Superheroes Don't Kill

[IOwnTheSpire]

Best I can tell, what "maybe" means in this context is "yes, but I don't have the guts to say it in so many words".

Maybe doesn't mean yes, not in this context. If he really wanted Clark to let the kids die, he would've explicitly said so, but he didn't. He wondered what the consequences of the revelation of Clark's existence would be, that's it.

 

[WolfThomas]

The way I see it there's a spectrum.

You've got masked vigilantes like Batman and Spider-man on one end and government sponsored heroes like Captain America (any time he's working with S.H.I.E.L.D.) and the members of Stormwatch (the original Wildstorm team, not the Nu52 one).

Batman and Spider-man hide their identities and are often in conflict with the law. They can't kill their villains from a legal point of view or from moral highground. Otherwise they'd be similar to their villains.

At the other end there's no difference to a cop, soldier, SWAT or special forces. If they have to kill they kill. They're vetted and review by some governmental authority who has some responsibility for their actions.

And then there's everyone else stuck between the two. The Avengers for example have a public address (either Avenger's Mansion or Avenger's Tower). Most of their members do not hide their identity. They often cooperate with the law. They should aim not to kill, but if one of them kills someone in self defense or the defense of another, it's the same as a civilian did it. Perhaps to a higher standard depending on their powers (Quicksilver for example shouldn't break a man's neck at superspeed when he could restrain him), but similar.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

How many more innocent deaths could Batman have prevented if he killed the Joker?

None, because Batman is going to fight a supervillain every issue. If not the Joker, then somebody else.

Indeed, it's arguable that sparing the Joker saves lives, because the Joker is established as a threat; so the stakes are high as soon as the Joker shows up. A new villain would need to become established as a threat, and so would probably kill a bunch of people at first appearance.

I do hope that's intended as a joke, rather than a serious argument. The only reason a new villain would appear after the Joker dies is due to the story being boring without any major conflict, rather than anything to do with the actual universe.
That would be like saying it's illogical for the protagonist(s) of a story to feel any fear, since they are the protagonist(s), and hence, very unlikely to die. Even more specifically, you could argue that the protagonist shouldn't feel any fear if they are only half way through the story, or when out numbered by nameless henchmen, since we all know the death of the protagonist(s) calls for more emphasis than simply being killed off in a mundane way.

Character actions and attitudes shouldn't be based upon knowledge of the medium they are contained within, unless this is some serious levels of forth-wall breaking.

Again, if that was just a joke, then disregard this post.

 

[Jux]

I'm assuming we're only talking about the movies as far as the 'no killing' rule goes, because in the comics both spider man and batman have killed.

http://www.spiderfan.org/faq/killed.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/breaking-batman-has-actually-killed-lots-of-people-2012-5

 

[LostCrusader]

Besides what others have said that those heroes don't really have the no killing rule, I can't even think of any of the Marvel movies where they were trying to stop crime. Its all been invasions and assassins coming after them, not really situations where the no killing rule can really fit.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Ok, Joker dies. finito. Gone. ... then what? Seriously?
Batman kills one of his greatest foes, and who steps up to take joker's place, who in turn will get killed? If anyone can ever step up?
Besides, batman has killed, though it hadn't always stuck.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html

There's a certain level of creativity required to make a memorable villain, and once you throw it away, you gotta do something new. If the dead just get revived somehow then what's the point?

Mooks, goons, etc. sure. Especially if they're dangerous and never need to be seen again.

Honestly, Batman nails why you just don't kill. It escalates stuff. You kill, and the rest take notice, and step things up.

Then there's the rivalry mentality. I mean comics have explored joker killing batman, who then went more insane and started being batman.

And to be fair about the gif the OP put up, how do we know the soldiers inside are dead? It's entirely possible, and even desirable that the vehicle be able to take a hit without the inhabitants dying. Better to have to repair a crippled vehicle than repair a person.

Remember the Evil Overlord rules! No body, not dead!

 

[Sarge034]

That's all well and good for a fictional character, but there's a reason vigilante justice and blood feuds died off. They're ineffective. Besides, a single individual doesn't get to decide what constitutes justice. Society does.

You will notice I never brought the "real world" into my post? But because you wanna go there... What about when the law, when society, ceases to be able to protect you? Remember when there were no cops in Detroit? Murders and rapes all over the place and absolutely no help from the law or society. Just an extreme example to show that can happen irl. In the end it just comes down to how individuals value human life though. Some people can't weigh human life as anything but equal. I don't happen to be one of those people. I value the lives of the victim(s) and any possible future victims as being exponentially more valuable than the perpetrators. Am I advocating for roaming vigilante kill squads? No, but some places could certainly use them. The cops certainly aren't able to root out deep seeded gangs. So if they're shooting up you're neighborhood, putting your family, friends, and yourself in fear of your lives every day and the cops can't stop it. Could you honestly blame someone for thinking that perhaps they might just need to take care of it themselves, to save their loved ones? I can't.

"Three: in certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law. To pursue... natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it's an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment."

Otherwise we get a series of civil liberty abuses and lawlessness.

But what when it's condoned by the law? It was illegal to push for equal rights for blacks and whites at one point. Individuals broke that law in order to stand for something they thought was right. The law is not infallible nor always "right". I chose to decide for myself what "right" and "wrong" is, because I'm the only person I have to morally answer to at the end of the day.

 

[theNater]

I do hope that's intended as a joke, rather than a serious argument. The only reason a new villain would appear after the Joker dies is due to the story being boring without any major conflict, rather than anything to do with the actual universe.

Why do you think the Joker keeps breaking out? It's not that he gets out because Arkham can't hold him, it's that Arkham can't hold him because the story needs him to get out.

Character actions and attitudes shouldn't be based upon knowledge of the medium they are contained within, unless this is some serious levels of forth-wall breaking.

Killing the Joker because he will inevitably escape is making a decision based on knowledge of the medium; he's only escaping so much because it's a comic book.

 

[King Billi]

I like it when comicbook superheroes have a no killing rule, a bit of idealised morality is allowable and even welcome in such escapist fantasy but I don't consider it completely non negotiable, alot of situations are just too unpredictable and often bad guys can force the issue. Simply dismissing the possibility that a specific superhero could be forced to kill someone with the excuse that 'Batman/Superman/Whoever just would have found a way around it' is overly simplistic and frankly boring if you want to see more potentially interesting stories about these characters.

In all honesty I find it much more frustrating when the "no killing rule" is taken to frankly ridiculous extremes such as in Batman: Cacophony or the Arkham Origins videogame.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I do hope that's intended as a joke, rather than a serious argument. The only reason a new villain would appear after the Joker dies is due to the story being boring without any major conflict, rather than anything to do with the actual universe.

Why do you think the Joker keeps breaking out? It's not that he gets out because Arkham can't hold him, it's that Arkham can't hold him because the story needs him to get out.

Character actions and attitudes shouldn't be based upon knowledge of the medium they are contained within, unless this is some serious levels of forth-wall breaking.

Killing the Joker because he will inevitably escape is making a decision based on knowledge of the medium; he's only escaping so much because it's a comic book.

I never actually said they should kill the villains to stop their inevitably escape, just that the morality of doing so should not be influenced by knowledge of the medium (with the obvious exception of playing it for laughs).

 

[Smooth Operator]

It's not so much a no killing rule as there is a don't show the bad stuff on one side rule, because that is how you make the "good" guys perpetually look good.

Yes Iron Man might have torched that tank and let the 6 crew inside burn to death, an extremely torturous way to go. But as long as they only show a tank blowing up we don't get any bad impressions of it, someone has already come up with a story that the crew of a blazing tank might survive...
See that is how you keep your heroes hands clean, make shit look like it's all awesome explosions and only baddies shed blood. If they showed Iron Man ripping that tank open and laser beaming every single persons skull to ash then the audience would get really uneasy about the whole "good guy" thing.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

It's not so much a no killing rule as there is a don't show the bad stuff on one side rule, because that is how you make the "good" guys perpetually look good.

Yes Iron Man might have torched that tank and let the 6 crew inside burn to death, an extremely torturous way to go. But as long as they only show a tank blowing up we don't get any bad impressions of it, someone has already come up with a story that the crew of a blazing tank might survive...
See that is how you keep your heroes hands clean, make shit look like it's all awesome explosions and only baddies shed blood. If they showed Iron Man ripping that tank open and laser beaming every single persons skull to ash then the audience would get really uneasy about the whole "good guy" thing.

Same reason why so many opposing armies/police wear face concealing masks/helmets when the audience isn't expected to sympathise with them.

There are lots of cheap tricks to show the morality of a conflict ... without actually showing>/i> the morality.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I could always relate to why Batman never wanted to relegate himself to judge jury and executioner, and felt it was quite ok to just go around slamming people into unconsciousness and breaking limbs left and right. Maybe "relate" is too strong a word, heh. But still, the amount of times he's let Joker go, no matter how heinous and unforgivably evil his deeds, goes a little beyond me.

And the other thing I think about is collateral damage. Yeah they say they won't kill anyone, but come on, collapsing/exploding buildings, Superman has definitely inadvertently caused a few deaths. Granted, many of them can't be avoided, but I'm sure with the amount of mayhem in a populated area, a few people have lost their lives.

Batman though has killed on several occasions, in the movies and games. I can't cite them all now, but I know he's blown up a Tibetan castle or something with people in it. And he shot the hell out of that guy driving the nuclear bomb truck. So it's to be expected that when you have to do it, you have to do it. So it shouldn't be so much of a personal dilemma ending the joker's life, after all he keeps escaping and killing more people and presenting Batman with more moral dilemmas anyway.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Killing being some sacred line you can't cross is bullshit. "No one deserves death" is bullshit too. How many more innocent deaths could Batman have prevented if he killed the Joker? Or if Daredevil wasted Kingpin?

And that's a reasonable moral dilemma but just because they are 'evil' doesn't mean that they deserve to die and it does make you like them. The justification that "You're saving innocent lives" is an assumption, it may be an educated assumption but an assumption none the less. What if the joker does reform? What if Kingpin does stop?

Violence is a necessity (especially in todays world), sometimes taking a live is necessary. Some people just deserve to die.

People 'deserve' to die? Based on, what, exactly? That's a human construct which brings up the question of "who decides?". Who claims to be the moral arbiter and isn't doing so making them flawed as well? The idea that you should kill killers is flawed logic and is an attempt to see the world in black and white terms when it is all varying shades of grey.

 

[theNater]

I never actually said they should kill the villains to stop their inevitably escape, just that the morality of doing so should not be influenced by knowledge of the medium (with the obvious exception of playing it for laughs).

Just so long as we're clear that it cuts both ways: Batman doesn't get to know that the Joker's escape is inevitable any more than he gets to know that the Joker will be replaced if killed.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

An interesting point about Batman that's rarely touched upon, Batman usually does more than incapacitate the people he beats up, broken bones and such. These injuries will make it impossible for courts to put them in jail and will necessitate medical operations for the people with rehabilitation taking years.

The same people who resorted to crimes because they don't have any higher education or alternative and are most likely poor, in the US where medical bills are insane. Add to that the fact that these people will probably be home ridden for months, if not years, and will only have their unfortunate family (who is now completely broke) to target all the rage and hatred they have stored up. Let's say that domestic violence and health care debt is probably skyrocketing thanks to Batman, preparing the children of the criminals to take their place and probably also be broken by the bats, but what measures a mook?

to be fair I think when you go to jail you get free healthcare to deal with stuff like that. I doubt they throw prisoners in jail with a broken leg or bullet wound.

and you talk about the measure of a Mook but that one of the things I like about Batman he's not a fucking hypocrite about thou shalt not kill thing. I hate it when the hero kills 500 mooks who were probably trying to pay the bill and then he get's to the child rapist main villain he let's him live I fucking hate that but batman sticks to his guns and doesn't kill anyone to get to the joker (Bad writing notwithstanding) so at least he truly believes in it.

 

[kasperbbs]

I think it's a stupid rule thats mainly there to reuse villains in the comics. In movies it doesn't really matter all that much since most of them are doing trilogies and having the same villain in all of them is boring.
I never read comics, but i have to wonder how many times did the batdude capture the joker only to have him escape and murder people again, at some point he should have realised that theres something wrong with that system, perhaps in one of the many reboots he did..

 

[rosac]

I've just rewatched man of steel, and this is a strong point for me. Superman does not kill. Superman finds another way. What pissed me off even more is that Zod even says the line "This can only end two ways Kal-el, myself or you dying" (something like that.)

They were given the chance for Superman to do anything- absolutely anything- other than kill Zod and say "You're wrong Zod, there's always another way" before sending him into a phantom zone prison, teleporting him to some ridiculous planet, knocking him out and putting him on a krypton-similar planet with no means of escape etc. etc. That way you get the incredibly cheesy morality tale line AND establish Kal-Els morality for future films.

Superman does not kill in my mind, because Superman should represent an ideal that no other being can reach.

Batman doesn't kill because it's "The line" as mentioned in the Red Hood. He is, in some ways, as much of a villain as the Joker, the penguin, Mr. Freeze. By not crossing the line he separates himself from the criminals he fights.

As for Cap, he's a soldier. He's not a boy-scout like Superman as he is put in Kill or Be Killed situations. Thor is literally a God of War. The Hulk is the Hulk. Hawkeye is an assassin. Iron Man is in the same situation as Cap. If they don't kill or subdue their opposites to a heavy degree, they could well die themselves in the fight. This works with regards to films, but comics it's less doable and requires plot armour, ret cons or bullshit reasoning to undo.

 

[Bad Jim]

Same reason why so many opposing armies/police wear face concealing masks/helmets when the audience isn't expected to sympathise with them.

Actually I think they do that so the audience doesn't realise that it's the same dozen or so actors getting killed in every scene. And in the case of comics and cartoons, they can recycle art far more efficiently if the bad guys all look the same, often they're all exactly the same height even when they're not clones or robots.

Obviously there are some artistic justifications, but I'm sure it comes down to cost cutting in truth.

 

[GladiatorUA]

As long as the reasons are established, I don't really care if a superhero kills or avoids killing. In case of Marvel, Hulk is Hulk, his rampages probably result in deaths, Thor lives by entirely different rule set, Cap is a soldier, Stark is an former weapon manufacturer and his first Iron Man outing was life or death situation, Black Widow and Hawkeye are spies/assassins.

I don't remember what exactly prompted no-kill rule in Nolan's Batman trilogy. There wasn't much thinking about killing or not killing MoS, other than that one scene. I liked the scene, but I hate how little it does for the universe within the movie. No-kill rule is not established, there is no personal connection between Zod and Clark, there was no obvious motives for Clark to fight Zod the way he did etc.