Is the "No kill rule" outdated and nonsensical? Should superheroes be allowed to kill or not?

It makes sense for some, but not all. Characters like Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man should never kill under any circumstances. It shouldn't even teased as an option, unless you're a retarded hack who is trying to make your story seem more important.

I think it makes sense for some characters to kill depending on the situation. Captain America or Iron Man, for example. They shouldn't killing people left and right, but maybe if it meant protecting innocents in the moment. Someone like Steve Rogers would know that if he went around killing everyone that kids would see that. makes a good point too.

what if the ultimate hero isn't just a savior of innocents, but also of villains?

pff.

Batman: No

Everyone else: I do not care.
Doesn't Green Arrow kill people all the time?
I also didn't whine when Zodd was killed like a fat nerdy pussy, because that stupid ass family didn't move. They should get on court for obstructing Superman's law or something.

That would imply consequences.
Can't have that.
And even if they would od it, some writers would find a way to bring the villains back since thinking of new ones is too fucking hard.

...

...

Yes having them fight the same enemy over and over is annoying as fuck.

As well on the DC side of things superheros has the Spectre breathing down their collective necks.
Why he doesn't start judging villians left and right is a whole nother issue.

So how is it the other "worse offender" doesn't already exist until you kill a villian?

Of course not. When used properly, it creates another challenge for the character to overcome, which makes for good storytelling.

The real issue is since 1986, writers and editors have been dragging these characters into a pit of black nihilism for empty drama and cheap sales gimmicks. How can we root for Batman when every villain he faces kills 10+ people? How can we support him when the bulk of his rogues aren't adequately punished for their crimes? How can we believe in him when Gotham is a perpetually rainy shit-hole that has no light of positive change whatsoever? HOW CAN WE ENDORSE HIS IDEALS WHEN HE IS SO WILLING TO THROW THEM AWAY?

They've created a situation where Batman's "no kill" rule looks retarded in the face of the insurmountable obstacles he's facing.

I like that Robot Chicken skit where Batman can't kill the Joker because of his "no kill rule", so the state decides to execute him at Batmans recomendation.

For the longest time, Batman felt that the Joker needed a lobotomy.

It would be great if Batman still believed that his enemies can be reformed. I guess such optimism gets in the way of punching and brooding.

Not really. Not having any scruples about killing bad guys is usually depicted as a psychological slippery slope for a reason. Plus, it's hard to justify law and order w when you default to killing everybody you can't put in jail. Especially if you're not a cop or a government agent.

Unfortunately he's not really a character. Even Ennis said that a Punisher story is only as good as the scum he goes up against.

I prefer villains killing other villains to prevent them to turn the whole relation between villains and heroes too grimdark.

In a perfect world, classic jokers would kill and make disappear modern psichotic jokers for fucking with the game.

I'd prefer an M situation where the criminal underworld bands together to hunt down psycho jokers. Because psycho jokers bring increased police activity, which hurts their business.

I thought the message of the movie was that people can take justice on their own hands and that it was also the fault of parents for not caring about their children in life.

It depends on the severity and unreliability of the person in question.
For example silly joker should just be thrown in jail. Red Hood/Dark Knight Returns joker should have been killed on the spot.

But what if the law is fucking stupid and the hero goes out of their way to save the villain?
I really hated the end to red hood.

No, because all the people in that room are criminals. They're not looking for "justice". They're looking for revenge and protecting their own self-interest. As the film points out, the entire "court" is hypocrisy, as the crowd holds Hans to standards they certainly don't hold for themselves. Even worse, Hans is mentally ill and can't help what he does, while the mob of crooks all actively choose to cheat, steal, and murder. The entire sham of their "court" is purely to preserve their sense of moral superiority.

The film is grey when it comes to both the child murdering Hans and the criminals who want to kill him. The only objectively good party is the police. They try really, really hard, but the public both demand results and are incredible uncooperative.

When the rogues gallery of different heroes were jack heist-pulling goons with gadgets and gimmicks, then the no-kill rule made sense. At the end of the day, they were just committing pretty mundane crimes with lots of flare and theatrics. However, once comics started getting edgy and supervillains started blowing up buildings and murdering rooms full of babies and kicking puppies, in between escaping from prison on a regular basis, it became obvious that someone needed to start killing them. Even if it's just the cop who accidentally discharges his firearm into the side of their skull while cuffing them.

this. Killing should be on the table in certain extreme scenarios. "No Killing" is fine as a guideline, but having it be this completely unbreakable ironclad rule is retarded, every time a villain escapes and murders someone after his initial capture that blood is on the heroes hands for being selfish and refusing to do what's necessary. The part that bothers me the most is the logic used to justify "no killing" is almost always the cliche "if I kill them then i'll turn into everything i hate and stand against" which is extremely infantile thinking, a cop who kills a dangerous criminal in self defense is not instantly the same as a psychopathic serial killer.

the big 2 can't into nuance though, so your only real choices are no killing ever or maximum edgelord 90's characters like kane and azrael-batman.

Azbats wasn't maximum edgelord. He never actually killed anybody with his bare hands, he just let one guy fall to his death (because of the voices in his head) and thereby doomed his hostage

Police are permitted to use lethal force because they have a proper system of training and accountability behind them. Someone who came to possess magical powers by accident does not. The authorities are generous enough allowing superheroes to intervene in and stop crime, but if ever a hero was to kill someone, he would need to be detained, the situation assessed and possible murder or manslaughter charges would be pressed. If it became a common problem, the permissive attitude towards the superhero community would need to be reassessed.

"But the villains always escape and kill more people." So why doesn't the criminal justice system formally execute them if they're such a danger and rehabilitation is too unlikely? Well, we know why, but the question should be why aren't you asking about state executions instead of street killings? If one person is too dangerous to be permitted to live, that is not a decision that should be made by a single, unaccountable person in anything but the absolute worst of situations.

wat

...

That would make an interesting Batman comic.

>>>Holla Forums
begone, nigger

How about replying with an actual response instead of cringey reaction images you either made yourself or found in the autistic depths of 9gag.

Crash Retold told the story better anyway tbh

As superheroes represent an ideal, finding a solution involving the minimum amount of violence necessary should be a part of that ideal (except for the Punisher).
The problem is that "spare them if you can" has been unilaterally interpreted as "if the homicidal maniac dies you'll feel a fuckton of guilt and angst for the next 50 years of publication"

The writing philosophy should be altered in such a way that the hero isn't necessarily trying to kill the villain but the villain is still allowed to die, either as a result of pushing the hero too far or being hoist by their own petard.
A great example of this almost being done right is in Joker's Favor, when Charlie Collins has a bomb right in Joker's face. Batman tries to talk him down but ultimately doesn't interfere, letting Charlie have his much justified revenge if he'll take it.

This logic has always baffled me, because so much of what heroes stand for, especially Batman, is about bringing justice to those who break the law, and then reforming them. The goal is ultimately to make them stop being villains or to even put their talents to good use for the sake of others. Which means the ultimate moral of the story is that redemption is always possible, no matter how much evil someone has done.

..But if a hero commits one act of questionable evil (killing a killer) that means they are beyond redemption and must become an amoral psychopath who will try to take over the world because they'll be so emotional and mentally compromised that totalitarian conquest is the only thing that will sate their monstrous appetite for slaughter.

Castle only needed one scene to prove them wrong.

Yes. I would be okay with pacifist good guys if they chopped bad guys' arms off. Even Jedi Master Obiwan Kenobi had no problem doing that. How are prison guards suppose to keep super villains locked up? They don’t have a chance. Maiming bad guys makes them much less of a threat. They’ll live.

In I think Spinnerette there's a chapter touching on the legal dimension of superheroing, explaining among other things that even after heroes apprehend a villain they're obligated to give testimony at the villain's trial afterwards. The Marvel Universe likewise has laws in place pertaining to superheroes, and those probably include laws against killing. I don't know about DC, but Batman in particular tends to be the lawful type, so he doesn't kill because he doesn't want to be anymore of a criminal than he technically already is by going out as a vigilante.
In short, the answer is probably "no, superheroes aren't allowed to kill, because it's against the law" but in practice seeing a hero kill a villain is hardly unheard of, considering how easily they can make a case for legal self-defense. The law also fails to account for superpowered criminals who are simply too strong to be detained, so maybe whatever legal framework decides if superheroes can kill should be tweaked to take exceptional situations/opponents into account.

Dark Knight Returns Joker was killed. Granted, it was suicide, but Batman at least strongly considered killing him right up until the moment of truth

I think after fighting most of them for about 70 years even he would have realised that ship has sailed

Killing is not against the law. Murder and manslaughter are illegal. Not killing.

they are not forbidden of doing it, it is all matter of who is writing it. Of course if the character is written with a no killing rule for decades it would feel weird to change it suddenly,

I don't mind the "no kill" rule at all, but I DO mind every hero ever having it. I like the difference in philosophy between Superman and Batman's no kill rules for instance. Superman wants to show people there is always another way. Batman is afraid he wouldn't be able to stop killing to solve his problems. But when every single hero always has the No Kill rule it becomes pretty stupid, because when ever someone breaks it it's always portrayed as them long jumping off the slippery slope like Godspeed or the Vice Squad, or their one killing is treated as completely unforgivable like Flash and Reverse Flash. As I kid I really liked the idea of a hero never killing someone, and I don't hate it now because I don't like the idea any less, I'm just tired of it being the only route a superhero can take.

Grell's Green Arrow shot people with real arrows

I once saw someone ask what the hell the world did with supervillains when superheroes were banned in The Incredibles and someone suggested this. A prequel with that sounds like it would be way better than whatever they'll do in the real sequel.

It's refreshing in Rebirth to see a hand full of villains getting reformed like Clayface and Bizzaro (kinda).

Police are permitted to use lethal force to defend themselves, not because some people deserve to be killed. Situations like Chris Dorner for instance was a clear cut case of the police drastically overstepping their boundaries in which lethal force is authorized.

What is meant is that the Punisher is incredibly 2-Dimensional. His incredibly hard black and white stance allows for basically no character growth ever. And while I LOVE Punisher comics, I don't love the Punisher as a character, it's the cathartic feeling of watching a man cold-heartedly gun down bad people by the hundreds.

I always hate when Superheros show a direct unwillingness to work along side the police force. It puts them squarely in the line of "vigilantism" instead of "Well meaning people who want to help." Recentely in the Arrow TV show, on of the heroes discovered the evil masked man's identity while ON DUTY AS A COP and only ever shared this information with her superhero friends, and never told the cops. It basically corrupted the character, as she apparently believed the entire police force was useless. It throws the believablility of "We deal with threats they can't" out the fucking window.

Green Arrow avoids killing people as much as possible, but will eventually take a look at some bad guy and decide that he has to go down permanently to keep people safe.

It's even dumber when you consider the cosmic side of things where you have all these "space cop" characters like Green Lantern and Nova who should be authorized to use lethal force when necessary, but never do (at least to my knowledge it's been a long time since i've read their book).

In America, everybody has that right. All superheroes have to do is kill bad guys and say self defense.

What's wrong with that? Vigilantes are heroes.

Good. That's the entire point of superheroes. The corrupt system doesn't work. If it did work, then superheroes wouldn't be needed in the first place.

Why do you pretend to like capes when you hate one of the central pillars of the genre?

Superhero goes to court

I mean in the sense that it's often used in capeshit. Superheroes don't go around fighting crime because the police are useless, but because they want to help. When it comes to supervillains, they actually aren't, but they aren't useless for literally everything. And in the situation I was giving, the "bad guy" was literally just a former evil guy in some spandex. Characters like the Punisher are perfectely fine, because they genuinely don't think the police can do anything. They think the system is broken. But 90% of superheroes are there to help, not "do the job for them." But if they sey they just want to help, but spend time stealing from evidence lockers to investigate it themselves and refusing to give essential information to the police, then their characterization goes out the fucking window.

the Green Lanterns have an extreme definition of "when necessary"
it takes something along the lines of the events of GL 55-56 to release the no-kill policy (a full on war against everyone the Guardians have ever imprisoned, masterminded by not-Al Capone)

I agree with this. It goes back to the whole "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" thing.

This sort of story set in the 30's, with the mob teaming up to take out the Joker, and Batman having to indirectly 'save' him, would be interesting. But only if it was done in the style of 30's batman, no muh oppressed negro jazz pianist subplot.
Also an Elseworlds "Punisher" book where it turns out the Punisher doesn't actually exist, he's just a rumour made up by Batman so criminals will be glad no-kill Batman got to them first, might be amusing.

why doesnt he just shot the chamber of the rifle?

1. Daredevil doesn't know anything about guns.
2. Frank turns and takes aim before Matt can take a shot.
3. The pistol isn't loaded. Frank was just making a point.

Depends how its done. If it's done like Captain America or Wonder Woman where they kill only if they really need to then yeah I can see that working.

You only need a bad day, user. What if the villain was your father or something? What if his dead inspire some kind of rebellion against superheroes?
I think the no kill logic is exemplary and symbolic.

Except for the fact that people hate criminals and terrorists so much that no one would care if they got lasered off the planet, the phillipines loves their president for murdering the shit out of gang members.

They should be at least permitted to maim or permanently injure.

Comic writers are to obsessed with edgelording to the extreme to make the no kill rule outdated and nonsensical. It's a self referencing paradox. The villain might as well know that they are in a comic book and no matter how horrific their actions are that they'll be back to do more stuff eventually.

Ironically, it doesn't matter if they kill them or not. Because if they did kill the villains, they'd either come back from the dead or an exact replica would show up in under a month. So the whole exercise becomes pointless.

Just kill him too

The current writing of the 'No Killing' rule is fucking stupid and it's because people don't understand why it's so important for Vigilantes to not kill.

Force, violence, is a monopoly held by the state, in a democracy it's under the common consent and supervision of the people. When the state uses violence, it is using it with the understanding that it is doing it with the consent of the people in a very narrow and specifically defined way.

A Vigilante is not an agent of that state, in fact it's the exact opposite, it is a criminal using force at his own discretion, without the approval and oversight of the people. This is why it's so important that vigilantes not exercise the final sanction of physical force, ending a life. Not if they want to pretend to be fighting for some type of greater good.

When restrained, a vigilante can be seen as a force for good, even if it isn't with the consent of the people, because sometimes you need an outside, independent force to fight things the state and the people cannot. Super powered enemies are just a lazy way to create such a threat that only singular, independent vigilantes can deal with.

Unfortunately, people don't understand the basics of statecraft and the implications and understanding between the people and the state, so it's devolved into 'durr, they don't kill because it's the right thing to do'. No, fuckhead, they don't kill because they are an independent, unsanctioned CRIMINAL doing whatever he thinks is right without any oversight. If he's just punching bad guys and letting the police take them, at least it's likely that anything he's done can be undone by the state or the people if they find out he fucked up. Once he starts dropping people into graves, he's no longer reliable and must be discarded.

all this and the notion of a vigilante dispensing the death penalty on his whim goes against the whole notion of a code of law with fixed punishments, or at least one that isn't decided by one person and skips due process, which really ties back into what you already said. There is just something disturbing about someone going around as judge,jury,executioner, and legislator which is why when someone does do that, they are always depicted as villains.

...

The fuck he does.
The
Fucking
Fuck
Fuckity
Fuck
He
Does.

All the fucking famous names in Gotham constantly get out, harm innocent, kill people, destroy, maim and so on so forth.
You know why he doesn't kill them?
Because he *needs* them.
He needs villains because otherwise he can't be a hero, if there is no crime there is no vigilante.
Bruce is addicted to being the Batman, plain and simple.
Villains like the Joker cannot be cured, it's clear as day, for fucking years they came back and caused chaos and for fucking years he went chasing them and slapped them on their wrist.
One could of course argue that it should be the judiciary system to give them the death penalty but still, god fucking damn it, just kill the fucker.
To clean things you need to get dirty, if you're not willing to get dirty you're not even scratching the surface.

Oh wow encyclopedia brown here cracked the case, Batman isn't mentally well you've come up with a revelation there champ.

Everybody knows the no-kill rule doesn't work anymore. In places like BTAS it worked because the villain, while criminals, were less murdery. In the comics they didn't get that memo though, and now Joker gets a slap on the wrist for murdering thousands.
But you know what? I still think Batman shouldn't kill. Because despite you being a psycho-analysis faggot, what have the people ever fucking done to solve that problem? Batman hands the Joker over on a silver platter and not the cops, nor the citizens, nor the government nor anyone actually tries to get him the Death Penalty. Because Batman is the hero the people deserve, and the citizens of the DC Universe are fucking morons.

The fault lies on the judiciary system, then, and that's simply faulty writing.
I mean come on, insanity defense is a fucking hard sell to begin with, let alone for multiple offenses and after a while its surprising the Joker hasn't had a bailiff just straight up shoot him in the back during a trial.

That's ironically how Death of the Family ended.

On a side note, that was an awful story. A mish-mash of half-baked ideas and weird symbolism that appeared to be more concerned with keeping the rule of cool instead of finding a theme and sticking to it. This problem becomes even more aggravating when this book is supposed to tell an intimate and character-focused story. I know Snyder is not that great of a writer, but whereas his nu52 was mediocre, DotF was just terrible.

...

I want jokerfags to leave
but yeah I agree that if capes start to pop nigger left and right normal people will ask the governments to stop that shitincidentally will make civil war plot coherent as a realty

Ok, lets be clear. The only reason they have the Joker be "insane" is because they thought it made Batman more "realistic". They thought it made more sense for all of Batman's villains to be mentally ill, for them to escape from an asylum instead of a prison, and for all of his costumed villains to be housed together in a ward instead of a cell-block. It's the fissure that finally broke Batman as a concept, because when they started ramping up the murder in the nineties, Batman was then rendered impotent against crime. Which subsequently lead to discussions like the one we're having now.

All of those problems have simple solutions, reserve arkham for the genuinely crazy villains like Two-Face, make it a ward of a larger penitentiary, have reoccurring rogues refrain from murder, and send Batman's villains to jail. Of course, DC's never going to do that. They've got a mature image to maintain.

Worm did something like this; generally villains just go to jail until they break out- but if they break out enough times or are far to dangerous to risk them going out in to the public they will be sent to the Birdcage; the most secure prison on the planet that no one ever has or ever does breakout of. Gangs and villains that create to much trouble risk the other gangs and villains teaming up to shut them down.

This is because, generally, neither heroes or villains are going all out with their powers; this is because the villains know if they do it'll bring the law right down on top of them, and heroes know that going all out will mean the villains will too which will cause massive collateral damage, it doesn't help that villains outnumber heroes almost 2-1. Not to mention if a REALLY bad threat comes along the heroes and villains will typically band together to fight it off, and these threats can range from a person or group that can wipe out entire teams of capes or can destroy entire cities and any and all help the heroes get is welcome.

And if someone does cross one to many lines? A kill order will be sent out straight from the government that means that anyone is allowed to kill you and will be paid for it too. Mostly reserved for major threats or hero killers.

I remember reading Batman Adventures years and years ago, and there was a story where the Riddler subconsciously leaves clues which help Batman find him. At the end of it he asks Batman to take him back to Arkham because he realizes that he might actually be crazy. I liked it, it made Arkham seem like a sensible concept in that instance.

But you're completely right, "insanity" only cuts it for very few of the Arkham inmates. Ad his regular rogues shouldn't be fucking murder machines.

Shut it, Buttman.

Punisher is different. Punisher only works if there is only one Punisher

Don't remind me of that edgy bullshit.

I fucking hate this type of writing for the BatFamily.

I like it when Bruce has a good relationship with Dick. With Tim. Hell I like it when he's written as still deeply loving Jason and Jason as being willing to help Bruce despite it all. I like it when the BatFamily is a family, not some edgy shit where everyone hates Bruce.

I liked the edge.

The edgy term is so fucking 2010-2015. When the Cuckchan pussies appeared and finally saw an opportunity to go against the shit they are too pussy for. "Oh noes horror/ violence/ rape, sooo edgy because I don't like it or can't stand it. You're all sooo stupid. Am I right cuckfriends? Now lets eat a salad or some shit while discussing the gender roles of The Big Bang Theory, our favorite show."

edgy retard spotted

...

If superheroes respected the law they wouldn't be vigilantes.

No it didn't. The writer had a view of what superheroes should be and wrote an over-the- top scenario around it.

Superhero comic books and their apologists don't grasp the concept of self-defense.

Nobody was driven to avenge Ted Bundy.

>>>/reddit/

I could easily see and in-universe explanation involving the idea that going on in costume to fight crime means you are proactively seeking trouble and not acting in self-defense. Either way, a book about superheroes and supervillains going to court would be interesting. No normal lawyer would defend a villain, especially not with some bullshit lesser charge like "Batman assaulted my client then fled the scene of a crime!" but some kind of supervillain lawyer that works with guys like The Penguin or Kingpin type characters, because any other lawyer that loses the case would be dead in a day.

Could lead to the case being brought all the way to the supreme court. They could even do the talking heads on tv thing they love so much, with commentators talking about amending the law and how it should be changed to account for superheroics, metahuman abilities, and international threats that cannot be handled by the military and world governments… But all of that would require good, intelligent writing.

Agreed. Recent Batman comics have done a pretty good job of portraying that, at least.

Why didn't a cop just shoot one of the villains though?

That's because they want re-occuring characters because they realised that's easy to sell to dumb adult men and kids.

That's actually the most unbelievable part. No that vigilantes have a no-kill rule, but that if the Joker was really that psychotic, there would have been a police officer plenty willing to give up his life and career to end the Joker.

Hasn't this happened before? I feel like I've seen a comic where a guy dresses up as Batman and shoots Joker in the face as soon as he sees him.

You mean a cop willing to be declared a hero and given a promotion for killing the mass murdering terrorist the Joker. Not even the scumbag BLM would open their stupid mouths to defend the Joker. Because the Joker is white.

Instead of making the good guys dumb pacifists with a no kill policy, make the bad guys smart enough to have an escape plan. Making all characters smarter is good writing.

It's hard to respect a hero that is always holding back his power. If Bane has a nuke and tries to destroy all of Gotham, Batman should be fighting 100%. He should be doing everything and anything in his power to save millions of lives. Including killing bad guys. Doing less than his best is irresponsible when that many lives are at stake.

Snyder go home

While I respect your right to have an incorrect opinion user I must disagree and respectfully call you a faggot.

As near as I can figure, BTAS Batman tried to kill (or neglected to save) Joker, Clayface, and probably a few others on many occasions. Same with Superman. Bruce Timm is a bit flexible on no-kill rules, or at least applies some degree of common sense.

Yes. Massively. Man Of Steel is the blueprint.

Lots of collateral damage, and evil jackasses who can't be reached being executed.

The charm of Dredd is that he can play on any role: a neutral party, a pretty entertaining anti-hero, an actual hero and a villain
On the surface he can come as 1-dimensional, but any given story he can pull out some really interesting stuff

Technically there is a dent, but I don't see him properly representing anyone else but himself.
Character like that would be pretty interesting. Someone who is Batman's villain, but instead of actually committing crime, that someone just undoes Batman's efforts. Everything is done by the book, lawyer always keeps hands clean, and because of that he or she is someone that Batman cannot touch.

It could be pretty interesting, especially with Dent talking his way out, using legal loopholes, and managing to get off on technicality.
Other than that it would be interesting to see a villain's story that begins with them getting caught, sent to court, then prison, and then trying to get out. Riddler could just treat the break out as a puzzle, Mad Hatter could desperately jury-rig a mind control device of some sort with limited resources, Strange would manipulate his way out of prison and so on. Story would end with a successful breakout. Was there ever a book like that?

The solution is simple.

Have the Super Hero's either join the police or become them.

Except for the 2nd Amendment and Self-Defense

Wildbow's fanfic generation work of fiction? Ugh.

You have to go back

Nah. I like my superheroes to be heroic and save people rather than finding the slightest excuse to murder millions of innocents.

What if the vigilante just walks around the bad part of town and blows away the villain when they try to mug him?

During cataclysm? he kidnaped Gordon while having Montoya in hostage making a run for the court house to pin the fault of a bad done deal between the two faction of the blue boys and his faction…gordon had done a deal with Dent for weapons or supplies or whatever, and for a Non belligerant pact using Montoya as a messenger. Dent kept Montoya in prisoned suspecting a double cross from Jim at the court house he acted as a lawyer again which made both attacker as two face and defender as Dent. Montoya was eyewitness.
was a nice side story looking Dent arguing with himself for the fault of the problem, obviously two face wanted to kill Jim but at the end Dent could snatch a final argument against the proofs and let him go

No found out was No men's land arc story…what the fuck happen to my pics? They are not in the order I've posted them

Everyone in this thread seems to be focusing on "vigilantism" and specifically on guys like Batman and Superman, the problem with your suggestion is that there are numerous examples of capes who do just as you suggest and yet still more or less live by the "no kill" rule.
Both intergalactic space cops.
Was a level 9 clearance agent of SHIELD and still technically active duty military.
Stark was the goddamn U.S. security of defense and later the director of SHIELD.
Also an agent of SHIELD at one point.
Turned all capes who signed it into agents of the U.S. government.

As others have said I have no problem with the "no kill" rule being a general guideline for heroes to follow, as long as it's flexible and done realistically. A good example of this was Cyclops forming X-Force when mutants nearly went extinct. This allowed the X-Men to retain a good public "no kill" image, but also allowed them to dispatch high level threats in secret. A great example of the "no kill" rule looking completely outdated and ridiculous would be the terrible Daredevil event Shadowland.

The no kill rule has become another crack in the foundation of these worlds. I can't even get into Batman because I find it so utterly ridiculous that so many repeat mass murderers are not executed by the state or Batman. I find it impossible to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story. No kill worked when the villains were mostly robbers or killed rival criminals. When the threats escalated the response had to. If say Batman was real, people would be up in arms that the state didn't execute the criminals or grant Batman the authority to. Most superheroes operate in this ridiculous world, and it undermines the appeal of the superhero genre.

Depends on the hero.

I think it's unbelievable that Batman doesn't kill someone, if only by accident. I really wish they'd de-emphasize his combat skills and go back to writing him as a master detective/ strategist. Wouldn't even care if they had to rip off Sherlock Holmes again to do it.

Superman I get. If he starts killing people, he'd end up like a god deciding who lives and dies and he just doesn't want that burden. Further he has the ability to save people he's incapacitating. He also has a decent prison he can send people to; if writers didn't keep breaking physics to make it a revolving door.

Wonder Woman probably should kill or her backstory/ arsenal needs changed. I'd love it if she'd only kill "worthy opponents" and treated mercy as a statement of contempt.

This is a little /tg/ for Holla Forums but I liked how my GM handled it in a super hero game we played.

Long and short of it is, we operated in an official government capacity, we were essentially cops. If we killed someone in the line of duty we had to go through an official inquest, during which he'd separate us all, question everyone about their version of events, and then decide if the incident justified a trial. He also made it easy to kill on accident. If we punched a random mook and knockback would take him out a window on the 22nd story, one of us would either have to save him, or the guy throwing the punch would get to go through the investigation. We also had a vigilante like Punisher running around I'm led to believe he based him off Blue Knight in Astro City, but he wouldn't sanitize it like Marvel does. Innocent people did die in the cross fire between the vigilante and the gang. It'd usually be the gang's bullets that hit the civilians, but it was the vigilante causing a fucking gun fight in the middle of an apartment building. In our case, the gang would surrender when we knocked down the door cause they'd only go to prison.

It just helped me realize no-one actually wants the fucking Punisher running around. They may want specific villains taken care of, but fights are too uncontrollable to have someone known for not taking prisoners.

Ah, but that would involve reading something other than comic books. The reason writers like Finger and O'Neil were good at it was because they were relatively well read. Finger especially was infamous for keeping track of the most trivial of information to use later in stories.

However, with entry into the direct market, there came a lower standard for writing, which eventually lead us to the nadir that we're in.

WW shouldn't kill because that goes against the original point of her character. If I recall, WW was basically Sailor Moon before such a concept, in that she solved her problems with love and womanly virtues instead of brutality.

That's a big issue I have with the WW movie. WW isn't about how women can kick ass, it's about how women are so powerful they DON'T need to kick ass.

I would actually read that shit.

I should have specified that, that the permission to use force is outside the realms of simple self defense. In most free societies, every person has the right to use force to defend themselves, but only the state holds the right to use it outside of that context.

I honestly can't tell if you are joking or not.

Meh, maybe one or two times in the entire DCAU, but most times he did save Joker, even from entirely self inflicted harm. And Clayface, what are you talking about? In his first appearance Clayface electrocuted himself by smashing all those monitors that were showing him all his former acting roles, which was a ruse anyway. In his second, Batman tried to save him, but couldn't hold on to him due to his bodily integrity deteriorating, so Clayface fell down a cliff and into the sea, where he dissolved. Not much he could do there.
Anyway, what you're describing would generally be my ideal approach to Batman: not going out and actively killing people, but also not giving a shit if mass murdering super villains die in the heat of battle or under different circumstances.

Kinda surprised nobody has brought up Devil's Advocate yet ITT. Anybody remember this shitshow of a comic, in which Joker finally gets sent to death row for murdering someone, but Batman saves him because he didn't commit this particular crime? Personally this was for me the point, where I couldn't take Batman as a character serious anymore.
Joker goes back to Arkham of course and after that, in the following years, happily kills more and more people.
And mind you, we're not talking about silver age Joker, this is bronce age joker, who crippled Barbara, killed Jason and did tons of other shit.
Bruce is a goddamned fucking retard. He just couldn't let the state kill him, than go "whoops, guess he didn't do it" and than go after the real killer, as if anybody would give a fuck. And even if he couldn't catch him anymore it would still be a net win, cause that one guy on the loose would never be able to do as much harm to society as the motherfucking Joker, even if he tried.

Of course, I know that by now Batman is characterized as being obsessed with justice, compulsive about it to a point, that he's almost as crazy as his villains. But still, at what point is a character so flawed, that he can't even be called a hero anymore? Maybe I'm just too old fashioned but a hero to me is not some goodie two shoes, but someone who does the right thing at the right time and place, and when it comes to walking genocides like the Joker, the right thing to do would be to put the fucker down.
But it's pretty much futile to argue about in universe reasons and justifications for killing or not killing. As we all know, they keep reusing villains because they sell (somewhat), because they lack creativity and because this genre is full of hack writers.

We have to fight for a future where this can happen.

Honestly, for as much as the big 2 like having new people take on various heroes' identities, they do it surprisingly infrequently with villains. The joker in particular would make a lot more sense as an inevitable meme, a twisted ideal that some psycho or another will inevitably gravitate to, than he does as one dude who never gets taken out of the game

Reminder that any society that depends on vigilantes, let alone superpowered ones, to fight criminals and other monsters is more or less a failed state. The whole "superheroes can't kill their enemies since something law decide dies" falls apart since a key assumption in superhero stories is that the superhero/s is the only one capable of handling his enemies.

The cops can't catch the Joker. The jails/asylums can't hold him or Two-Face or Penguin or Ra's Al-Ghul. And that's not bringing up the rogues galleries where for the likes of Superman or Green Lantern. With this in consideration, being more or less the law of the land Superlad would have the de facto authority to decide "who lives or dies" as you put it.

But the Green Lanterns at least ARE cops

Cops who answer to foreign governments on Earth soil.

Batman's no killing rule also wakens the whole 'inspiring fear into the hearts of criminals' thing. Batman is less scary than super villains most goons work for, other criminals, an average cop, or even a civilian with a weapon. Even if he routinely maims and cripples criminals, ending on a wheelchair is preferable to taking a bullet to the head.

The fear thing only works when Batman is more of a myth. As soon as he becomes a known entity that definitely exists he wouldn't be nearly as scary to criminals. That's why stories where Batman is in his early years tend to be better (when going for a dark style).

I always thought he inspired fear over how relentless he was. Batman has dedicated his entire life to fighting crime. He has numerous strange gadgets and a near limitless amount of information at his disposal, all to bring criminals to justice. The criminal underworld would live in constant terror No racket can escape Batman's notice. No fool-proof plan can out-smart him. He becomes the ultimate boogeyman. If you choose to walk the path of crime and evil, the Batman will find you and bring you to justice.

It's because of that I always like the Golden Age when the public knew about Batman and Batman would at times display his crime fighting tools or let reporters into the bat-cave Of course, after blind-folding them and making absolutely sure there was no way they could discover it's location, including covering up every inch of rock surface just to keep Batman's lair a secret. He wanted criminals to know he was real, to know he had ways of finding them, and to realize the complete futility of being a criminal in Gotham City. That was how Batman spread fear into criminals, by demonstrating that he was an unstoppable, overpowering force against crime.

That sounds like a fun /tg/ game to play
Have you done it IRL or was via chat? A thread? Give me a link where I can read hat shit user

Seconding, I'd really like a spot.

Yet villains always die in the movies, if only to "raise the stakes" and bring in a new highly-paid actor

Amen. I love it when Batman is actually "the worlds greatest detective" and not just some guy really good at fighting. I like it when he and Superman are together, and for all Superman's super-senses and quicker thinking he misses a little detail or connection that Batman makes.

I remember a comic where Batman took Metropolis for a day and Superman took Gotham. They had a really really shitty reason for why Superman can't operate in Gotham, because "it's just a different city". Well why not say they have different types of crime? Batman can't handle the sheer physical demands of the Metropolis Super-villains, but maybe have it that Superman couldn't figure out one of the most basic Riddler schemes and tries to compensate using super-speed, but he still just can't figure out how to solve a given case. Make them both have their strengths, as it stands Batman is just a worse Superman since Superman is smarter and more observant (at least writers write him that way).

Movies also aren't trying to sell product monthly for as long as they can. Batman has only had 10 films since 1966, including the lego one. Movie audiences are also conditioned to the villain dying, it's expected. We almost demand it in any action orientated movie. There is also a lot of money on the line to be doing dumb things. The level of talent working on a modern superhero movie is probably in most instances, not all, better than your best comic book hack.

That leads me to superhero comics, their writers and their audience. Superhero comics are by and large written by hacks that can't break into tv, movies or the big time novels. Who was the last writer that truly had a passion just for comics as a storytelling medium? These hacks also have zero respect for the audience. The superhero comics audience as whole is the biggest glutton for punishment of any fandom I know of. They continue to buy garbage event after garbage event. The majority of the audience makes no demand for quality. The superhero comics audience might somehow be dumber as a whole than the general movie going audience. If you still go to the comic shop take a look at the person getting their giant pull list, chances are he looks like the biggest retard you'll come across that day.

Some here. Making him a thug with bunch of gadgets and plan for every possible situation is just lazy. When was the last time when Batman had to actually solve a case or defeat criminal without relying on his fists?

In recent years? Probably Joe Hill, Max Landis, and Gerard Way. All of them were or are successful in other fields before choosing to write comics and don't rely on them to earn a living. They might not always be the best, but they obviously write comics because they enjoy them.

That's because anyone with standards either moved on to manga, European comics, or abandoned medium altogether.
It's not limited to capes either - most popular indie books tend to be on the shit side too. You have people sucking Saga's dick as the best comic ever, even though it's subpar compared to Vaughan's and Staples' past work and many other books currently out.
Then you also have everyone hyping up total crap like Nowhere Men and Rat Queens to high heavens, when actual good books like Resident Alien and Witch Doctor go unnoticed. It's a crime that Moebious and VanHamme are unknown in American comic book community, but hacks like Bendis are considered good and have legions of fans. Luckily things seem to be very slowly changing on that front.

Can capeshit as it is even work? I mean, they used to be comics for children that are now marketed as comics for adults that somehow manage to be dumber than their silly old antics. All we have now are overcomplicated universes with multiverses within multiverses and a thousand parallel timelines where every comic makes back references to a thousand other comics that may already be fucking discontinued, and superheroes that rely on being overpowered as shit and the level of characterization reduces to quips and meaningless titles like "18 PhD before their 14th birthday because THEY ARE THAT SMARTZ LOL", where the settings are simply generic vaguely sci-fi urban fantasy where fucking everything can happen because after all these years of raping the setting it's become a bland shitty generic themeless blob with ill defined mechanics. Fuck, I am not even sure Mahvel's business model can even work, what with the "tumblr endless scrolling" equivalent of storytelling.

I have no doubt superheroes can work, but to me they dug a hole so deep I don't think the big two can produce quality superheroes in their main universes. They need to scrap their frameworks and start over.

It's about time for things to crash, I think. In a perfect world, things would crash for both of the Big Two, the Big Two would get a little smaller, and then they'd take a hard look at themselves, fire the worthless talent, and streamline things down. By that I mean look at the fundamentals of each hero, keep those, and focus on making the heroes and their worlds a little smaller. Batman shouldn't be omnicompetent, for example. He should be brought down a bit to be more believable. Along with that goes ditching a lot of old continuity, but it'd be healthier in the long run.

But stuff like that won't happen because they'll keep making the same mistakes, scrapping it and trying to trim the fat and making those mistakes all over again, in the process making everything all the more confusing.

Say what you will about My Hero Academia, but sometimes it's nicer to read/watch something about superheroes that doesn't have decades of baggage and shitty writing fucking it in the ass.

Agree, and to add tho you notice even movie fags can't stand some major change in plot or character. Where comic books fags see whore and still buy the comics, the new fantastic 4 movie with wewuztorchndshiit bombed so hard that marvel is obligated to avoid any game to have the fantastic four even old ones

Here's the thing: none of this shit happens in stories that have a beginning and an end.

IRL unfortunately, I'll see if my GM keeps notes I can turn into a story for you and link the /tg/ post here.

The site is broke as fuck, it would be nice if you do that user.

Hey, give Frank some credit, he never starts something where innocents will get killed. The guy's family were killed in a crossfire, for Pete's sake. He's not retarded, like the TV version of Vigilante.

That's primarily with the writers bending things around to keep Frank sympathetic, and really, all that does is kind of cheapen what makes him interesting.

Given even a vaguely realistic take on things, Frank would be endangering civilians in almost every scenario, try as he might, somebody innocent is going to catch a bullet eventually.

Hi Joss

Batman should have killed some nameless enemies by now with all the brutality he dispences. And Joker should have been shot by the police or shanked or poisoned or.

He once drugged a slaver ring through their soup. One innocent chick died because she passed out face down in soup. It didn't upset him that much.

Joker was shanked. It was his second appearance

To put it in context.

Again, the point that "The Punisher" should be killing civilians applies to other superheroes. The X-Men in particular have gotten in firefights within populated areas.

The difference in this area that seperates Frank Castle from Batman or Spiderman is that he's following the implications of vigilantism to its full conclusion by killing the enemy.

meanwhile in reality…

I'm not saying he could be or should be, I'm just saying you can't actually give The Punisher credit as anything other than an antihero, and I think it's kind of retarded to portray his tactics as flawless because the writers often bend logic to make him more heroic than he should be portrayed.

Whedon's a cuck, killing Frank isn't the answer. Frank works best when his morals are being played against another, more moderate vigilante's. It's not bad to have him kill bad guys, it's just boring and disingenuous to play his tactics as flawless heroism. Punisher tends to get the Batgod syndrome, thought to a somewhat lesser extent.

That's typically done under a completely different context. Big superhero battles with lots of collateral damage more often comes because the heroes can't just up and move that alien invasion to the nearest desert.

Colossus, Cyclops, Storm, Scarlett Witch, and Deadpool killed people too. As did Gambit, Rogue, Emma Frost, Beast, Cable… X-Men are probably the the good guys with most blood on their hands. Joss Wheadon is a Bendis-level hack.

And the Punisher is established as making a serious effot to keep collateral damage as low as it can be. It's not like the X-Men are any less of a threat to societ considering all the terrorists and other villains among them.

I liked when Riddler reformed and became a private eye.

I'm starting to get the feeling that Kingdom come was only good because of the art by Alex Ross.

That's what makes him fun and awesome. He's that much of a badass, that he can plan an attack without endangering innocents. And if you're going to complain that Frank not injuring civilians is unrealistic, there isn't a single hero with a no kill rule that realistically could avoid killing someone if they were operating for longer than a month. Batman would eventually kill someone entirely on accident with the glass falling from the skylight he just broke, or the person he just drop kicked falling in the wrong way.

I'm pretty sure every story arc of The Punisher ever starts with the speech about he's not a hero, and how he isn't someone to look up to.

I too can appreciate good edge. As well as fluff, or whatever the proper antonym would be.
If the term "edge" is supposed to refer to something that is specifically bad in it's execution of grim and violent themes, I would say that this is not entirely clear from the popular use of the word.

I really should make a comic of this.

This thread shows there isn't a case for No-Kill superheroes to be the rule when supervillains are shameless mass murderers.

It still makes sense if you have a mass murderer. It makes less sense when they're ALL mass murderers.

They're not just mass murderers, they're repeat mass murders

Amazed nobody has mentioned the Superman story arc "Hunter-Prey" ITT yet.
When you main superhero is going out of his way to save your universes cosmic satan, you've taken the "no kill" bullshit to it's most absolutely absurd conclusion.

Nice to know you're from Reddit.

...

...

Nova kills all the time actually.

Even the stupid kid?

Brother, if Superman killed, it'd be horrifying.

I don't know who that is, I stopped following the cosmic Marvel stuff after the "Thanos Imperative" arc as it seemed like a naturally ending point to the long ass storyline that started in Annihilation. I'm sure as shit not interested in anything introduced during the Bendis era of cosmic Marvel.

So if Reddit is less pussy than you guys, yes, then I should maybe visit it one day.

Just make sure to not come back here and we're good.

Thread reminder that Western civilizations heroes have long been killing the enemy even when just looking at pulp stories that superhero comics are based from. Even early DC superheroes killed before the comics code.

By defending No Kill you are against what is actually the rule in Western civilization's stories.

Cool.

But you see, Western civilizations heroes have long been redeeming the enemies even when just looking at pulp stories that superhero comics are based from. Even early DC superheroes refrained from killing before the comics code.
By attacking No Kill you are against what is actually the rule in Western civilization's stories.

Doc Savage killed or at least allowed the deaths of his enemy. So did Zorro. Also, Tarzan.

lol, even Robin used lethal force.

How come she has a second gauntlet covering her right hand?

I see we know where (((you))) stand annon, as well as your puny frame of reference. Go fuck a piggie bank or something.

Yeah because it wasn't jews who push for the death penalty to be gotten rid of and us to have endless compassion for unrepentant criminals.

I won't even dwell on it because the whole setting is too flawed even for a comic book. If the Joker is a mass murderer with body count of thousands, or Gotham a hellhole to the point of allowing a guy like Joker to exist… the state and federal government would had stepped in instead of allowing the municipal government to deal with the situation. Period
Joker wouldn't be whisked for Arkham a dozen times. He would be facing charges at all levels, he would be locked in a Guantanamo like prison for hell knows for how long, at minimum.
Batman? Seriously, for a filthy rich billionaire he is the worst hero ever. Gotham is a shithole? He could simply became mayor or whatever, buy everyone and their mothers and transform is pet city into a model. What's is bribe and political control for a guy who indulges into vigilantism and break a lot of laws to indulge in his hero fantasy?

Go back to Holla Forums you kike.

Fuck you're really bad at pretending to be Holla Forums mate. Stop embarrassing yourself

As said earlier in the thread, Batman is actually a great hero. It's just that the people of the DC universe are complete fuckwits.
Whenever Batman actually does kill the Joker or kills any villain for that matter in what-ifs or elseworlds titles, the people and the government scream for his head. Whenever he puts money towards bettering his city, the people don't want it, or villains destroy it. Batman is being the hero Gotham needs: He forces them to either do nothing and die, or do something and live. It's not his fault they always choose to do nothing.

Batman smashed all his lab equipment and prevented him from saving himself. The Justice League blew him up in his final (!) appearance, but we can't put that on Batman.

Supposedly some of the guys working on the show sperged out about Superman killing parademons. I wonder what they thought about him straight up murdering Darkseid in "Twilight".

lllllooooooolllllll, shouldn't have stopped until he was a greasy smear on his fist.

Hey Trudeau. Have you won yet by not killing your enemies?