Superheroes Don't Kill

[IOwnTheSpire]

Because those movies haven't mentioned it, it's as simple as that. These versions of the characters don't have that rule.

The infamous scene from Man of Steel is so awkward because they crowbarred it in on account of a fear of backlash, but the film itself never brings up the "Superman doesn't kill" thing. Hell his sociopathic, terrible father encourages him to let people die and to disregard human life.

Woah, Jonathan Kent is not sociopathic. When are people going to learn: he NEVER told Clark to let those kids die, he said MAYBE, as in I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THESE HARD QUESTIONS. I'm so sick of people blasting things they weren't even paying attention to.

 

[Evonisia]

Snip.

And then he basically told Clark to let him die about seven or so years later. I think he made up his mind at that point.

 

[Drago-Morph]

I really hate it, I absolutely loved the Daredevil series, but I hated his stupid rule on killing. I think it's what made the first season of Arrow (aside from how the writing and other things bogged the series down in later seasons) so good is that we finally had a Vigilante who just mowed down criminals instead of sticking to some bullshit moral code. It's also why I love the Punisher.

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?

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

I never got the logic that some Heroes who actually witness the atrocities the Villains commit are in less of a place to judge them than a Judge and Jury are only hearing accounts of what they did.

It's funny that you mention Daredevil, because he's one of the few heroes who actually has a wholly legitimate reasoning behind his n-killing policy. In addition to the standard superhero reasons ("I don't want to fall to the dark side!"), he also literally thinks he will go to Hell if he kills a dude. Cuz he's Catholic. Like he's trying to fight crime and avoid God's wrath. It works.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Even though he's the biggest offender in this, I personally give Batman a lot of slack in this regard, mainly because I consider him to be just as crazy as his rogues gallery, but keeps himself in check through iron-clad discipline. My personal headcannon is that if he ever let himself slip, he knows that he would become Crazy Steve.

Now the legal system? No excuse. Joker should have gotten the chair a long time ago.

 

[CommanderL]

batman is smart enough to know that gotham is a shithole and death is cheap
and if he kills the joker
he could come back to life as something far worse demon joker

 

[Ranorak]

I would like to point out a major difference between Spider-man not killing his foes and Batman not killing Joker.

Most of Spider-man's enemies are not exactly murderers themselves. Sure, they might have caused deaths, but those were usually collateral. Most of them are after money or power. In fact, the whole point of Maximum Carnage was that he WAS willing to kill, so even bad guys teamed up with Spider-man to stop him.

As for the Joker, he loves to kill, If he isn't dead, he will make sure someone else is.

That's why Batman not killing the Joker is just insane on Batman's part, but Spider-man not killing The Shocker is a whole different story.

 

[theNater]

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 never got the logic that some Heroes who actually witness the atrocities the Villains commit are in less of a place to judge them than a Judge and Jury are only hearing accounts of what they did.

It's the same reason that surgeons aren't allowed to operate on family members, despite being the people most invested in those family members surviving. People who are emotionally involved are less likely to exercise good judgement.

Woah, Jonathan Kent is not sociopathic. When are people going to learn: he NEVER told Clark to let those kids die, he said MAYBE, as in I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THESE HARD QUESTIONS.

The English phrase for that is "I don't know". 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".

 

[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.