Support NeoGAF

[crazygambit]

Batman is not responsible for either a. The justice system that sees these Criminals placed in Arkham instead of Blackgate or somewhere more secure. b. the ineptitude of these prisons/asylums of keeping people inside.

The ends justify the means is the cold hard logic of a sociopath. The sort of person who weighs up the value of a human life and says "it is morally right to end this person's life when they cannot resist in order that lives in future may be saved". Anyone who can do that deserves to be in Arkham themselves.

There is NO moral justification for ending a life when someone else is not in mortal danger. There is also no moral justification for killing when a non-fatal solution would end the current threat.

This in a world where no one bats an eye when terrorists with a kill count far, far below the Joker's routinely get missiles dropped on their heads (collateral damage be damned).

I bet you anything that this thread will end up longer than the drone thread that barely managed to get to a second page.

 

[Fury451]

Batman routinely apprehends and imprisons the Joker in Arkham.

If he keeps getting out and causing havoc, that's on the justice system of Gotham (or whatever city), mental health system, Arkham staff and security and the GCPD for being hilarious failures at their jobs.

Heroes shouldn't kill if they can help it (i.e. Any situation that isn't an accident).

What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way made a convincing argument why heroes should never kill 14 years ago. Also adapted into Superman vs. The Elite in 2012. It's the book that made me a Superman fan and got me out of the stupid "Heroes should kill because antiheroes rule!" malarkey I was into around that time.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

Most Batman villains, for example, need help instead of a bullet.

The nature of comics usually means it won't work, but there's nothing noble about giving up on them.

 

[ElTopo]

It's an antiquated idea rooted in something that isn't about morality at all: it's about money. DC knows that the Joker is easily one of the greatest villains of all time, do you really think that they will permanently kill him off and lose out on all the merchandise and TV shows, movies, and more comics featuring the character? Hell no.

That's why I prefer limited and non-canonical series where they're allowed to kill characters and really explore the characters like in Dark Knight Returns.

It's an idea that isn't practical and extremely naive. You can all say "Oh, well, Superman CAN'T kill! He just can't" but what if Superman was fighting Hitler. Yeah, I'm going to take it to that extreme because you can argue that there's characters like that in comics such as Darkseid. Let's say he takes down Hitler, but Hitler in this case will at some point get out of prison because of his connections or powers or whatever. Isn't Superman at fault for not killing Hitler? No one is going to say that he should have sparred Hitler here. Come on.

It's an idea that makes no sense. And I'm glad that Superman killed Zod.

 

[Monocle]

Yeah, that "Don't kill the villain or you'll be just as bad as him" argument has never made any sense to me. If you can stop a mass murderer and you choose not to, knowing full well that he's going to wreck a bunch of lives after you let him go, you're complicit. A load of people are going to suffer just so that you can keep your bogus sense of personal ethics intact. Good going, hero.

 

[Croatoan]

Heck, with those parameters one could argue Trump is a hero so long as you believe his first intention for being a racist bigot is to protect America.

All politicians are evil...

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Most Batman villains, for example, need help instead of a bullet.

The nature of comics usually means it won't work, but there's nothing noble about giving up on them.

Many of them clearly can't be rehabilitated. Believing so is nothing but selfish, dangerous egotism on the part of Arkham

 

[Croatoan]

It's an antiquated idea rooted in something that isn't about morality at all: it's about money. DC knows that the Joker is easily one of the greatest villains of all time, do you really think that they will permanently kill him off and lose out on all the merchandise and TV shows, movies, and more comics featuring the character? Hell no.

That's why I prefer limited and non-canonical series where they're allowed to kill characters and really explore the characters like in Dark Knight Returns.

It's an idea that isn't practical and extremely naive. You can all say "Oh, well, Superman CAN'T kill! He just can't" but what if Superman was fighting Hitler. Yeah, I'm going to take it to that extreme because you can argue that there's characters like that in comics such as Darkseid. Let's say he takes down Hitler, but Hitler in this case will at some point get out of prison because of his connections or powers or whatever. Isn't Superman at fault for not killing Hitler? No one is going to say that he should have sparred Hitler here. Come on.

It's an idea that makes no sense. And I'm glad that Superman killed Zod.

I can understand it happening in comics but in movies and books it makes no sense unless there is some kind of reason for not killing (protag is a cop and wants to uphold the law, etc.).

 

[UncleSporky]

Also a lot of this depends on the story and whether "Arkham is a revolving door" or if it's more like in movies where there seems to simply be a one-off reign of terror and not the repetition you see in comics.

Even comics are frequently rebooted and retold. It might seem like Batman lets hundreds or thousands of murders "just happen" by refusing to kill, but depending on the mythology you might just be seeing a few murders happening to different Batmen across parallel universes.

 

[Fury451]

It's an antiquated idea rooted in something that isn't about morality at all: it's about money. DC knows that the Joker is easily one of the greatest villains of all time, do you really think that they will permanently kill him off and lose out on all the merchandise and TV shows, movies, and more comics featuring the character? Hell no.

That's why I prefer limited and non-canonical series where they're allowed to kill characters and really explore the characters like in Dark Knight Returns.

It's an idea that isn't practical and extremely naive. You can all say "Oh, well, Superman CAN'T kill! He just can't" but what if Superman was fighting Hitler. Yeah, I'm going to take it to that extreme because you can argue that there's characters like that in comics such as Darkseid. Let's say he takes down Hitler, but Hitler in this case will at some point get out of prison because of his connections or powers or whatever. Isn't Superman at fault for not killing Hitler? No one is going to say that he should have sparred Hitler here. Come on.

It's an idea that makes no sense. And I'm glad that Superman killed Zod.

Superman wouldn't believe that killing Hitler makes the world a better place. Standing up to murder with justice makes the world a better place because it sets an example of not fighting evil with evil. It says that you could and should be better than those who would seek to harm.

 

[KevinCow]

This is one thing I really like about heroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They don't give a fuuuuck about killing bad guys.

 

[Parallax]

Many of them clearly can't be rehabilitated. Believing so is nothing but selfish, dangerous egotism on the part of Arkham

some of them are far gone, but they dont seem to even be trying to rehabilitate them. when being on the suicide squad is better at redeeming villains that programs that are supposed to be in place to do just that, then things are very wrong

This is one thing I really like about heroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They don't give a fuuuuck about killing bad guys.

yes they do. one of the major heroes is as pro life as it comes.

Edit: i saw the cinematic after posting. Its not better for killing though

 

[John Dunbar]

isn't it pretty obvious this has absolutely no narrative reason and it is simply bad business sense to kill your villains when you still need to sell the next issue?

 

[Fury451]

isn't it pretty obvious this has absolutely no narrative reason and it is simply bad business sense to kill your villains when you still need to sell the next issue?

Quit spoiling the fun. But yes, of course.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

This is one thing I really like about heroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They don't give a fuuuuck about killing bad guys.

In stark contrast to the comics universe, where a whole bunch of avengers started out as badguys

 

[ElTopo]

Superman wouldn't believe that killing Hitler makes the world a better place. Standing up to murder with justice makes the world a better place because it sets an example of not fighting evil with evil. It says that you could and should be better than those who would seek to harm.

But here's the thing; that's not how the world works. So you're saying Superman would let even more innocent people die because of some moral code? Come on man.

 

[BKatastrophe]

But here's the thing; that's not how the world works. So you're saying Superman would let even more innocent people die because of some moral code? Come on man.

You're assuming that Supes wouldn't stand up to Hitler at all? That's part of Supes code: He believes we can be the best, but humanity needs an example. He'll be that example.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Supes used to banish people he didn't think could be contained to the phantom zone. Regular humans he'd just hand in to the law.

 

[Fury451]

But here's the thing; that's not how the world works. So you're saying Superman would let even more innocent people die because of some moral code? Come on man.

No, I'm saying Superman would see himself and others like him as having the great responsibility of proving to the world there is a better way, and that killing serves to perpetuate the cycle. Of course the world doesn't work that way now, but people always should strive to be better than they are so that the world will become that way; will become better.

You could call him naieve, but ultimately someone needs to believe that humanity can be better than they are, and to show that it is possible.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

 

[Savitar]

Superman executed three of his own people because they were always going to come back and destroy things and he knew it. Realistically killing those who are going to cause tremendous loss of life does make sense but not everyone can cross that path, yet you know people like the Joker would run out of chances after awhile. Insanity isn't going to save him forever.

But with comics and the like it's pretty hard to not have them do otherwise because if they killed everyone........well hey no more of those characters and no more of their stories and let's face it, people always want more Joker or Doom or whoever. And we certainly don't need more THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING SUCH SUCH DIES. Then three months later they're back.

That does more harm to the industry overall than anything.

 

[Foggy]

But here's the thing; that's not how the world works. So you're saying Superman would let even more innocent people die because of some moral code? Come on man.

There's a reason Supes doesn't go after cartels and human traffickers and Boko Haram. This delicate moral play would just shatter.

 

[ElTopo]

No, I'm saying Superman would see himself and others like him as having the great responsibility of proving to the world there is a better way, and that killing serves to perpetuate the cycle. Of course the world doesn't work that way now, but people always should strive to be better than they are so that the world will become that way; will become better.

You could call him naieve, but ultimately someone needs to believe that humanity can be better than they are, and to show that it is possible.

And that's partly why why people don't care about Superman. I don't need my superheros to be running around killing everyone, but I want characters that go deeper than that.

We can all gather 'round and hold hands and say "Moral highground! Strive to be better!" but that isn't applicable in these situations. No one is saying "Hey, they should just kill everyone." No. There's situations where you either have to kill them or let them go and more innocents will die.

There's a reason Supes doesn't go after cartels and human traffickers and Boko Haram. This delicate moral play would just shatter.

That's why the character needs to be updated.

I'll stop now.

 

[Aaronrules380]

And that's partly why why people don't care about Superman. I don't need my superheros to be running around killing everyone, but I want characters that go deeper than that.

We can all gather 'round and hold hands and say "Moral highground! Strive to be better!" but that isn't applicable in these situations. No one is saying "Hey, they should just kill everyone." No. There's situations where you either have to kill them or let them go and more innocents will die.

People don't care about superman because he's pretty much completely invincible in most scenarios. The moral philosophy stuff is the best part of the character, but it also requires more competent writing.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

That's why the character needs to be updated.

I'll stop now.

Or devolved, depending on what you mean

 

[grumble]

It is a good point and makes me think about feedback oriented versus goal oriented people.

See feedback oriented people react to things from the gut, for example wanting to carpet bomb some middle eastern towns after 9/11. Goal oriented people want to find a way to make 9/11 not occur again, which may actually be giving substantial aid to those same towns.

I see the hero trope in a similar way. There are situations where the hero should weigh the morally grey situations of the real world and choose the best outcome of the options presented. If that means kill the enemy, then how? If you let them live, why? What collateral damage is acceptable?

The thing about comics is that they come from this fairly pg background where the villain threatens people then the hero comes and saves the day. People rarely actually died. Then as the audience grew up the comic increased the grit and had people die, but didn't mature the relationship between the hero and world at the same time. In some way it makes people happy because to a feedback oriented person hero didn't kill makes him more good, but to a goal oriented person it makes no sense at all.

 

[MrChom]

This in a world where no one bats an eye when terrorists with a kill count far, far below the Joker's routinely get missiles dropped on their heads (collateral damage be damned).

I bet you anything that this thread will end up longer than the drone thread that barely managed to get to a second page.

Yes, it's a sad fact of the modern world that we can be more involved with the lives of the inhabitants of fictional cities than those who are murdered half a world away in the name of progress.

At the end of the day all we can do is live by our own moral code...I prefer one that doesn't perpetrate a cycle of never-ending violence.

 

[theSlacker]

That's why I prefer limited and non-canonical series where they're allowed to kill characters and really explore the characters like in Dark Knight Returns.

That is all I've read in years now other then some major events. I just cannot stand on-going comics anymore because I'm too jaded on them, and all I could see behind every story choice was the business reason it was made. And then the POV behind whatever supported those business decisions being the one that is always made right in those comics. Someone mentioned "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way?", and that was a perfect example of it. Superman was right in that not because the Elite killed, but because they were written as being wrong on top of the killing. Then at the end of if the bad guy who represented the wrong idea becomes a crying mess while the hero gets his heroic speech that supports the ideas of not killing off profitable characters, all while never betraying his moral code.

This isn't to say that I think that all heroes should kill outright, just a reason why I can't really stand to read ongoings anymore.

 

[hal9001]

Because heroes like Superman should never ever kill. They aspire to something more.

I suggest everyone read Action Comics 775, which tackled the Mark Miller late 90s/00s trend of edgy killing heroes.

The story was largely conceived as a response towards the popularity of the Wildstorm Comics series The Authority, a deliberately provocative work that explored the moral responsibilities of human beings powerful enough to overturn tyrannical regimes single handed, and which became incredibly popular and influential within the comic industry during its original 29 issue run. "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" is largely seen as a rejection of the principles presented by Warren Ellis and Mark Millar, who wrote the original Authority series regarding the super-hero genre of comics.

 

[Fury451]

And that's partly why why people don't care about Superman. I don't need my superheros to be running around killing everyone, but I want characters that go deeper than that.

We can all gather 'round and hold hands and say "Moral highground! Strive to be better!" but that isn't applicable in these situations. No one is saying "Hey, they should just kill everyone." No. There's situations where you either have to kill them or let them go and more innocents will die.



That's why the character needs to be updated.

I'll stop now.

Updated how? His moral philosophy is what makes him. He would handle Boko Haram or anyone else the same way- bring them to justice without murdering them. The stronger question is "how would the world around him handle them?" or "Why won't the world step up and do something themselves?" Superman seeks to inspire action.

He won't kill because there's a better way. That's pretty much it. How can you set an example of a better path if you compromise it "once in awhile" by killing people? You're either living by it or not, there's not "kill a guy here and there that deserves it". There is no such compromise that won't perpetuate the cycle, that's Superman's point.

And people get bored of Superman because they see him as a Mary Sue due to his powers and personality. He can be very compelling and well-written in the right hands however.

Because heroes like Superman should never ever kill. They aspire to something more.

I suggest everyone read Action Comics 775, which tackled the Mark Miller trend of edgy killing heroes.

The lead up to this is even better: Manchester Black tells Superman he will never stop coming after him if he lets him live. Then Superman does the "I wouldn't have it any other way" line.

 

[PSqueak]

Because heroes like Superman should never ever kill. They aspire to something more.

I suggest everyone read Action Comics 775, which tackled the Mark Miller late 90s/00s trend of edgy killing heroes.

How does this compare to the animated adaptation? i really liked "Superman vs. The Elite", is the comic much better?

 

[FLAguy954]

that's why season 1 of Arrow was fucking awesome.


what a shame

I agree. That's why I liked Vegeta. He got shit done when Goku was being a little bitch.

This guy figured it out:

I agree with all of this.

This thread reminded me of something from The Witcher 3:

"Geralt himself was once asked to verify - during the events of the first game - if it was true that the Silver Sword was for slaying monsters and the Steel Sword for killing humans. He replied 'they are both for monsters.'"

 

[Fury451]

How does this compare to the animated adaptation? i really liked "Superman vs. The Elite", is the comic much better?

They're more or less the same- pretty faithful adaptation as far as I remember. Any changes that occurred were very minor.

 

[PSqueak]

This guy figured it out:

Did he tho?

He wanted to undo the peace achieved by Ozzy because MUH MORAL CODE, he was more than willing to make the deaths of millions go to waste and plunge the world into nuclear war just to expose "the truth".

 

[Toxi]

Because killing a human being is universally agreed to be one of the most morally reprehensible things a person can do without proper justification. Especially when you have power over that person and self-defense goes out the window.

Since heroes are generally written to be morally good people, they're written not to kill unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

It isn't Batman's responsibility to kill his villains.
Its Gotham's justice systen for
1. continuously declaring insanity protecting them from real punishment.
2. continuously allowing them to escape from his insanity "treatment".

If Batman full on distrusted the Justice System and just locked everyone up in his own Star Labs basement for eternity, they'd never get out.

This is also and interesting aspect of Batman's character, is that he is naive enough to believe in most of the system in the first place.

 

[Rodney McKay]

One of the reasons I liked season 1 of Arrow so much.

He's a character that uses a bow to shoot arrows at people, of course people are going to die. It made the fights a lot more impactful.

Then season 2 and on he started doing the batman thing of no killing (with rare exceptions) and it just ended up feeling more bland. Lots of new gimmick arrows (rope arrow, magnet arrow, stun arrow, tranq arrow, etc.). Thankfully he didn't go FULL Batman and he'll still kill people if he absolutely needs to, but it definitely felt like a step back for the show to go in that direction.

 

[Fury451]

This guy figured it out:

Rorschach is the Walter White of comics. He's not supposed to be admirable, a 'hero', relatable or even likable, and yet he's the one everybody roots for despite his obvious problems, questionably harmful beliefs, and hypocrisy.

Dude is literally the patron saint of the dangers of black-and-white thinking. That's not to say the actions of the other characters are any better of course.

 

[Mudcrab]

This guy figured it out:

Too bad you didn't.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

Rorschach is the Walter White of comics. He's not supposed to be admirable, a 'hero', or even likable, and yet he's the one everybody roots for despite his obvious problems and hypocrisy.

Dude is literally the patron saint of the dangers of black-and-white thinking. That's not to say tr actions of other characters are any better of course.

I mean, his actual design is black and white, never mixing together and people still don't get it.

Hell I don't think Snyder understood it.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I figured it was a decent way of keeping the tension and general drama going.

If you can just kill the evil dude then things get way easier.

 

[Schweinehund]

I prefer it when my heroes don't kill unless absolutely necessary. They remain human-like and wouldn't feel comfortable around someone who offs people like it's no big deal, even if they don't have super powers.

I would like to see it explored in this batch of Batman films though.

 

[jtb]

I love Rorschach as a character, not as a model of morality.

 

[C-Drive]

Because heroes like Superman should never ever kill. They aspire to something more.

I suggest everyone read Action Comics 775, which tackled the Mark Miller late 90s/00s trend of edgy killing heroes.

They should adapt that comic / Superman vs The Elite into a film for their Cinematic Universe - use it as a way to answer his methods towards Zod at the end of Man of Steel, and how that changed him.

That's of course if he doesn't go around murdering everyone in Batman v Superman.

I think different "Heroes" have different paths, and the path of "killing is the answer" just doesn't work with any Superman-style character who can kill with a glance.

 

[Croatoan]

I prefer it when my heroes don't kill unless absolutely necessary. They remain human-like and wouldn't feel comfortable around someone who offs people like it's no big deal, even if they don't have super powers.

I would like to see it explored in this batch of Batman films though.

Do you feel uncomfortable around war veterans who have killed people?

Many of them are real life heroes.

 

[Goliath]

Because heroes like Superman should never ever kill. They aspire to something more.

I suggest everyone read Action Comics 775, which tackled the Mark Miller late 90s/00s trend of edgy killing heroes.

Yea, but to be fair he was able to avoid killing the main villain by doing laser eye brain surgery on him somehow disrupting his ability to ever use his powers again. That is a pretty easy cop out. Most heroes don't have those OP abilities and some villains don't need super powers to cause havoc and kill people, (most of Batman's rogue list). So what then, break their spines and dump them in jail. Render them comatose?

If I was Superman I would be straight taking out villains. However I would run things like Batman where people think I'm just a myth or a boogey man who flashes in and all of a sudden dead bad guys.

 

[Manmademan]

It makes sense in proper context.

Most heroes aren't law enforcement. They're vigilantes operating outside of the justice system. They can assist it (by catching an offender) but don't have the authority to override due process and kill a guy without a trial. If laws apply to the guy who just mugged an old lady but not to YOU so you're free to kill him for it, that's kind of hypocritical.

It's not Batman's fault the justice system doesn't believe what Joker does justifies the death penalty, leaving him free to break out. If Gotham (or the state it's in) is all that concerned they can write some new legislation.

Obviously this doesn't apply to quasi governmental organizations that DO have the authority to kill (the avengers, shield) or alien invasions where laws don't apply.

 

[Ivan 3414]

It's an antiquated idea rooted in something that isn't about morality at all: it's about money. DC knows that the Joker is easily one of the greatest villains of all time, do you really think that they will permanently kill him off and lose out on all the merchandise and TV shows, movies, and more comics featuring the character? Hell no.

That's why I prefer limited and non-canonical series where they're allowed to kill characters and really explore the characters like in Dark Knight Returns.

It's an idea that isn't practical and extremely naive. You can all say "Oh, well, Superman CAN'T kill! He just can't" but what if Superman was fighting Hitler. Yeah, I'm going to take it to that extreme because you can argue that there's characters like that in comics such as Darkseid. Let's say he takes down Hitler, but Hitler in this case will at some point get out of prison because of his connections or powers or whatever. Isn't Superman at fault for not killing Hitler? No one is going to say that he should have sparred Hitler here. Come on.

It's an idea that makes no sense. And I'm glad that Superman killed Zod.

ding ding ding

 

[Jeffolation]

Some people do have to die. The people that have to do that aren't hero's or even good people but it's something that has to happen and should be tacitly acknowledged but not celebrated. Best recent example that comes to mind contains Jessica Jones spoilers:

Spoiler

Kilgrave has to die, there's no way around it. Period. I became furious with Jessica's attempt to bring him to some sort of justice because there is no way that could happen and someone as smart and insightful as her should have known that. He had to die and when she didn't kill him as soon as she had the opportunity every subsequent death was on her, straight up.

 

[Pejo]

I don't mind when a character tries to limit the collateral damage, but yea, this really bugs me in a lot of fiction. Add me to the list of people that thought Arrow season 1 was the best.

I basically don't like characters that stand firmly and exclusively on one side of the line. Every encounter is going to play out roughly the same after you get a feel for the characters, and it makes a lot of the stories boring, and trivializes smaller encounters.

For instance, when Batman comes up on a bunch of low ranking thugs, you know you're getting 3 panels of him punch/kicking them and then tying them up or knocking them out. There's no purpose of those frames other than to acknowledge the fact that he isn't killing them and he handily whoops their asses. It's just boring.

This is also why I hate 90% of vampire movies. You can only see the same story about "damaged hero that doesn't want to drink blood!" so many times without knowing exactly how it's going to play out. He's going to get to the end, be severly hurt/malnourished, then drink the blood of family/friend/lover to power up and kick the villan's ass. Then he'll be cured by some vial of superblood or something. Just really shitty.