The Stock Superhero "One Rule", and why it's bullshit.

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
!!Disclaimer: Man of Steel spoilers after this point (well, really just 1)!!

You know what I'm talking about. That one rule that most heroes who aren't in the dubious and ever-shifting region occupied by the anti-heroes and anti-villains abide by. No killing. First of all, I'm sure this has been talked about before, but watching the Man of Steel made me want to say a few things.

Note that this is not a new issue - it's bothered me before - but fan reaction to a certain event in Man of Steel has prompted the need for a discussion, namely the one near the end, and I'm not talking about superman wasting millions in taxpayer money to make a petty point about his privacy.

Fist of all, "Superman doesn't kill" is a lie. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of physics knows that transferring enough energy from a fist sized object to someone's chest to lift them off the ground and throw them 20 feet through the air (a common fate for henchmen in superman's world) would leave a crater where their chest used to be (or depending on the density of the object a fist-sized hole in their chest). These people are not knocked out, they are dead. Also, does anyone seriously think that in those fights where superman and le supervillian de jour are duking it out in the middle of crowded cities, smashing into cars and through buildings, that no one dies? While technically I'm pretty sure that qualifies as manslaughter (or maybe wrongful death?), not murder, it still falls under the domain of "killing". But that's fine, some will say, it's the fault of the villain that instigated the conflict! Right, because superman totally can't fly, can't breath in space, and is incapable of simply taking the battle up there where there's no bystanders. Oh wait, he can. But doesn't. Because these are comics and drawing people getting thrown through buildings is more fun than watching them flail around in space. Ah well.

Anyway, even if it were true, it would not be a particularly moral rule anyway. It sounds great as a concept, but it doesn't even remotely work in the worlds these people live in. Take Batman for instance. We all know (including Batman) that the Joker (and many other villains) treat Arkham Asylum like a hotel they can check in and out of at their leisure. And every time they break out, people die. What is the death penalty for if not this exact instance, killing people who will continue to kill others if they are allowed to live? And if the justice system is incapable of doing so, I would argue that it falls to the heroes - who as vigilantes are already outside the legal system - to do the right thing for the people they claim to protect. Otherwise all they are doing is serving as extremely expensive speed bumps on the highway of crime.

"But wait!" you might say, "what then would make them better than the criminals they oppose?" Then I would slap you for being an idiot. Unless you live your life by some extremely vague numerical system of reckoning, killing people for fun and profit does not in any way equal killing people because they would keep killing other people for fun and profit if you didn't. Honestly, if they believe as strongly as most of them supposedly do about not killing, I would invest a little time building a much better prison. Bruce Wayne could donate a billion or two for a special prison for supervillians (you know, one that doesn't let them leave whenever they feel like it), Superman could fly them to a prison he built on mars, get creative! But simply tossing them in a cell or letting them walk away - I would argue - does make them almost as bad as the villains they fight. Because it means they value the ideal of justice more than the people that ideal is meant to serve and protect. And for anyone concerned that killing a villain for all the right reasons is the first step on a slippery slope, I would argue that holding ideals higher than lives is much more dangerous.
 

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
This is the same thing that has been bothering me since the very first super hero comic I've ever read. Heck it's not just super heros. In cartoons and movies in general, killing the bad guy is always portrayed as the worst thing you can do. As it will 'make you just as bad as him'. I don't agree with that at all just like you. Heck, if some bad guy had killed several people and destroyed god knows how much property all for the sake of some heist or some other evil plan then EFFING KILL HIM when you have the chance. People like that have no morals and if they ever get out of jail, will start plotting their next evil plan again.

As you said, killing such people does not make you in any way just like them. It makes you a person that value's other people's lives over the life of a very, VERY dangerous mass murderer.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
sanquin said:
This is the same thing that has been bothering me since the very first super hero comic I've ever read. Heck it's not just super heros. In cartoons and movies in general, killing the bad guy is always portrayed as the worst thing you can do. As it will 'make you just as bad as him'. I don't agree with that at all just like you. Heck, if some bad guy had killed several people and destroyed god knows how much property all for the sake of some heist or some other evil plan then EFFING KILL HIM when you have the chance. People like that have no morals and if they ever get out of jail, will start plotting their next evil plan again.

As you said, killing such people does not make you in any way just like them. It makes you a person that value's other people's lives over the life of a very, VERY dangerous mass murderer.
This message also seems very strange to me for another reason as well. Despite the idea that killing the villain is the worst thing you can do, it's generally agreed upon that there are far worse things than dying. And many times, "morally upright" heroes (especially if they can't kill) inflict these on the villains. Take Dishonored, the video game as an example (note: it's an example of a few scenarios, but I don't have a problem with it because it doesn't advocate one these options as being better than the others). Almost all the nonlethal situations are *much* worse than dying. -DISHONORED SPOILERS- Being enslaved for the rest of your lives in a horrific mine and having your identities erased. Being branded and excommunicated by the religions order that has been your entire life leaving you at best a homeless man with no prospects in a city consumed by plague and famine. Selling you as a (most likely) sex slave to your secret admirer. Being imprisoned and condemned to death or worse for your crimes. The good thing is that the game in no way says these are the better or nicer options, they are simply available. But similar "poetic justice" is preached by comics and movies as being the morally upstanding choice. At best these heroes are condemning the villain to a life of physical or psychological torture (much worse than death), and at worst (and this happens much more often in franchises) it doesn't even stick, and the villain goes right back to their evil doing. Idiotic.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
I feel like 'the rule' originally came about just so the writers wouldn't have to keep Houdini-ing villains back to life and could recycle them over and over again every few years.

Of course, that didn't stop them from killing off and bringing back every hero and villain multiple times, but it's still a more convenient in-universe reason for why Batman and the Joker are always at odds.

Then the rule got taken and warped by the consumer-base, and has since become part of some weird ambiguous "Hero's Moral Code" checklist that must be adhered to in every adaptation of every superhero ever or else they're not really a hero.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
I feel like 'the rule' originally came about just so the writers wouldn't have to keep Houdini-ing villains back to life and could recycle them over and over again every few years.

Of course, that didn't stop them from killing off and bringing back every hero and villain multiple times, but it's still a more convenient in-universe reason for why Batman and the Joker are always at odds.

Then the rule got taken and warped by the consumer-base, and has since become part of some weird ambiguous "Hero's Moral Code" checklist that must be adhered to in every adaptation of every superhero ever or else they're not really a hero.
Agreed. It's one of those things I feel could be lost without too much consternation in modern instances of these stories. Just like I'm fine with Superman finally figuring out that you wear underwear under your other clothing. Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake should be abhorred, in my opinion.
 

Heronblade

New member
Apr 12, 2011
1,204
0
0
No kidding. One could forgive the first few such mistakes, but beyond a certain point, the hero in question must be aware that he/she is choosing to allow hundreds or even thousands of innocent people to die in order avoid killing someone themselves.

I would in fact argue that in many of these cases, the hero in question is MORE culpable for their deaths than the villain themselves. More often than not, the hero in question is quite capable of reasonably assessing the true consequences of their actions, the villains... not so much.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
TheCommanders said:
Agreed. It's one of those things I feel could be lost without too much consternation in modern instances of these stories. Just like I'm fine with Superman finally figuring out that you wear underwear under your other clothing. Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake should be abhorred, in my opinion.
I've got nothing against nostalgia and subsequent pandering to it, but I don't think new takes on old characters should be scorned just because they spurn some sort of arbitrary Code that may or may not actually exist for the character. Bonus points if, much like Man of Steel, things like collateral damage have always been a part of the character's story arcs and so getting huffy because the titular hero killed someone on-screen for once feels a little reactionary.

But then, I've never really been a comic-book reader, so maybe I'm just a little more open to 'alternative' interpretations of iconic characters?
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
TheCommanders said:
Agreed. It's one of those things I feel could be lost without too much consternation in modern instances of these stories. Just like I'm fine with Superman finally figuring out that you wear underwear under your other clothing. Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake should be abhorred, in my opinion.
I've got nothing against nostalgia and subsequent pandering to it, but I don't think new takes on old characters should be scorned just because they spurn some sort of arbitrary Code that may or may not actually exist for the character. Bonus points if, much like Man of Steel, things like collateral damage have always been a part of the character's story arcs and so getting huffy because the titular hero killed someone on-screen for once feels a little reactionary.

But then, I've never really been a comic-book reader, so maybe I'm just a little more open to 'alternative' interpretations of iconic characters?
Not to disparage comic book fans (I'm one myself) but we do seem to be a group rabidly attached to things for little reason. Just look at the reaction to the... uh deviation from the original material in Iron Man 3 (I think that's vague enough to be outside spoiler tags). I don't like it because I feel it doesn't work from a narrative perspective. A lot of comic book fans however hate it because it's... well... to quote American Dad:

"DIFFEREEEEEEEEEEENT!" *angry mob*
 

shadow_Fox81

New member
Jul 29, 2011
410
0
0
TheCommanders said:
You know what I'm talking about. That one rule that most heroes who aren't in the dubious and ever-shifting region occupied by the anti-heroes and anti-villains abide by. No killing.
I still think its a good rule.

Though I'm more into alternative comics i can't see cherishing human life good or evil as a bad rule for a hero.

From what dc I've read it seems a very turbulent and morally shifting world, why wouldn't hero's try and uphold something as universal as reticence to take lives to preserve a sense of moral solidartity, especially when more often than not they hold immense power for taking lives?

I take it that's why its such an integral part of superman's mythos because he has such potential to take life and chooses not to, if my favorite superhero (Astroboy) started killing I'd question the author grasp of their source material .
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
shadow_Fox81 said:
TheCommanders said:
You know what I'm talking about. That one rule that most heroes who aren't in the dubious and ever-shifting region occupied by the anti-heroes and anti-villains abide by. No killing.
I still think its a good rule.

Though I'm more into alternative comics i can't see cherishing human life good or evil as a bad rule for a hero.

From what dc I've read it seems a very turbulent and morally shifting world, why wouldn't hero's try and uphold something as universal as reticence to take lives to preserve a sense of moral solidartity, especially when more often than not they hold immense power for taking lives?

I take it that's why its such an integral part of superman's mythos because he has such potential to take life and chooses not to, if my favorite superhero (Astroboy) started killing I'd question the author grasp of their source material .
Ideals are worthless to the dead. I can't say I'm terrible familiar with Astroboy specifically, so I won't comment spuriously on him, but as a general statement if ideals are held above their practical applications, then they might as well not exist. Ideals shouldn't be glorified. They don't need defending. They are either acted upon, or they aren't. If they are, they either work, or they don't. If they don't, they should be replaced, not clung to arbitrarily. It's as simple as that, as far as I can tell. If the argument is Superman is special because he could take lives but chooses not to, I would switch it around to say he could save a lot more lives, but chooses not to, which doesn't sound nearly as great as far a legacy goes.
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,141
0
0
Meta-wise, it's probably so writers can reuse certain villains... in-comic, it's the "Kill you and you will be just like him" kind of mentality which I find to be total bullshit.

I mean, if someone is a mass-murdering psychopath who keeps breaking out of jail, wouldn't it be better to put them down than to let them keep killing people?

But that's just how I see it...
 

shadow_Fox81

New member
Jul 29, 2011
410
0
0
TheCommanders said:
Ideals are worthless to the dead. I can't say I'm terrible familiar with Astroboy specifically, so I won't comment spuriously on him, but as a general statement if ideals are held above their practical applications, then they might as well not exist. Ideals shouldn't be glorified. They don't need defending. They are either acted upon, or they aren't. If they are, they either work, or they don't. If they don't, they should be replaced, not clung to arbitrarily. It's as simple as that, as far as I can tell. If the argument is Superman is special because he could take lives but chooses not to, I would switch it around to say he could save a lot more lives, but chooses not to, which doesn't sound nearly as great as far a legacy goes.
With so many anti-hero's who kill on whim i feel Superman is supposed to be one of the few that actually tries to be altruistic and struggles with the urge to give in to something darker, and i would welcome more of the sort.

I think its superman thinks to dominate is wrong, and as a hero who survived the genocide of his people(if I'm to understand his back story right) he sees death as the ultimate form of domination and as such the ultimate tabboo. I guess i feel some ideals are worth more than their practicality and i think its in superman's character to do so.

both the original authors if i remember correctly (schuster and spiegel?) were Jewish migrants so i think they made that choice about superman very consciously and i don't think its arbitrary or outdated.
 

Heronblade

New member
Apr 12, 2011
1,204
0
0
shadow_Fox81 said:
TheCommanders said:
You know what I'm talking about. That one rule that most heroes who aren't in the dubious and ever-shifting region occupied by the anti-heroes and anti-villains abide by. No killing.
I still think its a good rule.

Though I'm more into alternative comics i can't see cherishing human life good or evil as a bad rule for a hero.

From what dc I've read it seems a very turbulent and morally shifting world, why wouldn't hero's try and uphold something as universal as reticence to take lives to preserve a sense of moral solidartity, especially when more often than not they hold immense power for taking lives?

I take it that's why its such an integral part of superman's mythos because he has such potential to take life and chooses not to, if my favorite superhero (Astroboy) started killing I'd question the author grasp of their source material .
By all means, cherish all human life, be reluctant to kill people regardless of what they have done. I don't share that particular level of... generosity, but I respect it.

Avoiding killing a criminal is both understandable and to some degree to be encouraged, IF there is another means to prevent further... activity on their part. The problem is that in the scenarios these heroes often find themselves in, choosing not to kill no matter what far more often than not leads quite directly to the deaths of others. So which lives do you value more? The crazy bastard who has killed 300 innocent people this week, or the 400 innocent people he will kill next week if you do not kill him before he has a chance? Either way, there WILL be blood on your hands, and you WILL be at least partly responsible for the deaths of others.

There is a huge difference between killing on a whim, and killing because there is no other reasonable choice.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
shadow_Fox81 said:
With so many anti-hero's who kill on whim i feel Superman is supposed to be one of the few that actually tries to be altruistic and struggles with the urge to give in to something darker, and i would welcome more of the sort.

I think its superman thinks to dominate is wrong, and as a hero who survived the genocide of his people(if I'm to understand his back story right) he sees death as the ultimate form of domination and as such the ultimate tabboo. I guess i feel some ideals are worth more than their practicality and i think its in superman's character to do so.

both the original authors if i remember correctly (schuster and spiegel?) were Jewish migrants so i think they made that choice about superman very consciously and i don't think its arbitrary or outdated.
I could easily argue the subject of a blanket no exception clause "no killing" rule being an altruistic one (I don't think it is), but I would just ask why an abstract ideal is worth anything. The justification is usually that it gives people who don't live up to it something to strive for, but the fact is that doesn't help when not everyone is doing so. I'd love to live in a country with no army, that engages in no wars and lives in complete peace. But that doesn't work. Arbitrarily holding onto my values of peace above all, even if my country was invaded and my people being killed would mean nothing, and would be ultimately harmful towards my cause. Sometimes the only way to strive towards an ideal is to violate it, but the code of superman doesn't allow for these idiosyncrasies, and is therefore, I believe, flawed and unrealistic to his situation.
 

shadow_Fox81

New member
Jul 29, 2011
410
0
0
TheCommanders said:
Sometimes the only way to strive towards an ideal is to violate it, but the code of superman doesn't allow for these idiosyncrasies, and is therefore, I believe, flawed and unrealistic to his situation.
Most definitely so, but the choice to "never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon"(said a super hero once) is a valid choice and equally rich from a literary standpoint and superman is after all a work of fiction.

I also feel country is an abstract ideal and by defending it your holding up 'country' as an abstract ideal above others, I mean surrendering probably would save more lives, maybe these invaders are nice guys. But "country" is an ideal you refuse to violate.

i think exchanging "country" for "life" makes you the same as superman only valuing one ideal above another, we can never be free of abstractions and by default ideals.
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
Well, it's not really the hero's job to do the killing, is it? That would make them judge, jury and executioner. Isn't it kind of the responsibility of the authorities that, for example, Batman hands the Joker over to to decide whether he should get the death penalty?

I will never understand why people find that hard to understand, at least in the case of Batman. Killing would push him over the line from helpful vigilante to dangerous loose cannon because he would be killing without any authority. A far better question would be "Why doesn't Gotham have the death penalty?", but nope. It's all about the heroes, so they are personally responsible for dealing out any punishment required.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
shadow_Fox81 said:
TheCommanders said:
Sometimes the only way to strive towards an ideal is to violate it, but the code of superman doesn't allow for these idiosyncrasies, and is therefore, I believe, flawed and unrealistic to his situation.
Most definitely so, but the choice to "never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon"(said a super hero once) is a valid choice and equally rich from a literary standpoint and superman is after all a work of fiction.

I also feel country is an abstract ideal and by defending it your holding up 'country' as an abstract ideal above others, I mean surrendering probably would save more lives, maybe these invaders are nice guys. But "country" is an ideal you refuse to violate.

i think exchanging "country" for "life" makes you the same as superman only valuing one ideal above another, we can never be free of abstractions and by default ideals.
I believe that quote you mentioned is referencing Rorschach from Watchmen (correct me if I'm wrong). From a literary standpoint, yes that's a interesting thing, but look at what it accomplished for him and his ideal: nothing. I think that was a deliberate literary statement. I will say that scene almost made me tear up in the movie version though... anwyay...

Let me simplify my analogy. I organize a group of people under the banner of peace, living in harmony, with violence being abhorred in all it's forms (basically the centaurs from Bender's Game). Then come other people, who had grouped together because they found that the best way to get what they wanted was to take it from others. They come to where my group is and rampage through, raping and pillaging. We can either stick to our vow of peace and all die pointlessly, or we can fight back to defend our ideal, even though it means we will fail to live up to it. I would posit the second is the better option. An ideal (I really need a thesaurus) is a vision of how things should be, not how they are. To make it it a reality is often impossible while abiding by it. Therefore using an ideal as the basis for a code of conduct is not a good idea, because it's counterproductive to the ideal itself.

Did that make sense? I haven't slept in a while...

Also I've reached the point where "ideal" doesn't look like a word anymore, more like a sort of french hair product or something.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
Geo Da Sponge said:
Well, it's not really the hero's job to do the killing, is it? That would make them judge, jury and executioner. Isn't it kind of the responsibility of the authorities that, for example, Batman hands the Joker over to to decide whether he should get the death penalty?

I will never understand why people find that hard to understand, at least in the case of Batman. Killing would push him over the line from helpful vigilante to dangerous loose cannon because he would be killing without any authority. A far better question would be "Why doesn't Gotham have the death penalty?", but nope. It's all about the heroes, so they are personally responsible for dealing out any punishment required.
The main reason I don't see this as a valid argument is that they've made themselves responsible, no-one asked them to do what they do (explicitly at the very least). And clearly they are failing. And yet they refuse to change any part of their methodology. That strikes me as irresponsible.

Also, I mentioned that if they wanted to avoid killing, fine, but help the portion of the system that's supposed to handle these people, rather than just dumping them with the same system that keeps failing at it's job (keeping dangerous people locked up) over and over again and expecting a different result. Don't make me get Vaas from Far Cry 3 to come here and lecture you. Either find a way to make your method work, or find a different method. They refuse to do either.
 

shadow_Fox81

New member
Jul 29, 2011
410
0
0
TheCommanders said:
Did that make sense?.
it did make sense, and yes it was Rorschach (winks.)

I think your scenario ignores that the peaceful people still achieve their ideal if they accept death. Not acknowledging so refuses see the world through their eyes.

same with superman, saying his one rule is outdated refuses to see where he comes from and who he is.

out I'm a peaceful kinda guy
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
shadow_Fox81 said:
TheCommanders said:
Did that make sense?.
it did make sense, and yes it was Rorschach (winks.)

I think your scenario ignores that the peaceful people still achieve their ideal if they accept death. Not acknowledging so refuses see the world through their eyes.

same with superman, saying his one rule is outdated refuses to see where he comes from and who he is.

out I'm a peaceful kinda guy
Maybe my mistake was calling their deaths meaningless, because that's my perspective. What I'm looking at is the bigger picture. People like Superman aren't just trying to live and die by a code, they're doing so to better humanity. When that code gets in the way of that, I would argue it hurts the virtues it expounds. So yes those, let's say 25 people died with their ideal intact. But was their ideal that exactly 25 people should live in peace, or that everyone should. If it's the later, I would argue their deaths weakened their ideal, as one thing peace requires is consensus (either forced or voluntary), and therefore the deaths of people who supported that ideal would make it harder to achieve. I think that's a bad thing.