I heard that in the death of the family storyline, Batman said the reason why he doesn't kill the joker is because he believes someone even worse will just arise from gotham.
Should Superhero Writers Simply Stop Bringing Up The 'No Kill' Rule?
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, except nobody stays dead anyway. Superman could murder Lex Luthor and he'd be back in a week.CrazyGirl17 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't the entire point of the "no-kill rule" the fact that it's what separates the heroes from the anti-heroes? That's kinda why Batman, for instance, is adamant about his "one rule": he's not a straight-up murderer. Could he kill his villains? Certainly. Considering all they've done, would he be justified in doing so? Absolutely. There's not a jury in the world that would convict Batman for finally killing Joker, considering how much chaos - and death - Joker has caused[footnote]On that note, one could say that comic book hero stories are actually a pretty good argument for the death penalty. I'm pretty sure the acts of mass destruction and murder that Joker has pulled off would warrant him being executed by the state. But no, lets just toss him back in Arkham...surely he won't be able to break out this time! 
[/footnote].
But the point of the hero isn't to impose their own version of justice, it's to uphold society's version of justice. They're nothing more than a weapon against criminals that can't otherwise be stopped by conventional law enforcement. As I said, this is what separates the heroes, like Batman, from the anti-heroes, like The Punisher.
This is ignoring the fact that all comic heroes can technically be described as anti-heroes since they all break the law with their vigilantism - and have a tendency to take part in massive levels of destruction - so they can't really be considered all that heroic since they place themselves above the very justice they're trying to uphold.
[/footnote].But the point of the hero isn't to impose their own version of justice, it's to uphold society's version of justice. They're nothing more than a weapon against criminals that can't otherwise be stopped by conventional law enforcement. As I said, this is what separates the heroes, like Batman, from the anti-heroes, like The Punisher.
This is ignoring the fact that all comic heroes can technically be described as anti-heroes since they all break the law with their vigilantism - and have a tendency to take part in massive levels of destruction - so they can't really be considered all that heroic since they place themselves above the very justice they're trying to uphold.
No-killing seems to go hand in hand with a concealed identity. Which makes sense a hero with a public identity might kill someone in defense of themselves or others and be able to be held liable by the law, a masked one cannot.
Secret identities are a lot less common now in Marvel, with Spider-man being the only big one. Most people know something about the Avengers, X-men etc. There's tend to be a bit more killing by these herooes, even if it's frowned upon.
Secret identities are a lot less common now in Marvel, with Spider-man being the only big one. Most people know something about the Avengers, X-men etc. There's tend to be a bit more killing by these herooes, even if it's frowned upon.
I was very disappointed when the new-52 Stormwatch was basically a watered-down Authority, than the original Storm-Watch which was in essence, super-hero cops. They had UN backed authority to detain or kill their enemies. That makes for a far more grey story when Superman is in conflict with Farenheit who incinerates someone under the law. Compared to Superman versus a bunch of edgy antiheroes.jademunky said:
Forget the heroes not killing the villains. I've often wondered why normal people don't kill the villains. For example, I like to think that the SWAT team that found Joker hanging upside down at the end of The Dark Knight either shot him on sight, or one of them "accidentally" cut him lose and dropped him from the top of that building. Because after everything he'd done, no one in their right mind should be willing to take him into custody. I mean, getting taken into custody was part of his plan at one point! The police are going to spend the entire time wondering if they're just playing into his hands again.
So yeah, Batman, Superman, they all may have their "no-kill" rule, but I highly doubt that the average citizen/police officer does, especially when dealing with people who have killed so many others, including coworkers or family members.
So yeah, Batman, Superman, they all may have their "no-kill" rule, but I highly doubt that the average citizen/police officer does, especially when dealing with people who have killed so many others, including coworkers or family members.
Well this can be interpreted into two things.
Do you mean should they let their heroes kill, or should they just stop using the "No Kill Rule" as the focus of the storyline?
For me, no to the first and an indifferent shrug to the other.
Do you mean should they let their heroes kill, or should they just stop using the "No Kill Rule" as the focus of the storyline?
For me, no to the first and an indifferent shrug to the other.
Eh, forget having to murder the Joker after catching him, police are allowed to kill people posing an immediate threat. They employ police snipers with a mind to exactly that. Helps if he wears distinctive purple suits and has bright green hair.Sniper Team 4 said:
Hell, the Joker is alive because police in the US won't use lethal force, according to DC.
Not to mention, that more or less every special forces and/or intelligence group in the world would be after him, every government is using him as an example of why they need to take away people's rights, and his death would prove they are doing something right.
Ironically; DC animation did this really well with the Justice League episode of the alternate universe.tiamat5 said:
Lex Luthor has succeeded in becoming President, an unknown disaster has forced the Justice League's hand, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman have breached the White House and while Batman and Wonder Woman are held up keeping Secret Service at bay; Superman confronts Lex who confronts him with the terrible truth that Superman enjoys letting Lex go because he loves the adoration the people of Earth give him, that he's capitulating with Lex just as much as any ally to which Superman responds. Batman and Wonder Woman smell something and that's when we all realise; he's lasered Lex... and he's happy about it.
Fast forward and when 'our' JL gets ported over they discover that people live in fear, under the Justice Lord's rule and that the Rogues Gallery of their world have all been labotomised by Superman. And the police wear similar outfits as when Vandal Savage took over the world because they just take people off the street if they cause ANY civil disobedience. You have no rights because Superman and the Justice Lords tell you whether you have them or not.
I don't particularly respect heroes for their no kill policy but its the smartest thing for a writer to do. There needs to be a reason for the popular villain to return. If the hero outright fails to kill the villain again and again then one can conclude the hero is incompetent. The hero wanting to go no further then jailing villains is a better explanation for why they keep coming back.
Well, in Batman atleast there have been instances in which he(more or less) killed the Joker like in Dark Knight Returns and Batman Bloodstorm(in Crimson Mist he offs like his entire rogues gallery). Also in Killing Joke it is left ambiguous whether Bats killed Joker or not. Other than in some one-offs or graphic novels I do however agree Batman breaking his 'no kill' policy would end the story. It has also been a traditional element of the Bruce Wayne/Batman persona but, however, also in the regular comics like during the Knightfall story-arc when Jean Paul Valley took Bruce's place as Batman the character suddenly had a lot less qualms about not killing.
I was also a big fan of Spawn during the 90's(comics kind of made a nosedive after that period) and that was definitely another 'superhero' with zero issues about killing his rogues gallery(or anyone else that stood in his way for that matter). Toddy Mac did this for precisely this thing that he thought it was dumb that characters like Batman just continued to let innocent people die by letting the Joker live. However in Spawn it worked b/c here villians just went to hell or some shit and returned as an even worse version of their former self. Come to think of it, Spawn probably had the awesomest rogues gallery after Batman.
Marvel superhero characters have always been pretty tame considering they are mostly for a teenage demographic. I don't think these superheroes killing their villains would really fit the characters or the stories they feature in.
I was also a big fan of Spawn during the 90's(comics kind of made a nosedive after that period) and that was definitely another 'superhero' with zero issues about killing his rogues gallery(or anyone else that stood in his way for that matter). Toddy Mac did this for precisely this thing that he thought it was dumb that characters like Batman just continued to let innocent people die by letting the Joker live. However in Spawn it worked b/c here villians just went to hell or some shit and returned as an even worse version of their former self. Come to think of it, Spawn probably had the awesomest rogues gallery after Batman.
Marvel superhero characters have always been pretty tame considering they are mostly for a teenage demographic. I don't think these superheroes killing their villains would really fit the characters or the stories they feature in.
I'd honestly say it depends on the hero. Batman I get because his origin is based on the horror of watching his parents die at a young age and being forced to deal with their loss which becomes something he will personally never do to someone else. Superman can take over the Earth if he fully applied himself. As such, reasoning, "it's just one man" sets dangerous precedents that are simply easier to avoid if he simply doesn't do it in the first place.
Additionally, they are not "Judge, jury and executioner." Superheroes should not be trusted to make any permanent decision like that really. After all, how messed up do you have to be to go parading around in spandex with little boys beating up people? Do you really want someone like the Question having that kind of precedent set? It would honestly far better to have them simply catch the crooks and not send them to places like Arkham where they will be out in a week.
How is Arkham still open even?
Additionally, they are not "Judge, jury and executioner." Superheroes should not be trusted to make any permanent decision like that really. After all, how messed up do you have to be to go parading around in spandex with little boys beating up people? Do you really want someone like the Question having that kind of precedent set? It would honestly far better to have them simply catch the crooks and not send them to places like Arkham where they will be out in a week.
How is Arkham still open even?
By that same logic though, showing the same villain failing over and over at accomplishing what they're trying to accomplish, would make them seem incompetent as well, which would diminish their level of menace as a threat.Hades said:
The no kill debate is a troubling one, and it gets frustrating for readers over time, as the body counts of the various criminals pile up, and the good guy still keeps just putting them away. Relying on the legal system to "enact Justice". Problem is that the system never works, and the villains always get out. So they continue this reign of death and destruction, without any actual repercussions, because they have to leave all that up to the hero. It represents a really pathetic legal system, where basically nobody is actually punished who is a criminal. I mean I get it from the standpoint of a narrative, you have to let the badguys be badguys, so the goodguys can beat them up, but it does get tiresome after enough repetitions of the same scenario.
1. Joker breaks out of Arkham
2. Joker kills lots of people
3. Batman stops him and puts him in Arkham
4. Go To 1.
In Gotham, a city so corrupt and lawless that it's almost comical, you'd think the legal system would be more lethal with it's justice you know? I mean how many hundreds/thousands of people does one guy have to kill, before even the most corrupt legal system says "Ok yeah, we need to put this rabid dog down." ?
It's one reason why I don't generally read comics that have an ongoing publication, as it's always maintaining a stasis of events, to perpetuate the publications.
Yes, they should stop making storylines and character thought monologues and whatever about questioning their no kill policy, it only has ever served to highlight the absurdity of the concept and insult the intelligence of the viewers. When the superhero media ask the question "is it wrong of this superhero to throw this mass murdering lunatic in jail instead of killing them?" the answer that any remotely sane member of the audience thinks is "YES!!! KILL THEM ALREADY!!!". A person would have to literally be insane to think that any superhero would not be justified in serving as the judge, jury, and executioner of any member of the rogue's gallery of any superhero, especially after they break out of prison over and over again. The worst storylines are the ones that try to justify the no kill rule by having a superhero kill once and then rapidly devolve into totalitarian dictatorships and killing people for jaywalking and other extreme crap like that, it just shows that those super"heroes" were completely insane from the very beginning. A sane person (as in most people) would be able to kill someone like the Joker or Lex Luthor or any other of the rogues without even inching down the slippery slope not to mention jumping straight off it, it would take someone that was already a total nutjob to so adamantly refuse to kill those people in the first place and even more crazy to then turn around and start killing left and right. It's a nonargument to say superheroes shouldn't act as judge, jury, and executioner when dealing with villains that have killed as few as hundreds and as many as billions, there's killing a random mugger and then there's killing people like the Joker, a sane person wouldn't do the former and would do the latter without a second thought.
By it's very nature there is no sane reason for the no kill rule to exist in-universe, as mentioned by others the only reason for it to exist is to keep villains around so they don't have to keep making up more, and the rule as been around so long that writers are scared to truly deviate from it. It doesn't help either that the fandom is adamant that it stays in place no matter how little sense it makes for Superheroes not to kill, this is why we see people whining like crazy that Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel despite the fact that it couldn't possibly have been more justified nor unavoidable. However, even that isn't justifiable at this point. It's not as though superhero media can't have all superheroes at least try to kill their rogues all the time, it's just that that writers don't want to. Writers could do it, they'd just have to make use of legacy characters, near deaths, apparent deaths, the numerous examples of sci fi and fantasy resurrection and rebuilding technology in that universe, and simply have the heroes fail to capture or kill the villain sometimes. You know, actually have the hero LOSE sometimes as a good story would?
By it's very nature there is no sane reason for the no kill rule to exist in-universe, as mentioned by others the only reason for it to exist is to keep villains around so they don't have to keep making up more, and the rule as been around so long that writers are scared to truly deviate from it. It doesn't help either that the fandom is adamant that it stays in place no matter how little sense it makes for Superheroes not to kill, this is why we see people whining like crazy that Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel despite the fact that it couldn't possibly have been more justified nor unavoidable. However, even that isn't justifiable at this point. It's not as though superhero media can't have all superheroes at least try to kill their rogues all the time, it's just that that writers don't want to. Writers could do it, they'd just have to make use of legacy characters, near deaths, apparent deaths, the numerous examples of sci fi and fantasy resurrection and rebuilding technology in that universe, and simply have the heroes fail to capture or kill the villain sometimes. You know, actually have the hero LOSE sometimes as a good story would?
Not sure if you're going full Poe [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law] on us, however there are many ways other than flat out killing villans that relapse. Now, certainly, some villans, such as the Joker, are on one side of the extreme, but to say "any member of the rogue's gallery of any superhero" is a horrible, horrible view to take.immortalfrieza said:
Thing is killing isn't even really an antihero thing. Disney protagonists do it as well.RJ 17 said:Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't the entire point of the "no-kill rule" the fact that it's what separates the heroes from the anti-heroes? That's kinda why Batman, for instance, is adamant about his "one rule": he's not a straight-up murderer. Could he kill his villains? Certainly. Considering all they've done, would he be justified in doing so? Absolutely. There's not a jury in the world that would convict Batman for finally killing Joker, considering how much chaos - and death - Joker has caused[footnote]On that note, one could say that comic book hero stories are actually a pretty good argument for the death penalty. I'm pretty sure the acts of mass destruction and murder that Joker has pulled off would warrant him being executed by the state. But no, lets just toss him back in Arkham...surely he won't be able to break out this time!
But the point of the hero isn't to impose their own version of justice, it's to uphold society's version of justice. They're nothing more than a weapon against criminals that can't otherwise be stopped by conventional law enforcement. As I said, this is what separates the heroes, like Batman, from the anti-heroes, like The Punisher.
This is ignoring the fact that all comic heroes can technically be described as anti-heroes since they all break the law with their vigilantism - and have a tendency to take part in massive levels of destruction - so they can't really be considered all that heroic since they place themselves above the very justice they're trying to uphold.
I associate stuff like torture, willing to sacrifice innocent civilians etc as more antiheroic actions.