop him temporally while she went after the controller, Mavell.
She apprehanded him and asked him how to stop his controll over superman and since he had the lasso of Truth on his neck, he said that only killing him will put a stop on Superman so with no other choise, she killed him.
When Superman and Batman found out, Superman was appalled by her action and even Batman said she shouldn't had done. In that situation, I think she was justify since he had the lasso of truth under him so there really was no way to stop him than by killing nor did she has the power or equipment to killed him and then ressurrect him.

OT- Hard to say, while she is a warrior (she had been into many battles and killed many foes) but she is a superhero aswell which most of them uphold on the no killing rule.

 

[DC_78]

Which version of Wonder Woman? Not to be rude but the character of Wonder Woman has been altered so much over the decades since her creation that you have to be specific.

If you are going with the current New 52 version then she has no code against killing. She is an amazon warrior from Themyscira first, then an ambassador to the normal world, and finally a princess. Hell I think she is the daughter of Zeus if I remember right so a god too. So she sees nothing wrong in killing an enemy in combat, but she does not do it regularly because she is an outsider to the modern world and has a noblesse oblige not to. So her killing someone, especially a male villain, is definitely not out of character. I would not say she would whack every thug that pointed a ray gun at her, but a real bad guy? Yeah she could off them without batting an eye.

In fact I could see her being one of the more brutal JLA members if it came down to it. She has the training to lead armies and kill without mercy. Only Batman, and to an extent Aquaman, really comes close to the same intensity and backgrounds that Diana has.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, it's out of character for her, or any DC hero/ine ever to kill. If the only options are "kill" or "allow innocents to die", you take the second and wait for the miracle to occur.

Morally, yes, she should kill when necessary. Police (and regular people) are allowed to kill to protect others.

 

[somonels]

It's okay, mostly she'll be killing men, mostly. She was doing it in Justice League: The New Frontier.

I don't see a reason for her, or anyone else, to refrain from it. It doesn't matter.

 

[Therumancer]

There's been a lot of talk about superheroes suddenly adopting a very dark attitude when it comes to fighting the guilty. I'm sure I don't need to remind everyone about the internet's overreaction over such scenes as Batman letting Ra's al Ghul die in Batman Begins or Superman snapping Zod's neck in Man of Steel.

This makes me wonder: what's Wonder Woman's code on killing?

Spoiler

Is it considered 'out of character' for her if she decides to kill a bad guy?

Given the era in which she was created and her career through the days of the comics code authority she is generally bound by the "Code against killing" in her traditional portrayals. I don't remember it ever being justified by anything particular though. In Batman's case it's been a big part of his identity for a long time, and is crucial to a lot of the central concepts like how his recurring rogues gallery of villains continues to survive. In Superman's case to my knowledge he also just decided to put that rule on himself.

THAT said given some of the definitions of Wonder Woman she does not have the code against killing, indeed during "Kingdom Come" which is admittedly not canon, her going out to kill and leading an army of super beings to do what needed to be done was a big part of the finale. The basic thing was a giant throw down between new breed "extreme" heroes who got out of control, and old school "classic" heroes who came out of retirement to put them down when they got out of control and wound up throwing them into a sort of super-prison with villains. Eventually there is a breakout, Superman said you can't kill them, Wonder Woman said it had to be done, Lex Luthor and Batman come out as a third faction with their own army, Superman tries to stop it... the US government nukes everyone during the big battle. It's old enough so I'm guessing this isn't much of a spoiler. The point is that's a version of Wonder Woman that pretty much rejected the code as a major plot point. Likewise another version of Wonder Woman kills the evil version of Jakita Wagner during the JLA/Planetary crossover.

When it comes to the prime version of Wonder Woman I can't remember a version of her that has used lethal force on a regular basis, or even killed anyone that could be considered a person directly. She's killed monsters, smashed robots, and all kinds of stuff, but a human being, even a villain? I don't think so. Most of her rogues gallery like Cheetah wind up being imprisoned somewhere where they inevitably escape with Batman-type logic despite the fact that common sense dictates she should put them out of everyone's misery. Thymiscara gets taken over by the same cast of bad guys and needs to be rescued fairly regularly, and it's dungeons seem to have a revolving door policy for bad guys much like Arkham Asylum along with easily defeated security systems which strangely everyone seems ridiculously confident in despite them rarely ever keeping anyone inside for more than a few months.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, it's out of character for her, or any DC hero/ine ever to kill. If the only options are "kill" or "allow innocents to die", you take the second and wait for the miracle to occur.

Morally, yes, she should kill when necessary. Police (and regular people) are allowed to kill to protect others.

Well I believe DC has it's lethal heroes, Huntress, Azrael, and others have killed I believe and get crap for it. Most of the "big name" JLA characters abide by a code against killing however. Characters that have existed in the adult imprints likewise have killed in them, I believe a couple of dark wizards and such have been killed by both Jason Blood and Constantine, and I believe Zatanna has used lethal force as well. Of course a lot of the magic characters that show up in these titles are also sort of existing in horror comics. I'm not a huge DC follower so I don't remember specifically and could be wrong. I seem to remember reading somewhere that with the exception of Doctor Fate who has a history of operating most frequently as a straightforward super hero and maintains fairly regular JSA membership, none of the recurring magic characters abide by the usual code against killing, though it's not generally an issue in their regular universe appearances.

Swamp Thing has also been responsible for the deaths of numerous people I think, of course in a lot of his comics he's sort of just there and treated more as a force of nature than a "hero", being a pseudo-horror title.

I'm pretty sure Montoya, Bullock, and Comissioner Gordan all killed people during "No Man's Land" even though we didn't see it on screen. I believe they commented on concern for running out of bullets, and in that environment where they were acting as a semi-gang and being ruthless to survive and protect as many regular-person hold outs as possible they were not supposed to have been firing only warning shots. Of course again I'm not sure how many of them would be considered "super heroes". Likewise it's implied Huntress is killing people in the same storyline while using the Batman symbol as a threat and pretending to be batgirl, though you never see it done. This is leading up to Cassandra Cain officially taking the mantle.

 

[DANEgerous]

The refusal to kill a villain that has killed and has intent to kill again has always been one of my gripes against heroes that said many have pointed out that there is no one set charter for Wonder Woman or just about any superhero for that matter so no it would not be. I will always totally side with the "Dexter" idea of this person has killed they plan to do it again kill them, yeah if you have to kill the guilty to save the innocent do so without hesitation.

 

[Verlander]

I think it makes more sense for her to do it than Batman or Superman.

 

[Flatfrog]

The refusal to kill a villain that has killed and has intent to kill again has always been one of my gripes against heroes that said many have pointed out that there is no one set charter for Wonder Woman or just about any superhero for that matter so no it would not be. I will always totally side with the "Dexter" idea of this person has killed they plan to do it again kill them, yeah if you have to kill the guilty to save the innocent do so without hesitation.

Given that most superheroes are already vigilantes acting outside the law, often with godlike powers, do you think it's morally right that they should also act as judge, jury and executioner?

If villains are apprehended, it is right that they should have some kind of legal process. We can discuss the rights and wrongs of capital punishment in those circumstances, but a world with superheroes that take life at their own whim is definitely not one I would approve of. If Batman killed the Joker, whatever the Joker's crimes I'd say Batman should be imprisoned.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The refusal to kill a villain that has killed and has intent to kill again has always been one of my gripes against heroes that said many have pointed out that there is no one set charter for Wonder Woman or just about any superhero for that matter so no it would not be. I will always totally side with the "Dexter" idea of this person has killed they plan to do it again kill them, yeah if you have to kill the guilty to save the innocent do so without hesitation.

I don't mind that so much as that nobody else does.

If Batman doesn't kill, fair enough...excepting that when a villain is threatening a bunch of random civilians, killing the villain isn't a bad idea.

But, ok, you catch the Joker, and hand him over unharmed. And then he's mysteriously assassinated, but it was some other nation's special forces, really.

 

[Shingeki no Gingerbeard]

The whole idea that superheroes don't, or shouldn't kill, comes from the Comics Code Authority; which, last I checked, DC still tries to adhere to.

And honestly, this was done to death back when Diana actually killed Maxwell Lord back in 2005.

 

[Lightknight]

If we rely a bit on just war theory, our responses to negative actions should be proportionate. If the villain is killing people and the fastest way to stop the violence is to kill the villain, then sure.

If the villain is doing something else that won't kill people, then death should be off the table.

 

[happyninja42]

The refusal to kill a villain that has killed and has intent to kill again has always been one of my gripes against heroes that said many have pointed out that there is no one set charter for Wonder Woman or just about any superhero for that matter so no it would not be. I will always totally side with the "Dexter" idea of this person has killed they plan to do it again kill them, yeah if you have to kill the guilty to save the innocent do so without hesitation.

I agree to a point on this. I've always been annoyed with the "zero body count" rule for superheroes, especially for ones like Batman. I understand his personal problem with killing, but the fact is, that his refusal to kill, has allowed the Joker to escape over and over and kill people in homicidal orgies of insanity. I get why, because they need to keep the character viable as a villain to sell comics, but it makes it less believable every time.

I personally know nothing about Wonder Woman's ethics on killing, but given that her signature weapon is a restraining device, and not a lethal weapon does say a bit about how she might prefer to solve problems.

I personally don't have an issue with finding a non-lethal resolution, as I think depending on the criminal, some can reform and stop being criminals. This is of course almost impossible in comic books, because they need antagonists, but the principle is still sound.

My only desire is if she does kill, that it's warranted. If the director and writer actually make it a valid moral choice, and not some heavy handed one like in Man of Steel, then I don't really have an issue with her killing someone to save the innocent.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

I wouldn't consider it out of character at all- Diana was raised by Olympian warriors and occasionally Greek Gods.

While her compassion for lives other than the Amazons was what initially set her apart from them and she would never kill casually (I remember reading one issue just before the New 52 where she went to incredible lengths to keep an Amazon traitor alive so she could be properly judged and sentenced by the rest), eliminating an unrepentant villain is indeed something she's done several times or had another hero (Flash, Supes, Bats...) talk her down from doing at the last second. Plus, a lot of her enemies are supernatural ones that can come back from death anyway.

 

[Overhead]

I'll have to reread the current New 52 Wonder Woman run, but she's a warrior born. Although she might not have killed in the series, I wouldn't be surprised if she's killed a fair few people (At least The First's Hyena People) and I wouldn't consider it out of character if she did.

EDIT: Thinking about it she certainly has killed in the New 52.

I agree to a point on this. I've always been annoyed with the "zero body count" rule for superheroes, especially for ones like Batman. I understand his personal problem with killing, but the fact is, that his refusal to kill, has allowed the Joker to escape over and over and kill people in homicidal orgies of insanity. I get why, because they need to keep the character viable as a villain to sell comics, but it makes it less believable every time.

There is a difference between killing someone in the heat of the moment to save a life (which some heroes will do) and killing someone in cold blood once they've been captured (which they typically won't).

Batman keeps on putting Joker in Arkham. The government of the USA and the people who vote to put that government in power are a hell of a lot more responsible than Batman. They're the ones who haven't implemented laws allowing them to execute the Joker, presumably either not believing in the state's right to take a life at all or that in this specific case death can't be enacted on a man who isn't in his right mind. While I agree with those principles in real life, in a world of super-villains I'd probably be a bit more flexible.

Also more generally these "no-nonsense" solutions of yours just don't hold water in a world of jet-powered apes and time travel.

 

[The Great JT]

I say no. Superheroes in general should not kill. Now yes, Wondie killing Maxwell Lord was an extreme circumstance and in context was the only option that really felt viable, but I don't feel that she, or any of the other Amazons, would result to straight-up murder.

 

[happyninja42]

The refusal to kill a villain that has killed and has intent to kill again has always been one of my gripes against heroes that said many have pointed out that there is no one set charter for Wonder Woman or just about any superhero for that matter so no it would not be. I will always totally side with the "Dexter" idea of this person has killed they plan to do it again kill them, yeah if you have to kill the guilty to save the innocent do so without hesitation.

Given that most superheroes are already vigilantes acting outside the law, often with godlike powers, do you think it's morally right that they should also act as judge, jury and executioner?

If villains are apprehended, it is right that they should have some kind of legal process. We can discuss the rights and wrongs of capital punishment in those circumstances, but a world with superheroes that take life at their own whim is definitely not one I would approve of. If Batman killed the Joker, whatever the Joker's crimes I'd say Batman should be imprisoned.

Except that in our societies today, there is room for people in extreme circumstances having to take another person's life, and it not being considered a crime. Self defense, or in situations where someone is threatening the lives of people, and someone stops them to prevent further loss of life. Both of these circumstances frequently end with the person who killed someone not being charged with any crime. Because our society understands that it's not a simple black and white issue of "Killing Bad, Not Killing Good". There are several levels to it, depending on the circumstances. So yes, I don't have a problem with superheroes taking lives if it's warranted in the situation. When you have a homicidal maniac rampaging through a city, destroying everything in his path, I promise you that the regular police forces would be justified in using lethal force to stop him. And so should the superheroes, if it's necessary to preserve life. If a random person was there, and for example, took out a gun and killed some rampaging villain from a comic book, because he was unleashing lethal gas in the streets and killing dozens, the police would not charge that guy and imprison him. There would be some procedure stuff sure, but I promise you in the end, they would find his actions were warranted given the situation, and would release him. There is no reason this fact of our justice system shouldn't apply to superheroes as well.

There was in fact a great example of "just because they don't kill, doesn't mean they aren't evil" in comic books. It was a "What If" story from the 90s I believe. It was "What if Krytpon didn't blow up?" And the story was that they eventually came to earth, and then ruled over us with a totalitarian dictatorship. Because how could we stop them right? They were all as powerful as superman. But hey, they didn't kill people, so that's ok right? No, because they were still acting like despotic rulers who controlled and regulated every aspect of humanity's existence, because the humans couldn't stop them.

So the simple fact of killing or not killing isn't as clear cut. And when you put heroic characters in extreme circumstances (pretty much standard operating procedure for dramatic storytelling), you can't reasonably exclude extreme resolutions to those circumstances.

 

[happyninja42]

There is a difference between killing someone in the heat of the moment to save a life (which some heroes will do) and killing someone in cold blood once they've been captured (which they typically won't).

I agree, but the question presented wasn't "Should Wonder Woman kill in the heat of the moment." It was just "Should she kill?" and others presented the broad statement of "No, none of them should kill because it's wrong"

Batman keeps on putting Joker in Arkham. The government of the USA and the people who vote to put that government in power are a hell of a lot more responsible than Batman.

Really? Because the government as presented in Gotham is pretty freaking corrupt. That's one reason why crime is so bad, and someone like Bruce Wayne feels he has to take the law into his own hands.

They're the ones who haven't implemented laws allowing them to execute the Joker, presumably either not believing in the state's right to take a life at all or that in this specific case death can't be enacted on a man who isn't in his right mind. While I agree with those principles in real life, in a world of super-villains I'd probably be a bit more flexible.

Do we actually know that? Last I recall, they've never stated the laws that are "real" in their fictional world. We can only assume they mirror our own. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the laws in and out, but I think after a certain amount of time, and continuous body count, the law has room to execute someone who is criminally insane, but also has a knack for breaking out of prison over and over, and killing more people. But also like I said, I understand that this is probably not like our real world, because they don't want to give up the Joker, and his usefulness as a villain. So he keeps getting out.

Also more generally these "no-nonsense" solutions of yours just don't hold water in a world of jet-powered apes and time travel.

*Blinks* what "no nonsense" solutions did I present? And actually your statement supports my view more I think. In a world of jet-powered apes and time travel, saying that they can't kill seems ridiculous. The threats they are going up against are above and beyond the stuff our real world people encounter as far as threats go. And in multiple instances in our world, with threats of far less lethality and menace, it's ok to kill them. So why say that when dealing with literally supernatural threats, it's not allowed to kill them? That seems very strange to me.