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

Heronblade

New member
Apr 12, 2011
1,204
0
0
Magog1 said:
Heronblade said:
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.
I agree with you.. but this is the thing.. superman is suppose to be a good guy.

And here's an ugly fact I wanna tell you with 0 troll intent. Maybe.. we're evil dicks. I mean seriously. Maybe the reason we agree with Frank castle is cause we're bad people.

i mean just a thought.

and seriously if you swapped out bruce wayne for Frank castle he'd have gotham clean in a week.
BUt you wouldn't have a comic.
Too far the other way

Castle is a homicidal maniac, who falls into the antihero (and not just another villain) category only because of who he picks for his victims. I do not suggest that death be a first resort for these heroes, even if the people in question deserve that fate. All I am saying is that it should be considered an option when other options fail.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
Magog1 said:
I think Com your missing the point. for the dark vigilante like the batman you have a point.
not every super hero thinks they know better than "the law."

How many people given the power to kill really would? I mean they don't have to.
I mean yes a human being put in a life or death personal situation will go to great lengths to personally survive.

But how many can take someone elses life even for the best reasons?

I'm not tree hugger LOL.. i'm not taking that side.... but I get why they don't. I think your content to go "don't wanna understand."

Hell i don't understand why some people don't eat meat. know why? I choose not to. It's not rocket science lol. it's not that hard to figure out.
Yeah, but people don't die as a result of your decision, which I think is a big factor. These heroes, as far as I can tell, are making a conscious decision that the code they represent is more important than the lives that code is meant to protect, and if anything about a superhero would be arrogant, that would be it. When it comes down to it, I believe if a code fails to create the desired outcome, than it needs reexamining.

Not to mention lets look at the kill first ask later types.

Frank castle.. most image hero's.....
I mean hell every image hero damn near was willing to kill.

Hows brand doing? there's your answer. And i liked image. I'm just being honest.
I'm not saying kill everyone, I'm saying consider it as an option when the alternative is worse. By all means, try to use the proper legal channels to punish these villains, but when that fails repeatedly, and more and more people die as a direct result of your allowing a villain to live, it's time to seriously think about whether your personal comfort is worth all the lives you keep throwing away.
 

DRTJR

New member
Aug 7, 2009
651
0
0
The taking of another's life is something most sane rational people don't do unless it is a final resort. For Supes and Batman it is almost never a final resort because they're SUPERheroes and are by definition better that your average joe shmoe.

I suggest either reading the Superman story-line, "What's so funny about truth justice and the American way?" or watch the animated movie "Superman Vs. The Elite." Same story that answers these vary questions.
 

Heronblade

New member
Apr 12, 2011
1,204
0
0
Magog1 said:
Who gets to make that call? A reasonable person realizes it shouldn't be up to just himself. where does it stop?

When do you stop being a super hero and start being Kira from death note? (See again I routed for Kira but i'm a terrible person LOL).

and as for frank castle being a maniac.... i didn't hear you tell me he wouldn't make gotham a better place.

how many of bat mans villains do you feel deserve mercy? and no picking people just cause their cute like Harley lol
Actually, I think he would be badly outclassed by many of Gotham's residents. Castle is an incredibly tough fighter, but he is not much more than a thug in the end, and most of these guys are not the run of the mill mob organizations he normally squares off against.

Regardless, his... methods are liable to cause nearly as much damage as those he chooses to target, so no I don't think he would be of much help in the end.

Also, it is not a matter of which deserve mercy, it is a matter of which cannot be contained for any length of time. Take Killer Croc and compare him to the Scarecrow for instance. One is a man-eating machine that is all but impossible to imprison, the other is a fairly wimpy psychologist that is... less than effective without his toys.
 

Ruisu

Enjoy the Silence
Jul 11, 2013
190
0
0
I really don't see what's the big deal with Zod's death. It is not a violation of Superman's code. It won't motivate him to kill again as a easy way out.

Because it was more of a suicide from Zod than a murder from superman. It would have the same effect in terms of plot if Zod was trapped in some doomsday machine and superman failed to save him.

For example, it would be against superman character if we were talking about him killing the joker like in injustice. Superman was angry, joker is powerless to stop him, in jail, and superman rips his heart out anyway, because "he deserves it".
That is an execution. That would make superman fall as a hero and all.
Against Zod, superman was facing an enemy possibly stronger, more trained, and more agressive than himself. He was in a corner, "do or die", with the choice to watch people die in front of him or kill zod.
Sure, a lot of people died already in the battle before, but superman was trying to take down Zod to prevent even more deaths. I mean, what else could he do? It's not like he had the years of experience he has in the comics, or that bunch of super androids to go after his back to help with collateral damage.

As for batman, his reason I most like for not killing the Joker is the one he gives on "Death of the Family". He could kill the joker, make an exception, and never do it again. But then gotham would just send back something even worst.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
sanquin said:
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.
It's usually done more for the principle of returning villains, though. Convenience more than morality. There's a reason even badass anti-heroes don't kill named villains a lot of the time.

What bothers me is how frequently the guys who "don't kill" orchestrate the deaths of the bad guys. I'm not talking about that cop-out where the bad guy effectively kills himself, but the rigged scenario where the good guy gets to take the moral high ground (because ponies) even though it was through his actions that the guy is dead.
 

DRTJR

New member
Aug 7, 2009
651
0
0
Magog1 said:
joker had some power... he could shut the fuck up LOL instead of poking a angry dog with a stick.

And yes as a guy who to can't shut up to save his life I feel bad for the joker.. but hay like i said i'm a bad guy lol.
Yes i'm aware super man had his mind made up in all likely hood, but I can't lump someone as kiling someone powerless
as say on your hands and knees begging for your life.. vs "ha ha i killed your woman!" with his last breath lol.

I mean reasonably. How many people are gonna put up with that shit?


Your name is apt for the discussion... Think of all the Villains that reformed (Until and editorial Mandate kicks in) Like Black Adam or Elastic man. The best example is the Justice League Unlimited episode with the Huntress and the Question on the trail of the Madragorian, if the Huntress actually killed her nemesis then his son would have taken revenge and the cycle would have gone on. But because she spared him the cycle of revenge stops.
 

Warachia

New member
Aug 11, 2009
1,116
0
0
No, if a superhero kills a villain, then they've broken the law, and are the villain, ignoring the moral aspect, murder is a crime, it's the job of the legal system to say whether or not somebody should die.

Scarim Coral said:
This thread need this video clip (the animated film Superman Vs The Elite (pretty much based on this topic)-

By all means, I fully understand the pro/ con about this discussion (seriously, if any Superheroes comics were using real world logic, most supervillains would of been executed if not placed in long terms to life sentences imprisonment) but one of the things lacking about this thread is if all superheroes were allow to killed a supervillain then what is the values of truth and justice?

Shouldn't the villain should face trail for his/ her crime than just being killed in a instant? Sure you can argue that a swift death to say under the name of justice will saved alot of time and money but how much knowledge of the justice system would that hero know and why it is only him/ her who get the final say? Even then what methods is allow/ not allow to be used to excuted the villain? I'm pretty sure a brutal death to a deranged villain will not be easy to read/ watched expecially young children?

Sure I can assume some or most of us would trust a superhero but there will be those who don't and putting them above the law will cause some distrust among those people or if a superhero will abuse this power (excuted a villain who was willing to face his/ her trail and send to prison).

Even then why should we put this implications only to them? By all means I know this doesn't apply to anyone but I myself don't view myself a killer if I was put in a hard position of a person life if I were to become a superhero (kind of a moral issue). Sure justication is crying out for it (killed one to saved the many and etc) but that doesn't mean it will a easy toll for that superhero to do so. These sort of discussion can easily messed us up in a bad way.
That's the rest of what I was going to say, thanks, I agree completely.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
JimB said:
Abomination said:
Strike 1: go to jail. Strike 2: go to grave.
Why? If life is so cheap you can throw it away after only two strikes, then what about human life is worth killing to protect?
I don't know about you but I believe that 2 lives are more valuable than 1 life. If I can kill one person to save two people (especially when the one person is going to try and kill the two people) I'll kill the one person. Life is precious, that's why I'll try and save as much of it as is possible, and if ending a life saves more lives then it (while not perfect) is a good result.

Abomination said:
An example would be Arkham's revolving door policy. Villain kills some people, gets captured and goes in...gets released "somehow," kills more people, back to Arkham. Repeat.
I don't know how many inmates at Arkham are ever released. It seems like to me most of them escape. That's not a problem in Arkham's policy, nor with the legal system; it's a problem with security and administration.
No, it's a problem with all of Arkham's policy. The whole facility is corrupt as hell, it's a situation where the inmates run the asylum either directly or indirectly. Killing them would solve all problems.

Abomination said:
Behave badly by getting killed? You're confusing villain with victim here somehow and I can't possibly see how you don't know the difference between someone who intentionally goes out of their way to kill people and a victim of that very intention.
The victim makes bad choices that end in death. So does the killer, in your proposed system of jurisprudence.
The victim makes a bad choice? By zigging instead of zagging? The killer INTENTIONALLY tries to kill someone. This is also about saving lives, not ending them. The victims are not creating the situation where death occurs.

Abomination said:
The first step should always involve a method of attempting to change a convict into a productive and law-abiding member of society.
The entire purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. It can infringe upon our privileges, like the privilege of freedom, but if it infringes on our rights, like the right to not be killed, then it is monstrous and must be struck down, because it's taking from us disproportionate to what we're giving it.
Yes, and the only way that it can protect the rights of its citizens in an effective manner is to kill someone who is constantly taking the lives of its citizens. Are you trying to tell me that the rights of a person who ignores others rights is just as valuable as the rights of the individuals whose rights are being ignored? This person has already shown he does not respect others' rights to life, taking his is not hypocritical. Defending his life however IS hypocritical.

Abomination said:
The Joker highlights this frequently, actually. He enjoys tormenting Batman with it. Lex Luthor is another example of a villian who knows Superman won't kill him.
That's two. You said "most," so, if there were only three villains, that would be a compelling case, but as it stands I'm gonna just go ahead and call shenanigans on that.
Bane, Killer Croc, Two-Face, Black Mask, The Riddler, Hugo Strange, Catwoman & Poison Ivy all know Batman won't kill them. Joker is just the criminal who likes to abuse the fact more than others. Hugo Strange and The Riddler also tend to torment him.

As for Superman, the types of opponents he faces tend to not care or call him out on it being a weakness. Then Superman says his typical blah-de-blah "Mercy is a sign of strength" and wins the boxing match.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Hafrael said:
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.
But that's the point of Supes, he does share that level of generosity. He believes at the core of his being that everyone is inherently good, and that there is always a way to save someone. He wouldn't be so super if his only way to stop crime is to just kill criminals, that would just make him a gun lobbyist.
Um, no. Giving financial donations to politicians who vote in favor of gun rights legislation would make Superman a gun lobbyist, and killing people who he knows will probably cause further death would make him a reasonable person who wants to save lives. Superman has fought the same villains enough times to know they don't usually stay in prison or get rehabilitated. And he knows from personal experience that he can't always save everyone. Anyone who can put 2 and 2 together should realize that sometimes killing someone can be better than letting them live.

Your argument basically hinges on Superman being either stupid or naïve and therefore incompetent as a result.


Hafrael said:
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.
First of all how is it in any way a Superhero's fault for crimes a criminal commits? Is it your fault every time an innocent dies from a drone strike? You're not doing everything in your power to stop it, you have blood on your hands.
The Superhero is allowing someone to live whom he knows will probably kill many more people in the future. He may not be directly responsible, for anything the Joker does, but he's knowingly allowing it to continue. If I throw someone into a tank of piranhas would you say I'm innocent because it was the piranhas that killed them?



Hafrael said:
Second, cut to the quick, we're talking about the Joker. I would like to make this clear Batman's "no killing" rule comes from deep psychological trauma. The reason he doesn't kill the Joker is because Batman is fucking insane.
So I take it you agree that the no killing rule is insane then? The truth is that Batman applies the rule to everyone, not just Joker, and he's clearly very sound of mind and conscious, at least in every movie and cartoon I've seen him in. He may have a dark past, but for the most part he doesn't let it cloud his judgment.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Abomination said:
I don't know about you, but I believe that two lives are more valuable than one life.
I don't. Human life is not a math equation, and even if it was, permit me to point out that by killing that guy, there are no longer two dead bodies. There are now three.

Abomination said:
The whole facility is corrupt as hell, it's a situation where the inmates run the asylum either directly or indirectly. Killing them would solve all problems.
So would hiring new staff.

Abomination said:
The victim makes a bad choice? By zigging instead of zagging? The killer intentionally tries to kill someone.
And the victim intentionally chose to live the kind of life that left him unprepared to survive an attack, so why is he more innocent under your paradigm than the villain?

Abomination said:
This is also about saving lives, not ending them.
No, it isn't. You're sitting here arguing that killing is cool.

Abomination said:
The victims are not creating the situation where death occurs.
It takes two to dance.

Abomination said:
Yes, and the only way that it can protect the rights of its citizens in an effective manner is to kill someone who is constantly taking the lives of its citizens.
Villains are (mostly) our citizens too. They deserve the same rights we have.

Abomination said:
Are you trying to tell me that the rights of a person who ignores others rights is just as valuable as the rights of the individuals whose rights are being ignored?
Yes. That is why it's called a right and not a privilege.

Abomination said:
Bane, Killer Croc, Two-Face, Black Mask, The Riddler, Hugo Strange, Catwoman & Poison Ivy all know Batman won't kill them.
You didn't say they all know he won't kill them. You said their motive for committing crime is that he won't kill them. Are you saying that Catwoman robs people not because she wants the money, but because Batman won't kill her? Are you saying that of everyone on that list?

Abomination said:
As for Superman, the types of opponents he faces tend to not care or call him out on it being a weakness. Then Superman says his typical blah-de-blah "Mercy is a sign of strength" and wins the boxing match.
And he's right, what with winning the fight and all.
 

Chaos Isaac

New member
Jun 27, 2013
609
0
0
Because most super heroes are assholes, basically.

Well, I could prevent the deaths of thousands of innocent people by removing Joker from the equation, buuuuuut. Nah. That would be too easy.

Shut up Batman.

And it's funny how a lot of people are basically saying, "Well, if they do. What's to stop them from becoming a monster?" Uhm. Killing one guy, who is unquestionable out to kill people, and do terrible things, with no remorse and any attempt to subdue them will only be a mitigation to the damage they cause, isn't really helping. Just dragging things out. And to the point, killing one terrible person to stop them from committing atrocities does not automatically make you a homicidal maniac. It makes you someone who killed a serial killer.

Not the best thing in the world, but your crime is arguably a far better resolution.

Also it isn't like it makes murder the go to solution for every villain. Just a few select one's who you know will do nothing but try and make the world burn.
 

Il_Exile_lI

New member
Jun 23, 2010
70
0
0
There is a line in Avatar the Last Airbender that I absolutely love. Towards the end of the series Aang (The Avatar) is trying to find a way to deal with the villain of the entire show by some means other than killing him, and seeks the wisdom of past avatar spirits. He tells them that he was taught that taking a life was never an option, and pacifism is the key to spiritual enlightenment, and in response he was told something along these lines.

"Many people have achieved spiritual enlightenment through peace and prosperity, but the Avatar can never do so. Your duty is to the world, and that may mean having to sacrifice your own enlightenment and ethics in order to save lives and maintain the greater peace."

Now, this is someone undercut by the fact that (SPOILERS)... he does find a way to defeat the villain without killing him, but I still feel like the sentiment is something that fits well with the whole superhero mythos as well. By choosing not kill out of some sense of personal ethics, these heroes are selfishly putting their own psychological well-being above the safety of innocent lives.
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
TheCommanders said:
The reason it also becomes "stupid superheroes" is that they are aware of the problem, but do nothing about it. They continously use the same solution to deal with villains they defeat knowing full well (unless they are completely delusional) that it won't work. If they aren't going to kill people ever, then it's up to them to find a better solution, which they never even attempt.

"No point in killing the villains because they get better anyway." I can't even begin to see where you got that from me saying that the prison system is terrible. In the comic book world, a very tiny percentage of the villains have heel face turns, the others are remorseless and unrepentant at all time, and never change. I don't even understand what your argument here is.
I'm saying that popular comic book characters, both villains and heroes alike, never stay dead for the same reason they never stay in prison. As in, they get better from being dead is what I meant there.

Basically, if you have a problem with status quo being law and you wish that characters would come up with more permanent solutions, then I think the comic book genre is the wrong place to look. I mean think about it, in pretty much every super hero film the villain gets killed off or permanently locked up. It's the same characters going through the same sort of plots, the only difference is that they don't have to bring out another one next month.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
I have to take issue with the notion that Superman (or any Superhero for that matter) ought to kill someone when they perform one move or another. The reason is simply that it is a relative staple to assume plenty of things in media of all sorts are less lethal than they would otherwise be.

Take Deus Ex Human Revolution. One of your melee moves simply involves jumping out of cover and punching a man in the head so hard he falls down and simply doesn't get back up. From the game's perspective, this man isn't dead - he's simply unconscious. Even a cursory knowledge of human physiology should be sufficient to understand that if you hit a man in the face so hard he loses consciousness for hours, odds are very good he's not going to wake up again. Hell, even if he does, the amount of brain trauma (not to mention the high probability that said blow crushed part of his skull) would all but ensure that, even if he did wake up, he probably wouldn't be the same person.

The second part of the issue is that most superheroes you cite tend to try and uphold a moral standard wherein they are willing to play the part of cop but not the part of judge and executioner. There isn't a moral disconnect in such a case: their stated goal generally amounts to protection and service; few deal in the business of punishment. If they crossed that boundary, then they fall from hero status. Using their abilities to help protect those weaker is one thing, using the same to act as the entirety of the legal system is another entirely.

The difference can best be summed up using two classic American tropes: the posse and the lynch mob. The former traditionally represents people who are not part of the legal system coming in to aid in a scenario where the local law enforcement is unable to cope. The latter takes it the extra set of steps the OP proposes and straight up murders the person if they catch them. One it should be noted is regarded with ambivalence as a posse could be useful or harmful depending on the situation. The latter is nearly universally regarded with disgust.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
I have to take issue with the notion that Superman (or any Superhero for that matter) ought to kill someone when they perform one move or another. The reason is simply that it is a relative staple to assume plenty of things in media of all sorts are less lethal than they would otherwise be.

Take Deus Ex Human Revolution. One of your melee moves simply involves jumping out of cover and punching a man in the head so hard he falls down and simply doesn't get back up. From the game's perspective, this man isn't dead - he's simply unconscious. Even a cursory knowledge of human physiology should be sufficient to understand that if you hit a man in the face so hard he loses consciousness for hours, odds are very good he's not going to wake up again. Hell, even if he does, the amount of brain trauma (not to mention the high probability that said blow crushed part of his skull) would all but ensure that, even if he did wake up, he probably wouldn't be the same person.
The main point I was trying to raise here is that no one cares if a superhero accidentally kills a mook, or about the fact that there are bound to be causalities of bystanders during some of the superhero-supervillain urban throw downs. They only seem to think it's a matter of morals if the person the hero kills to save others has a name. Sure, I understand these are comics and they can say people survived whatever they want, but the point is there's a curious double standard regarding people whose death is not in the limelight. At the very least, saying that superman's antics have never resulted in any deaths would be patently false, but people accept that because he saves more lives than he ends, as a direct or indirect result of ending those lives (that part's important). But suddenly with the actual villain in charge of it all, killing them to prevent more death is suddenly unthinkable. Seems hypocritical to me.

The second part of the issue is that most superheroes you cite tend to try and uphold a moral standard wherein they are willing to play the part of cop but not the part of judge and executioner. There isn't a moral disconnect in such a case: their stated goal generally amounts to protection and service; few deal in the business of punishment. If they crossed that boundary, then they fall from hero status. Using their abilities to help protect those weaker is one thing, using the same to act as the entirety of the legal system is another entirely.

The difference can best be summed up using two classic American tropes: the posse and the lynch mob. The former traditionally represents people who are not part of the legal system coming in to aid in a scenario where the local law enforcement is unable to cope. The latter takes it the extra set of steps the OP proposes and straight up murders the person if they catch them. One it should be noted is regarded with ambivalence as a posse could be useful or harmful depending on the situation. The latter is nearly universally regarded with disgust.
Yeah, the difference is, when the posse catches the criminal, the justice system they hand them over to is usually equipped to deal with them, and they're gone forever, end of story. Not even remotely so in comic book related media. I think people forget that what superheroes do is already illegal. Very illegal. As in, if they were ever apprehended, they would be locked up for the rest of their lives illegal (dozens of wrongful deaths, hundreds of assault charges, torture (what else do you call throttling someone until they talk?), breaking and entering, vandalism, property damage, obstruction of justice, kidnapping, theft, and many more felonies). We're ok with these because most if not all of these are inflicted on criminals, usually while they are actively trying to do others harm. But for some reason there's an arbitrary line in the sand at Murder 2. As if destroying the lives of these people is fine, but ending them (even only as a last resort when there is no other option to prevent more deaths) is arbitrarily taboo. That just seems silly.