The whole "Can we kill thing?" is BS

[Captain Smith]

Watching this topic in various threads and it really is a consequence of the lack of moral reality in some superhero writing. Obviously there are comics that have killing as part of their fabric. That's the way the world works.

However, Superman, Bats, WW, etc. all have extremely lethal tools and abilities. They face adversaries with similar capabilities.

Law enforcement officers and civilians licensed to carry firearms are taught when they can use lethal force - it is to prevent grievous bodily harm or death. They train in 'shooting to stop' - a methodology which aims at potentially fatal targets. If the bad guy survives that is all well and good but the intent is to stop the person and not pull punches. If one trains in dynamic hostage rescue, you train to violently and effectively impact the BG.

All this whining is because superheroes don't even seem to understand well established principles. Police and civilians are cautioned that they should not be in a position to carry instruments of lethal force if they cannot answer the question of whether they can take a life. Such folks are weeded out.

It would seem to me that a superhero should use his or her powers for disaster relief or medical work if they cannot face the use of force question without a whine fest.

It's getting boring.

[Donald M.]

Superheroes were created to entertain children and, despite all the grim, gritty "realism" that has entered into comics in the last decade or so, they haven't completely grown up and never will. That's why you have heroes who say they'll never kill, apparently not even in self-defense or to protect others, and who are very rarely put in positions to make the choice. That's also why you have fans, grown adults, who have a problem when a character kills out of necessity.

[Kevinroc]

Well, I don't think writers and editors want to keep coming up with new villains over and over and over again.

And quite a number of these villains are highly licensed characters. The Joker is far too popular to ever really kill off.

[monkeyjunkie]

Watching this topic in various threads and it really is a consequence of the lack of moral reality in some superhero writing. Obviously there are comics that have killing as part of their fabric. That's the way the world works.

However, Superman, Bats, WW, etc. all have extremely lethal tools and abilities. They face adversaries with similar capabilities.

Law enforcement officers and civilians licensed to carry firearms are taught when they can use lethal force - it is to prevent grievous bodily harm or death. They train in 'shooting to stop' - a methodology which aims at potentially fatal targets. If the bad guy survives that is all well and good but the intent is to stop the person and not pull punches. If one trains in dynamic hostage rescue, you train to violently and effectively impact the BG.

All this whining is because superheroes don't even seem to understand well established principles. Police and civilians are cautioned that they should not be in a position to carry instruments of lethal force if they cannot answer the question of whether they can take a life. Such folks are weeded out.

It would seem to me that a superhero should use his or her powers for disaster relief or medical work if they cannot face the use of force question without a whine fest.

It's getting boring.


Amen to that, If the superhero has to kill, or whatever the equivilent of "shooting to stop" would be, then they have to and should do it. Im sooooooo sick of everyone on this boards calling WW a murderer when all she did was what was absolutley nessecary.

[Alan2099]

There's a lot of people that would argue that it wasn't nessisary. She already had him contained and a light punch would have knocked him out until she could think of something else to do.

But that's a completley different topic.

As for killing, Superheroes a silly concept at the very core. When ever you try to make the look more realistic and grim and gritty, you just push to the forfront on exactly how silly they are.

[Ravenheart]

Amen to that, If the superhero has to kill, or whatever the equivilent of "shooting to stop" would be, then they have to and should do it. Im sooooooo sick of everyone on this boards calling WW a murderer when all she did was what was absolutley nessecary.


I think one of the big problems people have with WW killing Max is that she's probably the last person you'd ever expect to kill someone.I know I was very shocked by seeing it but I can see her reasoning for killing him.She had two choices.Kill him or lock him away somewhere.If he had been locked away,whats to say that he wouldn't have escaped or even took control of someone else even while still locked up.

[Captain Smith]

Ha - a light punch doesn't knock you out. Such baloney. A blow that causes you to lose consciousness is potentially lethal or damaging. It can cause a blood clot or generate brain damage. It is TV BS that you bean someone and they just fall asleep.

There are lethal and less lethal means - a blow to the head is in the realm of lethal force.

Have Green Arrow just shoot everyone with boxing glove arrows. When Bats punches some one - every watch boxing - folks drop stone cold dead from such punches but he doesn't kill. BS again, I say.

I agree with the point that when we got away from the kiddie level of some silver age stuff, the writers became stuck in this quandry.

[literally exaggerated]

They should kill when necessary, agreed. The sticking point is the "when necessary". Its not a point many people agree on, and for people like Superman who can lap the world like 10 times a minute, it becomes incredibly hard for people to devise situations when killing actually is necessary, without making those same situations just seem like they were created to force him into that decision.

I've always thought that Batman should be the one who kills. Let him handle the grim and gritty, it works well for this psychotic vigilante terrorizing the streets of the worst city in the world, and it doesn't really work for Superman. I'm not saying like Authority-style mass murder or anything, just that putting Batman in a position where he is either forced to kill or accidentally kills is a lot easier and feels a lot less contrived than doing the same with people with powers like Superman. He's just a man, a very good man, but any human who runs up against ruthless murderers as often as he does should, realistically, end up killing one once in a while, in the same way that cops do, because while Batman might be a lot better than any real world cop, he still has to worry about the sort of threats they do, unlike Superman.

[GremlinClr]

I think one of the big problems people have with WW killing Max is that she's probably the last person you'd ever expect to kill someone.I know I was very shocked by seeing it but I can see her reasoning for killing him.She had two choices.Kill him or lock him away somewhere.If he had been locked away,whats to say that he wouldn't have escaped or even took control of someone else even while still locked up.

I wasn't shocked at all. Wasn't there a big thing a couple of years ago when Captain America killed someone? The rationale was that he was first and foremost a soldier. WW is first and foremost a warrior. I don't see much of a difference.

[da noble savage]

k here's is where i think the problem lye's. Comic's are not real there for you really shouldn't expect them to obey the rules that u belive in the real world.
And frankly they are hero's they shouldn't kill I mean all those powers they got all those creatvie writers u tellin me they couldn't come up with a way to get rid of the problem with out killing. I know killin is sometimes neccsarry in the world we live in,but comics are a escapism and i hate killin so when i read comics about heros whos first answer to every sitution is just kill him i dont like it. I mean what gives this guys the right to determine when it is necssary to kill if they kill how are they any diff. from the villians.

[Ravenheart]

I wasn't shocked at all. Wasn't there a big thing a couple of years ago when Captain America killed someone? The rationale was that he was first and foremost a soldier. WW is first and foremost a warrior. I don't see much of a difference.


I haven't read Captain America in years so I didn't know he had killed anyone.Who was it he killed?

[Sean Whitmore]

As for killing, Superheroes a silly concept at the very core. When ever you try to make the look more realistic and grim and gritty, you just push to the forfront on exactly how silly they are.


Well, I would distinguish between "realistic" and "grim and gritty".

"Grim and gritty" would've been if Diana killed Max out of anger, then made a wisecrack about it and never thought of it again. But instead Diana made a choice that she believed in, and which her compatriots clearly didn't, and there will be much scrutinizing over it. That's just plain drama.

As for realism...check around on the boards, comic fans seem to want nothing but realism. The big debate right now is Leslie Thompkins, and how unrealistic it is that she would suddenly snap with no warning. Others complain that Batman is beaten up in one story and perfectly healthy elsewhere, and still others wonder why no one ever used the Purple Ray to heal Barbara Gordon. So the realism/fantasy line is a very tough one for writers to walk.


SEAN

[Gaz]

Watching this topic in various threads and it really is a consequence of the lack of moral reality in some superhero writing. Obviously there are comics that have killing as part of their fabric. That's the way the world works.

However, Superman, Bats, WW, etc. all have extremely lethal tools and abilities. They face adversaries with similar capabilities.

Law enforcement officers and civilians licensed to carry firearms are taught when they can use lethal force - it is to prevent grievous bodily harm or death. They train in 'shooting to stop' - a methodology which aims at potentially fatal targets. If the bad guy survives that is all well and good but the intent is to stop the person and not pull punches. If one trains in dynamic hostage rescue, you train to violently and effectively impact the BG.

All this whining is because superheroes don't even seem to understand well established principles. Police and civilians are cautioned that they should not be in a position to carry instruments of lethal force if they cannot answer the question of whether they can take a life. Such folks are weeded out.

It would seem to me that a superhero should use his or her powers for disaster relief or medical work if they cannot face the use of force question without a whine fest.

It's getting boring.
We'll ignore the corporate reasons (no disposable villains, etc) for the time being.
I would actually stop reading superhero comics if this approach was taken. Killing is one thing that I personally find very hard to condone in any circumstances in real life, so for a "hero", someone who's supposed to be stronger and better than me thinks it's more acceptable, it would pull me out of the story.
And how about Batgirl, or the Teen Titans?
Plus there's the genuine vigilante line. Real vigilantes kill without discretion, they're the Punisher. If you want Batman and Superman to be that kind of character, then goodbye, friend, I'm gone.

[The Shadow]

Law enforcement officers and civilians licensed to carry firearms are taught when they can use lethal force - it is to prevent grievous bodily harm or death. They train in 'shooting to stop' - a methodology which aims at potentially fatal targets. If the bad guy survives that is all well and good but the intent is to stop the person and not pull punches. If one trains in dynamic hostage rescue, you train to violently and effectively impact the BG.
I think you are helping argue against yourself... Batman was never trained to use force... neither was Superman... they use RESTRAINT when dealing with bad guys... and their non-lethal stance is what differentiates them from the bad guys.

Also... if Batman killed the Joker tomorrow... A) he would be brought back and his death invalidated or B) future generations would miss out on cool Joker stories!

[The Shadow]

Plus there's the genuine vigilante line. Real vigilantes kill without discretion, they're the Punisher. If you want Batman and Superman to be that kind of character, then goodbye, friend, I'm gone.
I agree... if I want that I'll read Punisher... if I don't I can have Batman smirking in the face of another villain as he's going to prison!

[Sean Whitmore]

Also... if Batman killed the Joker tomorrow... A) he would be brought back and his death invalidated or B) future generations would miss out on cool Joker stories!


But we can agree that the only good case for not killing Joker is a commercial one, right? If Batman was some finite series, and licensing to other mediums was not a concern...then how does he not kill the Joker and still sleep at night?


SEAN

[BlairH]

Well, I don't think writers and editors want to keep coming up with new villains over and over and over again.


Ennis manages fairly well...
Then again he's never been a "lazy" writer.

[Donald M.]

Plus there's the genuine vigilante line. Real vigilantes kill without discretion, they're the Punisher. If you want Batman and Superman to be that kind of character, then goodbye, friend, I'm gone.

Fair enough, but Batman's stance against killing under any circumstances seems ridiculous given that he regularly deals with lunatics who are constantly escaping custody to kill again, and again, and again in endless cycle. There are numerous examples of where his ending one worthless life, or allowing it to end, would have in the long run saved dozens of innocent live.

Batman is just as twisted in his own way as the Punisher and his way of doing things gets just as many people killed, only in Batman's case it's the wrong people.

Not saying I want to see Batman as a killer vigilante, but when you put any thought into him at all the entire character falls apart, which is probably why I don't read any Batman books anymore.

[Donald M.]

But we can agree that the only good case for not killing Joker is a commercial one, right? If Batman was some finite series, and licensing to other mediums was not a concern...then how does he not kill the Joker and still sleep at night?


SEAN

Bacause he's insane. The only way I can reckon it in my head is Batman thinks he needs joker. He's ordering, trying to impose his will on the world around him. The Joker is chaos. Batman thinks he needs the Joker, needs the balance of his existence, because without balance everything would tip in his favor and who knows, he might actually start making headway on his crusade and have to slow down once in a while as Gotham actually becomes livable. Can't have that.

Once upon a time Batma's credo was to prevent the sort of tragedies he himself suffered. Somewhere along the way he's lost sight of that. If a young child finds themselves parentless because of a criminal Batman put in jail or in Arkham knowing full well they'd escape to kill again because they always do, he can comfort himself by knowing that at least he didn't pull the trigger, even though he might as well have.

[BlairH]

Plus there's the genuine vigilante line. Real vigilantes kill without discretion, they're the Punisher.

Discretion is one thing the Punisher has bucketloads of. He's not an indiscriminate killing machine. He weighs up each kill in a "case by case" fasion.

[PatrickG]

Superman can read and interpret your DNA and physiology before he throws a punch. He can play apart the planet with his hands if he had to but he has the ability to put cottonballs in people's ears at superspeed before he throws a punch to protect them from the shockwave.

If anyone makes killing obsolete, it's him. He doesn't kill, ideology aside, because it's not necessary for him to. He can precisely measure the amount of force his fists generate even in the heat of battle.

As for Batman, he's an expert in practically every form of hand to hand. His powers, while a conglomeration of real, human abilities, are essentially superhuman in execution. When a normal martial artist might be caught in a runner's high, running on instinct and discipline, Batman is consciously processing the 275 scenarios that he could play out to take you down in a non-lethal way.

He's essentially a super-human except we accept that instead of being mutated by radiation, enhanced by mysitical forces or raised on another planet, money and training have allowed him to acheive a state that no real human could ever attain one tenth of.

Do heroes ever need to kill? Maybe.

But the whole conceit behind super-heroes is that they have the power and discipline to win without killing and without any lives being lost. Take that conceit away and you take the "super" away.

Either Batman is "just that good" that he can take on gods and do crazy things without being crazy or he's a raving nutcase vigilante who deserves to be locked up.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Superheroes were created to entertain children and, despite all the grim, gritty "realism" that has entered into comics in the last decade or so, they haven't completely grown up and never will. That's why you have heroes who say they'll never kill, apparently not even in self-defense or to protect others, and who are very rarely put in positions to make the choice. That's also why you have fans, grown adults, who have a problem when a character kills out of necessity.


Then again back in the forties; sometimes it seems like they were more willing to kill criminals or "accidently" let villains fall to their deaths.

Also alot of genre's over the years that are or have been aimed at children did involve killing; westerns, war movies and various fantasy type books and movies.

[PatrickG]

But we can agree that the only good case for not killing Joker is a commercial one, right? If Batman was some finite series, and licensing to other mediums was not a concern...then how does he not kill the Joker and still sleep at night?


SEAN

Because it's not his place to?

Because he has a homoerotic attraction to the Joker?

Because the Joker, in the grand scheme, is a small fish and Batman might sacrifice his ability to help Gotham by fixing that one, small problem?

Because Batman is a pacifist where killing is concerned?

Because he gets his kicks fighting the Joker on some level?

Because he's so darned stubborn that he wants to keep the Joker alive until Joker comes around to his way of thinking and the Joker's death would cheat Batman of his ultimate victory?

All possible scenarios that writers could use and in many cases have.

[Donald M.]

Then again back in the forties; sometimes it seems like they were more willing to kill criminals or "accidently" let villains fall to their deaths.

Also alot of genre's over the years that are or have been aimed at children did involve killing; westerns, war movies and various fantasy type books and movies.

Crap. You're right, of course you're right.

Superheroes were watered down by the Comics Code and many of us act like that's the way it was always meant to be.

[GremlinClr]

Speaking of movies I find it interesting that people get angry about superheroes killing or letting people die in comics but in almost every single superhero movie the villain bites it at the end and I never hear a bad word. What's the difference?

[Sean Whitmore]

Speaking of movies I find it interesting that people get angry about superheroes killing or letting people die in comics but in almost every single superhero movie the villain bites it at the end and I never hear a bad word. What's the difference?


I dunno, I heard a lot of complaints about Daredevil and the Burton Batman killing people. And even I don't love that Nolan's Batman let Ra's die. Besides those, what other comic-to-movie villains were killed?


SEAN

[OzBat!]

I don't think Batman has any problems sleeping at night. He has a job, he does it: stop the badguy. Turn him over to the proper authorities (you know, the same ones trained in these lethal force life/death scenarios?). Let justice take its course. It's not Batman's fault that the system is a revolving door with villains escaping every minute of every day. I think he has a realistic view of his role in the system. And remembering, it's a self appointed role. I think he would have problems if he opened himself up to trying to consider on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to consciously take a life.

That said, I think this only works because he has so compartmentalised his life. I think that the surest sign he's psychologically damaged is simply because he can maintain this separation of roles/functions etc so absolutely - not the fact that he dresses up like a flying rodent and pummells petty crims on a nightly basis. I believe there's been one or two stories that have looked at this, but I couldn't tell you what they were, which probably indicates that we're long overdue for a good one.

[GremlinClr]

I dunno, I heard a lot of complaints about Daredevil and the Burton Batman killing people. And even I don't love that Nolan's Batman let Ra's die. Besides those, what other comic-to-movie villains were killed?


SEAN

In Spider-man, the crook that killed uncle Ben, Green Goblin.

Wolverine kills like everyone so I guess he doesn't count.

Hasn't almost every villain died in the Batman movies? Not just Burtons.

[Gaz]

In Spider-man, the crook that killed uncle Ben, Green Goblin.

Wolverine kills like everyone so I guess he doesn't count.

Hasn't almost every villain died in the Batman movies? Not just Burtons.
Uncle Ben's killer didn't die. Peter threw him to the cops.
Goblin essentially committed suicide.

And re: Batman. His morality is rooted in that of the 8 year old who lost his parents, of course he doesn't kill, he's the good guy. "Bad guys killed mom and dad, I'm a good guy so I don't kill"
And a character like Spider-Man or Daredevil falls apart if you remove that responsibility to preserve life.

[Sean Whitmore]

In Spider-man, the crook that killed uncle Ben, Green Goblin.

Wolverine kills like everyone so I guess he doesn't count.

Hasn't almost every villain died in the Batman movies? Not just Burtons.


Spidey didn't kill the burglar or the Goblin.

Movie Batman definitely killed the Joker, and could be accused of killing Penguin and Two-Face as well. All of the others survived (including Catwoman, maybe). But like I said, Burton's Batman did get flak for killing.

And as for Schumacher's Batman, killing was the least OOC thing about him. :)


SEAN

[GremlinClr]

Uncle Ben's killer didn't die. Peter threw him to the cops.
Goblin essentially committed suicide.

And re: Batman. His morality is rooted in that of the 8 year old who lost his parents, of course he doesn't kill, he's the good guy. "Bad guys killed mom and dad, I'm a good guy so I don't kill"
And a character like Spider-Man or Daredevil falls apart if you remove that responsibility to preserve life.

Did you actually watch Spider-man? Cause I just put the DVD in and SM breaks the crooks wrist, he stumbles backwards and falls like 4 stories onto a pier. D-E-A-D dead. And Peter shows zero remorse.

GG gets skewered by his glider when SM dodges.



Spidey didn't kill the burglar

He sure as hell made no attempt to save him. Isn't that essentially the same? You mentioned Batman letting Ra's die...

[PatrickG]

I don't think there was time for remorse or even to save him.

The guy tripped to his own death before Peter could react, largely, I think, so that he wouldn't have to be addressed in later films.

The scene was largely the one from the comics except with the crook accidentally slipping to his death.

Sam Raimi needed the guy dead. I think it's as simple as that. Spidey didn't kill him.

And Raimi didn't want to waste a scene addressing the guy again.

[GremlinClr]

I don't think there was time for remorse or even to save him.

The guy tripped to his own death before Peter could react, largely, I think, so that he wouldn't have to be addressed in later films.

The scene was largely the one from the comics except with the crook accidentally slipping to his death.

Sam Raimi needed the guy dead. I think it's as simple as that. Spidey didn't kill him.

And Raimi didn't want to waste a scene addressing the guy again.

Well that's really the sticking point isn't it? The detractors are saying that these are heroes, they're supposed to always save people and never kill. Do you think Spider-man isn't quick enough to save the guy? I'm pretty sure he is and he's probably done something similar about a million times. A simple flick of the wrist and the guys stopped from falling by webbing. I would say Peter didn't save him because he didn't want to.

[Donald M.]

Well that's really the sticking point isn't it? The detractors are saying that these are heroes, they're supposed to always save people and never kill.

I don't understand that attitude about superheroes though.

Is a police officer any less a hero for being put into a situation where he's forced to kill?

[Captain Smith]

Pre-emptively killing a bad guy isn't the issue. For any law enforcement situation, that's not acceptable. So killing the on any random day is not acceptable doctrine.

I was talking about when involved in an incident where lethal force might be applied to stop the villian, some heroes dither and cause at that point more damage to innocents.

Look at the WW, Supes, Max incident. WW certainly applied potential lethal force to Supes when she cut his throat. He could have bled out. Of course, she is so good that she only - blah, blah. Killing Max was a way of stopping a lethal situation. Hitting him on the head was lethal force also. He was holding a loaded gun, so to speak and he had to be taken down. Yes, you can plot device that she takes him to MM and he fries his brain and then he - blah, blah. However, in the moment of the dynamic situation, except for comic BS about killing, it is not problematic to kill him. Folks with bombs who are babbling about what they will do get shot by SWAT teams. Same thing.

It is true that in the DC, superheroes have no real legal basis that I can discern for their actions. I can easily see the government trying to control them.

However, my point is that if you try to have semirealism, at least adopt reasonable use of force rules. Cops who can't handle them don't make it. USGS scientists who won't carry guns to protect against bears (as they love nature) are not allowed to go out in the field.

So stop this dither or go back to boxing glove arrows. Which probably give you a concussion anyway and cause aphasia.

[Gaz]

Pre-emptively killing a bad guy isn't the issue. For any law enforcement situation, that's not acceptable. So killing the on any random day is not acceptable doctrine.

I was talking about when involved in an incident where lethal force might be applied to stop the villian, some heroes dither and cause at that point more damage to innocents.

Look at the WW, Supes, Max incident. WW certainly applied potential lethal force to Supes when she cut his throat. He could have bled out. Of course, she is so good that she only - blah, blah. Killing Max was a way of stopping a lethal situation. Hitting him on the head was lethal force also. He was holding a loaded gun, so to speak and he had to be taken down. Yes, you can plot device that she takes him to MM and he fries his brain and then he - blah, blah. However, in the moment of the dynamic situation, except for comic BS about killing, it is not problematic to kill him. Folks with bombs who are babbling about what they will do get shot by SWAT teams. Same thing.

It is true that in the DC, superheroes have no real legal basis that I can discern for their actions. I can easily see the government trying to control them.

However, my point is that if you try to have semirealism, at least adopt reasonable use of force rules. Cops who can't handle them don't make it. USGS scientists who won't carry guns to protect against bears (as they love nature) are not allowed to go out in the field.

So stop this dither or go back to boxing glove arrows. Which probably give you a concussion anyway and cause aphasia.

Seriously, this comes off as bloddthirsty to me. Unless you only want like one story EVER for each character that has this, it would get to the point that villains would run out/or the "heroes" would ened up too close to real vigilantes to count as heroes anymore.
And you have yet to address characters that are kids/teens, would you want to see Robin or Stargirl do this? Because that would be the final straw for me.
There are plenty of superheroes that DO kill (Manhunter, Punisher, Wolverine, Elektra, the Authority, the group from Planetary, Spawn, most Wildstorm actually, Witchblade?) why not read them if you want that, and leave room for the ones that don't.

[BlairH]

Seriously, this comes off as bloddthirsty to me. Unless you only want like one story EVER for each character that has this, it would get to the point that villains would run out/or the "heroes" would ened up too close to real vigilantes to count as heroes anymore.
And you have yet to address characters that are kids/teens, would you want to see Robin or Stargirl do this? Because that would be the final straw for me.
There are plenty of superheroes that DO kill (Manhunter, Punisher, Wolverine, Elektra, the Authority, the group from Planetary, Spawn, most Wildstorm actually, Witchblade?) why not read them if you want that, and leave room for the ones that don't.

But what of us who wish to see Batman gut the Joker like a fish? At least have an Elseworlds story or something where he's a killer.

[SpecialAgentPunk]

I wouldn't mind reading more comics of the mainstream heroes having more criminals killed. I don't think this would have much effect on kids/teens, since I believe the majority of readers are 20-30?

Another reason to why superheroes don't really kill all that much is probably due to the extremely low execution of criminal activities. Look at the Scarecrow - he could easily sneak into an apartment building at night and kill every single person; instead, he uses a gas that makes people 'fear' their worst fears, allowing Batman to save them before they die.

[Gaz]

But what of us who wish to see Batman gut the Joker like a fish? At least have an Elseworlds story or something where he's a killer.
There ARE. Catwoman: Guardian of Gotham (Ok, he's a villain there, but I love it, so I'll plug it), the Aliens and Dracula crossovers, DKR and Kingdom Come to an extent.
Or hell, read Moon Knight (doesn't Marc have a slightly "looser" code on these things?)

[Calybos]

Superheroes ... haven't completely grown up and never will. That's why you have heroes who say they'll never kill, apparently not even in self-defense or to protect others, and who are very rarely put in positions to make the choice. That's also why you have fans, grown adults, who have a problem when a character kills out of necessity.

Willingness to kill is not a sign of maturity. Are you willing to declare all Buddhists "immature"? Gandhi? Jesus?

Protecting people and saving lives without killing is not a sign of immaturity; however, complaining that not enough "necessary killing" is being portrayed definitely is.

[Gaz]

Willingness to kill is not a sign of maturity. Are you willing to declare all Buddhists "immature"? Gandhi? Jesus?

Protecting people and saving lives without killing is not a sign of immaturity; however, complaining that not enough "necessary killing" is being portrayed definitely is.
And that is almost word for word, my stance!
Well put, Calybos! :)

[We R. Venom]

Did you actually watch Spider-man? Cause I just put the DVD in and SM breaks the crooks wrist, he stumbles backwards and falls like 4 stories onto a pier. D-E-A-D dead. And Peter shows zero remorse.

GG gets skewered by his glider when SM dodges.




He sure as hell made no attempt to save him. Isn't that essentially the same? You mentioned Batman letting Ra's die...

Peter didnt simply break his wrist and the burglar stumbled. He twisted hard, the gun fell out, the burglar walked backwards a few steps before tripping himself. Peter even had a shocked look in his eyes as the burglar fell. you saw what you wanted to.

[da noble savage]

Superman can read and interpret your DNA and physiology before he throws a punch. He can play apart the planet with his hands if he had to but he has the ability to put cottonballs in people's ears at superspeed before he throws a punch to protect them from the shockwave.

If anyone makes killing obsolete, it's him. He doesn't kill, ideology aside, because it's not necessary for him to. He can precisely measure the amount of force his fists generate even in the heat of battle.

As for Batman, he's an expert in practically every form of hand to hand. His powers, while a conglomeration of real, human abilities, are essentially superhuman in execution. When a normal martial artist might be caught in a runner's high, running on instinct and discipline, Batman is consciously processing the 275 scenarios that he could play out to take you down in a non-lethal way.

He's essentially a super-human except we accept that instead of being mutated by radiation, enhanced by mysitical forces or raised on another planet, money and training have allowed him to acheive a state that no real human could ever attain one tenth of.

Do heroes ever need to kill? Maybe.

But the whole conceit behind super-heroes is that they have the power and discipline to win without killing and without any lives being lost. Take that conceit away and you take the "super" away.

Either Batman is "just that good" that he can take on gods and do crazy things without being crazy or he's a raving nutcase vigilante who deserves to be locked up.

thank you. Everything he said except written a lot worse and u got my post. lol

[Shellhead]

Bill Willingham's old series Elementals took an interesting approach to this issue. In that setting, all the supernatural heroes and villains had major regeneration ability. What that meant was that characters survived extremely lethal attacks and even regenerated completely from crippling or maiming damage. However, the initial damage was often gruesome and always very painful. Unlike Wolverine, who often is depicted as ignoring damage that he is able to regenerate from, characters in Elementals were sometimes completely incapacitated in a given battle due to severe damage, only to return to action by the next issue or story arc.

It worked well. The extensive injuries and pain were realistic, but the massive regeneration kept the interesting characters around and avoided lengthy downtime for injured heroes in particular. Ordinary humans didn't fare well, as they tended to get very dead, very quickly, when caught in the middle of battle.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Willingness to kill is not a sign of maturity. Are you willing to declare all Buddhists "immature"? Gandhi? Jesus?

Protecting people and saving lives without killing is not a sign of immaturity; however, complaining that not enough "necessary killing" is being portrayed definitely is.

Inregards to Jesus; he will be the general of an army in the last war and toss Satan down into hell himself.

[Joker2503]

One theme that has popped up in the DCU (particularly the animated universe) is the government's willingness to let heroes operate. Jim Gordon constantly reminded Batman how much he "bent the rules" for him. Batman stopping a criminal and leaving him tied up on the steps of the police station is one thing; leaving a pile of dead bodies for the cops to pick up is another. The government and the police are fine with superheroes bringing them criminals so they can be tried by a jury of their peers in a court of law. If superheroes started taking the law into their own hands, the government would be forced to step in, leading to worlds like DKR and Watchmen.

[Wesley Dodds]

The short answer is that superheroes do use lethal force but it's treated contextually as if it isn't. So, if Spider-Man knocks someone out, you know it's never going to kill them.

That said, I think hostility to killing is extremely important for superheroes. As Bob Dylan sang, to live outside the law you must be honest. Because superheroes break laws to uphold order, they have to subject themselves to a much more stringent moral code than that demanded by the government. And because they have special powers/training, they're able to hold themselves to this code without taking on extra risk.

Also, if you kill one person, it becomes much easier to kill more. It's a line that shouldn't be crossed.

[Calybos]

Excellent point, Wesley--and well stated.

[Solaris]

I think the whole idea was "Superheroes have powers so far ahead of any normal human that killing for them would be a bad thing, because it would be awfully easy for them to get used to it."

Having said that,

1. Yes, they were created for kids, and yes, the idea that they use their power and their brains to apprehend w/out killing, encourages kids to think about that.

2. I *can* see the side, in the more adult-oriented comics, that sometimes there might be no other way to protect others and to stop a villain. That's just reality. But I also don't mind if the character has an emotional crisis over taking a life, because that is also normal.

[Wesley Dodds]

Remember those great early Spider-Man comics where he used his knowledge of science, not his super-powers, to defeat the bad guys? Now, that's the way it ought to be. :p

[Arrjay]

Also, if you kill one person, it becomes much easier to kill more. It's a line that shouldn't be crossed.

I've heard this many times before and I don't doubt it's truth in any way. I've yet to meet anyone who has actually taken the life of another human being though so when I do I'll be sure to ask them whether or not it truly got easier. Perhaps it gets more difficult though, depending on where and when and depending on your target prey. Maybe there are killers who deliberately go for bigger, harder kills. Perhaps they start with frail old women and children and then proceed to larger prey like 30 something men and then as time goes on they find that they're increasingly targeting ex-wrestlers and such. In which case I doubt the killing would get easier. I think it would get harder being that ex-wrestlers are generally more adept at defending themselves. Now, if the question is whether or not crossing the moral boundary of murder makes it easier to do it again and again then all of my comments here are null and void. Ugh!! I said moral boundary. Yuck.

I need caffeine.

[PatrickG]

So if people start with easy prey and move up, what then?

Batman kills the Joker. Batman kills Lex Luthor. Superman gets in his way, Batman accuses him of hindering justice and kills him.

Then what? Batman goes after the Green Lantern Corps? Batman goes after the Spectre? Batman is the villain in a giant company crossover, trying to destroy the universe?

Then you've got petty thugs getting away with murder back in Gotham. Batman stopped being Batman the day he started worrying about the moment and started worrying about "next time".

Batman isn't a victim of crime driven by fear, paranoia and ego to avenge criminals and -- oh yeah -- he wears a spandex costume, uses high tech gadgets and drives a phallic car.

There was a time when the costume and gimmicks and code came first to the psychology of the characters. Today, we degrade that and say it's childish.

But there's truth in that older take.

When Batman was created (and later when he was being fleshed out) writers would START with the gimmicks, costume and code of ethics and construct the character from there. Wisely, they knew that if you tried to model Batman after real people instead of starting with his conceits (he wears spandex, he's friends with aliens, he admires the law, he doesn't kill) you end up writing about a real person posing as Batman instead of writing about Batman and trying to give him depth here and there.

Either you try to write a Batman-like realistic person (who MIGHT kill eventually) or you write about Batman (who doesn't kill) and try to make that believable, well aware that sticking to the marketable version of the character is more important than making him 100 percent real. But you can't do both.

Either you write a realistic story about someone who, at the end of the day, isn't Batman or you write about Batman and give reality the finger.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

So if people start with easy prey and move up, what then?

Batman kills the Joker. Batman kills Lex Luthor. Superman gets in his way, Batman accuses him of hindering justice and kills him.

Then what? Batman goes after the Green Lantern Corps? Batman goes after the Spectre? Batman is the villain in a giant company crossover, trying to destroy the universe?

Then you've got petty thugs getting away with murder back in Gotham. Batman stopped being Batman the day he started worrying about the moment and started worrying about "next time".

Batman isn't a victim of crime driven by fear, paranoia and ego to avenge criminals and -- oh yeah -- he wears a spandex costume, uses high tech gadgets and drives a phallic car.

There was a time when the costume and gimmicks and code came first to the psychology of the characters. Today, we degrade that and say it's childish.

But there's truth in that older take.

When Batman was created (and later when he was being fleshed out) writers would START with the gimmicks, costume and code of ethics and construct the character from there. Wisely, they knew that if you tried to model Batman after real people instead of starting with his conceits (he wears spandex, he's friends with aliens, he admires the law, he doesn't kill) you end up writing about a real person posing as Batman instead of writing about Batman and trying to give him depth here and there.

Either you try to write a Batman-like realistic person (who MIGHT kill eventually) or you write about Batman (who doesn't kill) and try to make that believable, well aware that sticking to the marketable version of the character is more important than making him 100 percent real. But you can't do both.

Either you write a realistic story about someone who, at the end of the day, isn't Batman or you write about Batman and give reality the finger.


And yet even in the golden age Batman was willing to kill; technically "more" willing to kill than he is now.