Wonder Woman: Warrior or Hero?

[Flash's Lightning]

And about Wonder Woman: I know people keep commenting that "she's a warrior." And that's true. But she should be a HERO first. Because that's the character concept (it's Wonder Woman, not Amazon Woman) and because she has been a hero for over a decade now (DC time) and she should know by now that being a hero is greater than being a warrior (especially after fiascos such as killing Max Lord.) I guess her problem is, there's so little to her besides being WW (in contrast to Superman and Batman) that writers always go back to the "warrior" thing to give her some substance. I hope Simone fixes that...

From the Trinity #2 discussion, didn't want to derail that.

I can see what you're saying, but WW, in my mind, IS a warrior first. It's why Superman has to hold her back sometimes, such as in Kingdom Come. She gets the bloodlust, the desire to just fight and destroy the opponent. She has a temper.

I'm not saying she can't have heroic tendencies too - she obviously does as she rescues people all the time, and guards them as well. I just think her main place, the place she's most comfortable in, is war.

And I think not mentioning that, or even not focusing on the fact that it exists, is disregarding her character. I'm not saying it has to be *just* about war and fighting, but you can't just conveniently forget about it and pretend it doesn't exist either.

[Daredoll]

I think the problem is that the writers of DC try so hard to make her one of the Trinity that they constantly try to find some angle that can set her apart from Batman and Superman so that there's some conflict there - so it's not all peaceful and perfect - and the perfect way to do that is, in their eyes, to play up her warrior aspect. It's not the smartest move, and it's not the way I'd play it, but that's what their decision seems to be.

I've always seen it as thus: Superman saves life, Batman protects life, and Wonder Woman changes life. And I know there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between the two, but I think it's a pretty fine line. Superman swoops in to save someone from danger. Batman patrols the city, trying to stop the danger from happening, and Wonder Woman...she talks about the danger and tries to change their minds about it, trying to change their point of view.

Or something. This sounded a lot more coherent in my head.

[Sijo]

Hey, this may be the first time one of my comments generated its own thread here! So thanks for that. :smile:

And as I said, Wonder Woman should always be a *hero* first. Because it's what she's supposed to be about (not snapping necks or beheading foes). Sure, it did make sense when she was starting out (in the Perez run) but by now, she's had years of experience in the modern world, and more importantly, among the World's greatest heroes, who have a strict no-kill policy. Breaking it always brings only trouble, and she should know by now, especially after the Max Lord thing. If she hasn't realized it by now, then she's an idiot. And I don't think she is.

It's all nice and OK to be proud of your heritage, but when that heritage makes you do something you know it's wrong, you can't favor it.

And I'm not saying a hero should NEVER kill- only that they should do it when there's absolutely NO other choice- while a warrior would see killing as an acceptable solution more often. (And no, I don't think the Lord killing was justified. C'mon, anything is possible in the DCU, and Diana should also know that by then. Just because Lord told her killing him was the only way to free Superman doesn't mean it's true. He might just have believed it.)

Being a Hero is *always* more noble than just being a warrior.

In a superhero story, anyway. :)

And Daredoll: I think I get what you mean. Superman is reactive, Batman is proactive, and WW is progressive. Correct? I agree with that.

[WorstThingUS]

From the Trinity #2 discussion, didn't want to derail that.

I can see what you're saying, but WW, in my mind, IS a warrior first. It's why Superman has to hold her back sometimes, such as in Kingdom Come. She gets the bloodlust, the desire to just fight and destroy the opponent. She has a temper.

I'm not saying she can't have heroic tendencies too - she obviously does as she rescues people all the time, and guards them as well. I just think her main place, the place she's most comfortable in, is war.

And I think not mentioning that, or even not focusing on the fact that it exists, is disregarding her character. I'm not saying it has to be *just* about war and fighting, but you can't just conveniently forget about it and pretend it doesn't exist either.

I'm with you. She wasn't raised to be a hero first. She was raised to be not just a warrior but to become queen of the warriors. Twenty years of that as opposed to ten years of running around with Superman. Her first impulse should always be to take heads. In fact there should be a Wonder Woman Year One that shows her ready to behead evildoers before she accepts that's not the way we do things. Wonder Woman comes from an Ancient Pagan Warrior Culture. She should not have this modern Judeo-Christian reverence of it. Basically, her first year here should be Red Sonja with super-powers.

[BnL]

From the Trinity #2 discussion, didn't want to derail that.

I can see what you're saying, but WW, in my mind, IS a warrior first. It's why Superman has to hold her back sometimes, such as in Kingdom Come. She gets the bloodlust, the desire to just fight and destroy the opponent. She has a temper.

I'm not saying she can't have heroic tendencies too - she obviously does as she rescues people all the time, and guards them as well. I just think her main place, the place she's most comfortable in, is war.

And I think not mentioning that, or even not focusing on the fact that it exists, is disregarding her character. I'm not saying it has to be *just* about war and fighting, but you can't just conveniently forget about it and pretend it doesn't exist either.

Hmm. Kingdom Come was a worst-case-scenario story, where everyone was at their lowest. But that story is not representative of who those characters truly are.

Wonder Woman doesn't have a bad temper, and that's a very common misread of her character. I think this stems from her status as a warrior. But being a warrior doesn't mean that one has "bloodlust." That's not who she is. There's nothing noble or admirable about that, and "noble and admirable" are things Wonder Woman should be. She relishes the thrill of competition, but that's not nearly the same thing as bloodlust and aggression.

Her status as a warrior just means that she is well-versed in the art of war. She knows all the ins and outs. She knows battle strategy, she knows how to rally forces, she knows how to lead the troops, she knows how to fight, and, just as importantly, but often forgotten, she also knows how to use diplomacy. These are all different aspects of war, and Diana can tackle all of them with great skill. Why? Because she wants to STOP war. She wants to protect innocents. She wants to reform evildoers. She wants the best for everyone. A true warrior like Diana is aware of the heavy costs of war, and is loathe to take things to that level. But in order to accomplish all those goals, one has to know exactly what it is one is fighting, from the inside out.

Will she kill if necessary? Yes. But it's not an activity she enjoys. It's a last resort. When she takes a life, she knows she's doing the right thing, even though it hurts her to have to do so. Thankfully, she's rarely forced to resort to that option.

The warrior = short temper/bloodlust thing is a real misnomer. She's compassionate. She's merciful. She's noble. She's self-sacrificing. Her ultimate goal is peace.

[Sijo]

And let's not forget, one of her original aspects was as a Missionary of the Amazons' ideals- who were, yes, a race of warriors, but also philosophers who spoused equality with (not hatred of) men, and Peace before War.

These days, they're just treated as a bunch of female barbarians, sadly. But then again, as I've remarked before, DC sells its comics on the strength of cheap thrills, not true heroism. :frown:

[Loner]

I don't think Wonder Woman is sorry she killed Max Lord, nor should she be. She did what was necessary. Not cheerfully, not with bloodlust, she just did it. The aftermath of that was basically bad PR for Wonder Woman. It was a small price to pay to avert the havoc Lord would have unleashed on the world with Superman in his thrall.

[Flash's Lightning]

From Newsarama's Trinity session #2. Since it pertains to the discussion at hand:

NRAMA: As far as that goes, the title (and its context) were pretty funny. That's really who Diana is, isn't it? The classic overachiever, refracted through a prism of combat?

KB: I'm not sure that's quite the way I'd put it. It's not so much "overachiever" as it is "striving for perfection." Which is close, but not the same thing.

Anyway, it's something I've wanted to do with Wonder Woman for a few years now. I was thinking about how she's an Amazon, she's this uber-warrior, but people keep writing her as a pacifist, which didn't feel right to me. She's not someone who seeks out combat, but she's not someone who shies away from it when needed, either. So I figured that when she's in a fight, what she's doing is competing -- not against the bad guy, or against her fellow heroes, but against herself. Each time she stops a bank robbery, she's out to stop it faster, cleaner and more efficiently that she ever has before. Each time she faces down a monster, she wants to do better than the last time. She wants to take all her experience and apply it to doing what she does just that fraction better, because to her, you're either always improving, or you're starting to fail.

So yeah, if there were people in danger, she'd gladly have Superman help, but as long as they're not, why not test herself?

I agree with that.

I think the problem is that the writers of DC try so hard to make her one of the Trinity that they constantly try to find some angle that can set her apart from Batman and Superman so that there's some conflict there - so it's not all peaceful and perfect - and the perfect way to do that is, in their eyes, to play up her warrior aspect. It's not the smartest move, and it's not the way I'd play it, but that's what their decision seems to be.

I've always seen it as thus: Superman saves life, Batman protects life, and Wonder Woman changes life. And I know there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between the two, but I think it's a pretty fine line. Superman swoops in to save someone from danger. Batman patrols the city, trying to stop the danger from happening, and Wonder Woman...she talks about the danger and tries to change their minds about it, trying to change their point of view.

Or something. This sounded a lot more coherent in my head.

Nah, you're coherent enough. I see what you mean, but I don't think writers make Wonder Woman go into "warrior mode" just to contrast with Superman and Batman. That's like saying Batman is what he is because they wanted to contrast his character with Superman and Wonder Woman's. WW isn't a pale imitation or someone whose there to highlight the personalities of the other two, she's substantially a character of her own.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the "talks about the danger and tries to change their minds about it" part, though. Wonder Woman is pretty damn aggressive and straightforward. I don't see her as the "sit around and talk about it" type of person. Would she rather people talk their problems out? I'm sure she would, who wouldn't? But I don't think she's scared to take care of business, and certainly wouldn't hold Bruce or Clark back.

[Flash's Lightning]

Hey, this may be the first time one of my comments generated its own thread here! So thanks for that. :smile:

No worries. It was a good point you made, and we're just expressing our opinions here. No right or wrong answers! :wink:

And as I said, Wonder Woman should always be a *hero* first. Because it's what she's supposed to be about (not snapping necks or beheading foes). Sure, it did make sense when she was starting out (in the Perez run) but by now, she's had years of experience in the modern world, and more importantly, among the World's greatest heroes, who have a strict no-kill policy. Breaking it always brings only trouble, and she should know by now, especially after the Max Lord thing. If she hasn't realized it by now, then she's an idiot. And I don't think she is.

I hate to ask this, because it's been overdiscussed into dust, but what makes her killing Medusa or Max Lord wrong? In a world where being have great power, there are going to be times when you'll have to sacrifice that being's life if they use that great power to harm others, and you have to choose between one life and many. There was no way to keep Max from controlling Superman other than killing him, Max was obviously non-repentant and would have continued his killing, and so WW did what she had to do.

It's all nice and OK to be proud of your heritage, but when that heritage makes you do something you know it's wrong, you can't favor it.

Again - what makes the Amazonian way "wrong"? I see nothing wrong with her heritage.

And I'm not saying a hero should NEVER kill- only that they should do it when there's absolutely NO other choice- while a warrior would see killing as an acceptable solution more often. (And no, I don't think the Lord killing was justified. C'mon, anything is possible in the DCU, and Diana should also know that by then. Just because Lord told her killing him was the only way to free Superman doesn't mean it's true. He might just have believed it.)

Are you willing to stake the lives of millions on the idea "there might have been another way"? Think about this. Superman can kill millions - MILLIONS - in the time it would take you or me to brush our teeth in the morning.

No other way presented itself. It was do-or-die time, and she made a choice. This isn't the Joker being locked away again - it's reasonable to expect that if you learn from Joker's escapes, you'll learn to keep him locked up, so no more killing. It's not reasonable to expect Max Lord to be able to be contained, given his abilities.

Being a Hero is *always* more noble than just being a warrior.

Doing the right thing isn't always about nobility. Or what's popular. Doing the right thing is just doing the right thing. I consider soldiers who protect their country for the ideals they believe in to be hero's.

[joemagnum611]

Hey, this may be the first time one of my comments generated its own thread here! So thanks for that. :smile:

And as I said, Wonder Woman should always be a *hero* first. Because it's what she's supposed to be about (not snapping necks or beheading foes). Sure, it did make sense when she was starting out (in the Perez run) but by now, she's had years of experience in the modern world, and more importantly, among the World's greatest heroes, who have a strict no-kill policy. Breaking it always brings only trouble, and she should know by now, especially after the Max Lord thing. If she hasn't realized it by now, then she's an idiot. And I don't think she is.

It's all nice and OK to be proud of your heritage, but when that heritage makes you do something you know it's wrong, you can't favor it.

And I'm not saying a hero should NEVER kill- only that they should do it when there's absolutely NO other choice- while a warrior would see killing as an acceptable solution more often. (And no, I don't think the Lord killing was justified. C'mon, anything is possible in the DCU, and Diana should also know that by then. Just because Lord told her killing him was the only way to free Superman doesn't mean it's true. He might just have believed it.)

Being a Hero is *always* more noble than just being a warrior.

In a superhero story, anyway. :)

And Daredoll: I think I get what you mean. Superman is reactive, Batman is proactive, and WW is progressive. Correct? I agree with that.


Why should she be the one to change? The world is different and the heroes are always taken to the mat by these villans. They need to take a more war like aproach to the world. Who says that a warrior can't be considdered a hero in the first place? WW goes into battle like it's her last everytime so she has to be ruthless.

[Mr. Palmer]

I've always seen it as thus: Superman saves life, Batman protects life, and Wonder Woman changes life.

Great statement! It serves up my feelings, too.

[Sijo]

hate to ask this, because it's been overdiscussed into dust, but what makes her killing Medusa or Max Lord wrong?
I already explained it above (about Max; Medusa's killing I'm not familiar with) but to be more clear:
-It was murder;
-it was only the "only way" to stop Superman because HE (Max) believed it was, which doesn't mean it really was true. Please don't tell me that knocking out Max wasn't going to free Superman from his control (at least long enough to find a more permanent solution) but his death would? That has a big EDITORIAL COP OUT written on it. (The very fact that Superman was fighting illusions, rather than being in a "zombie" state where he had no way of figuring things out on his own, only makes it worse.)
-Wonder Woman had years of experience dealing with similar matters (and has been working with others who also have) so why should she take the killing option THIS time? This isn't Diana-fresh-from-Paradise Island anymore. Is she going to kill EVERY mind-controlling villain in the off chance he might control Superman or some other powerhouse again?
-And, most important of all: Wonder Woman is supposed to be a HERO before she is a warrior. So, giving in to that type of mentality is just *wrong*.

Can WW ever be put in a situation where it would truly be only possibly to solve things by killing? Certainly. But the Lord thing wasn't it. DC needed to plan that better.

But like you said, that has been argued too much, so I'm not going to insist on the point. Simply put, I don't believe it because nothing I've seen about it convinces me it was justified. You are free to disagree of course.

Who says that a warrior can't be considered a hero in the first place? WW goes into battle like it's her last everytime so she has to be ruthless. Does she? Considering her power and experience, I'd argue she's confident on winning most of the time.

And I'm not saying a warrior can't be a hero... in the right situation. Take Conan. He was motivated by selfish gain. Money, anger, hunger, sex, etc. His honor didn't extend beyong helping acquaintances. He didn't care if he killed an attacker most of the time. And, in the world he lived in, most of the time he was right to do so. It was kill or be killed. And in the long run, he did the world good by ridding it of monsters and tyrants, even if he didn't set out to do it on purpose.

But that was in barbaric times. To say that it applies in modern times (especially in a superhero story) is just plain wrong.

[carabas]

-it was only the "only way" to stop Superman because HE (Max) believed it was, which doesn't mean it really was true. Please don't tell me that knocking out Max wasn't going to free Superman from his control (at least long enough to find a more permanent solution) but his death would?They already looked for a solution before the fight began. Magic and the Martian Manhunter proved to be useless.
I cutting out bits of his brain, or keeping him in a drug-induced coma for the rest of his life (with the nearly 100% chance that he'll get better anyway) really that much better than just killing him?

-And, most important of all: Wonder Woman is supposed to be a HERO before she is a warrior. So, giving in to that type of mentality is just *wrong*.Over probably 50% or so of all heroes have killed at some point. Make that 95% if you expand beyond the superhero genre. Luke Skywalker is practically a walking slaughterhouse. Diana had killed before that. Even Superman has killed (although they recently retconned that out).