Should Superhero Writers Simply Stop Bringing Up The 'No Kill' Rule?

[Cicada 5]

It's pretty common for non-killing heroes to have stories where they are faced with the conundrum of whether or not their methods are effective. While the no killing rule was initially enforced by the comics code, writers have long since seen the advantage of using popular villains again and again. Since we both know guys like Joker, Luthor or Osborn aren't going anywhere, maybe writers should simply not draw attention to the fact that the heroes are pretty much letting mass murderers run around unchecked?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, established characters sorta have to stay more or less the same. Also, they can't kill off popular villains.

I do wish they'd stop being so preachy about it, though.

 

[shrekfan246]

I don't see how that would be an improvement.

The question of "why the bloody hell are you letting this guy continue to run around!?!?" would still be unanswered, and if they elected to just not talk about it anymore then it's literally just "because the nature of my medium demands it". We, as readers, may know that, but it's lazy world-building and hack writing to just leave the excuse at that.

 

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

Pretty sure it's mostly a DC Comics thing anyway.
I mean, even in the Marvel movies alone, there doesn't seem to be any major objections to killing on screen.
Think of how many people Iron Man killed during his missions in the middle east in the first movie alone.
Cap served in WW2, killed a bunch of Nazi's.
Thor ain't above laying the smack-down if needs be.

Now, the comics might be different and I'm sure they had to deal with that trope at some point, but I think about the DC side of things because they were the ones who made such a big deal out of it in all of it's mediums.
Hell, the entire plot of Injustice: Gods Among Us happened because of not killing the Joker or not giving him a death sentance and, later, when Good!Lex refused to use the suit of armor he designed for the sole intent of killing Superman because it was "Too Cruel".

Doctor Doom is the sweet spot IMO, thanks to his Doombots, he can be killed over and over and over and over again without really decaying the character.
Not saying that every villain needs to be able to respawn but after so many years, I imagine that some writer out there has to be able to come up with something to get around that rule on the DC side of things.

 

[TakerFoxx]

I like to call it "Batman will never win", having him achieve his goals end the story, so until the comics stop he'll forever fight.

Having the hero kill the villain isn't good, especially as it's pretty much the ultimate moral sin, the real question is "why is the Joker not executed by the state?".

Pretty much this. Seriously, just about everyone in Arkham has earned the electric chair a hundred times over. Dafuq is up with that?

Though funnily enough, even though Batman is the one that gets the most flak over this, he's the one superhero I'm willing to give a pass to, mainly because I subscribe to the theory that he is actually just as crazy as his rouges gallery, except he's aware of how nuts he is and channels it toward good instead of evil and enforce a very strict code to keep himself under control, because he knows that if he slips up once, he'll go sliding right down all the way.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It's pretty common for non-killing heroes to have stories where they are faced with the conundrum of whether or not their methods are effective. While the no killing rule was initially enforced by the comics code, writers have long since seen the advantage of using popular villains again and again. Since we both know guys like Joker, Luthor or Osborn aren't going anywhere, maybe writers should simply not draw attention to the fact that the heroes are pretty much letting mass murderers run around unchecked?

I agree. If they can't give a satisfactory answer then I think it's better if they skip it. They're just highlighting the bad logic they use to cover up a rule that will never make sense.

I don't see how that would be an improvement.

The question of "why the bloody hell are you letting this guy continue to run around!?!?" would still be unanswered, and if they elected to just not talk about it anymore then it's literally just "because the nature of my medium demands it". We, as readers, may know that, but it's lazy world-building and hack writing to just leave the excuse at that.

I think sometimes no answer is better than a bad answer. And the thing is a bad answer still leaves it as literally "because the nature of my medium demands it". Now it just puts it in an elephant costume to try to hide it.

 

[shrekfan246]

I don't see how that would be an improvement.

The question of "why the bloody hell are you letting this guy continue to run around!?!?" would still be unanswered, and if they elected to just not talk about it anymore then it's literally just "because the nature of my medium demands it". We, as readers, may know that, but it's lazy world-building and hack writing to just leave the excuse at that.

I think sometimes no answer is better than a bad answer. And the thing is a bad answer still leaves it as literally "because the nature of my medium demands it". Now it just puts it in an elephant costume to try to hide it.

Sure, but "sometimes" isn't the same as "never do something ever again". Just because a particular trope tends to be hackneyed doesn't mean it should be retired entirely. It just means that the people who should attempt to tackle it are the ones who actually have the chops to do so and will devote the plot toward actually focusing on that aspect of the character.

With the scenarios that big bads tend to instigate, I just think it would unfeasible to never question why heroes let them live. As overplayed as the "I don't kill" card may be, it still adds on to the overall character and lets us, as readers, have a glimpse into the methods and motivations pushing a character to act the way they do.

 

[Zontar]

I say it has to do with the realism that they go for. If it's a dark story or a realistic story, it should be treated as such (where a dangerous person with powers or who is is a Joker level problem is dead, not even being considered for being taken in alive) and if it's a light hearted story it should be treated as such (where prison for the crime is the punishment).

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I don't see how that would be an improvement.

The question of "why the bloody hell are you letting this guy continue to run around!?!?" would still be unanswered, and if they elected to just not talk about it anymore then it's literally just "because the nature of my medium demands it". We, as readers, may know that, but it's lazy world-building and hack writing to just leave the excuse at that.

I think sometimes no answer is better than a bad answer. And the thing is a bad answer still leaves it as literally "because the nature of my medium demands it". Now it just puts it in an elephant costume to try to hide it.

Sure, but "sometimes" isn't the same as "never do something ever again". Just because a particular trope tends to be hackneyed doesn't mean it should be retired entirely. It just means that the people who should attempt to tackle it are the ones who actually have the chops to do so and will devote the plot toward actually focusing on that aspect of the character.

With the scenarios that big bads tend to instigate, I just think it would unfeasible to never question why heroes let them live. As overplayed as the "I don't kill" card may be, it still adds on to the overall character and lets us, as readers, have a glimpse into the methods and motivations pushing a character to act the way they do.

Well okay if they can come up with a really good reason for it. But I think that's a pretty tall order.

 

[tiamat5]

I think the problem is people don't understand what is the purpose of the 'no kill'. If a hero suddenly decides to start killing who they think deserves it, it becomes a slippery slope. For instance you decide to kill whoever kills people right? But what about other crimes? They put forward that robbing banks is a minor crime and you shouldn't be killed for it? But you are putting people in danger, disrupting people's lives and stealing people's hard earned cash. Why shouldn't you be killed for that? You say no but the person keeps doing it over and over again. Why not kill them? It will stop the cycle. Or what about a repeat rapist or child molester? Maybe they didn't kill them but they made the victim's life a living nightmare. Should the person die for that? Maybe they should to protect the people they harm.

But you are not the law. It isn't their decision. The hero is merely a good Samaritan helping out.The hero is corruptible just anyone else and killing could easily become a habit or an obsession just like with the villain. You as the reader would of course say 'Of course I would kill them instead of letting them do what they want'. But that puts you in the position of a person who doesn't care about any thing else except for what you want. You want them to die but what is to stop you from deciding who else should die? Should the wife beaters die? Should the hooligans beating people in the street die? Should the child abusers die? Should the corrupt politicians die? It's not simply that they let them run free because they want to but the alternative is very certainly to become like them.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think the problem is people don't understand what is the purpose of the 'no kill'. If a hero suddenly decides to start killing who they think deserves it, it becomes a slippery slope. For instance you decide to kill whoever kills people right? But what about other crimes? They put forward that robbing banks is a minor crime and you shouldn't be killed for it? But you are putting people in danger, disrupting people's lives and stealing people's hard earned cash. Why shouldn't you be killed for that? You say no but the person keeps doing it over and over again. Why not kill them? It will stop the cycle. Or what about a repeat rapist or child molester? Maybe they didn't kill them but they made the victim's life a living nightmare. Should the person die for that? Maybe they should to protect the people they harm.

But you are not the law. It isn't their decision. The hero is merely a good Samaritan helping out.The hero is corruptible just anyone else and killing could easily become a habit or an obsession just like with the villain. You as the reader would of course say 'Of course I would kill them instead of letting them do what they want'. But that puts you in the position of a person who doesn't care about any thing else except for what you want. You want them to die but what is to stop you from deciding who else should die? Should the wife beaters die? Should the hooligans beating people in the street die? Should the child abusers die? Should the corrupt politicians die? It's not simply that they let them run free because they want to but the alternative is very certainly to become like them.

At the very least if they're murdering innocent people. And, say, keep getting out to do it again.

If it's proven the law can't handle them by them repeatedly getting out to do it again then I find it very hard to see how this is a slippery slope.

 

[Asita]

I like to call it "Batman will never win", having him achieve his goals end the story, so until the comics stop he'll forever fight.

Having the hero kill the villain isn't good, especially as it's pretty much the ultimate moral sin, the real question is "why is the Joker not executed by the state?".

Pretty much this. Seriously, just about everyone in Arkham has earned the electric chair a hundred times over. Dafuq is up with that?

Though funnily enough, even though Batman is the one that gets the most flak over this, he's the one superhero I'm willing to give a pass to, mainly because I subscribe to the theory that he is actually just as crazy as his rouges gallery, except he's aware of how nuts he is and channels it toward good instead of evil and enforce a very strict code to keep himself under control, because he knows that if he slips up once, he'll go sliding right down all the way.

It's actually quite simple. Bruce Wayne and the Joker have been going at it for 75 years now. I'm not being hyperbolic here. The Joker debuted in 1940, in Batman #1. He has quite literally been Batman's enemy for 75 years worth of comics, and even before taking into account the various reboots, retcons, alternate universes, time travel shenanigans, and so forth, the characters have not been treated as if anything near that span of time has passed (well with the possible exception of Batman Beyond). Even the Dark Knight Returns only put Bruce at 55, after a 10 year retirement from the cowl.

For all intents and purposes, most stories with Batman and the Joker could generously be said to have occurred over a handful of years without most of the shared history we know for the characters being something that actually happened to the characters in those stories. It's like James Bond films[footnote]Seriously, consider the implications of Skyfall regarding where Daniel Craig's movies fall on the timeline...then remember that Judi Dench was the new "M" starting in Goldeneye and she was a veteran M as of Skyfall, if not Casino Royale[/footnote]. , the only continuity is what is convenient for a given story. The Joker is much more monstrous to us as readers than he logically is in the stories because whereas we've seen upwards of seven decades of his chaos, in universe he likely hasn't seen so much as seven years of mayhem, and a sizable portion of that would have been spent behind bars.

 

[fluxy100]

My biggest problem with the "No Kill" rule, whether it be in comics or in cop dramas, is that it only ever seems to apply to the Big Bad guys. "Oh I can't kill Joker" or "No it's not right, don't kill him. Bring him in and let the courts make him face justice" never seems to mesh with the dozen or so henchmen (y'know the guys that were just following orders and are ultimately less guilty) that were killed to get to the big bad so they can just put him in handcuffs.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

It's probably because if they kill the (popular) big baddies is that they can't use them again. Then they try to justify it with the heroes saying "they have to be better than the villains", or some other patronizing, pretentious BS like that. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but a guy like the Joker really shouldn't still be alive...

(Also, I am aware of the whole "slippery slope" ideology, I say only the really evil ones should go. I'm not dumb.)

 

[Little Woodsman]

Whatever you may think of the 'no killing' policy, the question here is 'why do writers keep bringing it up?".

And the answer is that some writers want to make thought-provoking, controversial stories.

The down side is that few writers are capable of handling the subject well.

 

[jademunky]

It's pretty common for non-killing heroes to have stories where they are faced with the conundrum of whether or not their methods are effective. While the no killing rule was initially enforced by the comics code, writers have long since seen the advantage of using popular villains again and again. Since we both know guys like Joker, Luthor or Osborn aren't going anywhere, maybe writers should simply not draw attention to the fact that the heroes are pretty much letting mass murderers run around unchecked?

No, I think it is pretty important to bring up from time-to-time.

Honestly, it depends on the character somewhat. for characters like Black Widow or Captain America, they kill people all the time and I am basically okay with that. For people like Spider-man, committing the same act would be just horrifying. This has to do with the fact that the first two act with the sanction of the government (much like a cop) while Spidey is just some random irradiated guy who decided to put on a costume and fight crime.

Seriously, imagine you are an average civilian living in the Marvel universe. suddenly some vigilante shows up who starts leaving criminals comically webbed-up in front of the police-station, you'd be mostly okay with him operating outside the law right? Now instead imagine that there was a vigilante leaving their dead bodies instead. (See Superior Spider-man for deatails)

Yes, it is true that the No-kill rule is a result of the comics code authority but it is probably the lease unrealistic thing about superhero comics. The public would likely demand that rule.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think the problem is people don't understand what is the purpose of the 'no kill'. If a hero suddenly decides to start killing who they think deserves it, it becomes a slippery slope. For instance you decide to kill whoever kills people right? But what about other crimes? They put forward that robbing banks is a minor crime and you shouldn't be killed for it? But you are putting people in danger, disrupting people's lives and stealing people's hard earned cash. Why shouldn't you be killed for that? You say no but the person keeps doing it over and over again. Why not kill them? It will stop the cycle. Or what about a repeat rapist or child molester? Maybe they didn't kill them but they made the victim's life a living nightmare. Should the person die for that? Maybe they should to protect the people they harm.

But you are not the law. It isn't their decision. The hero is merely a good Samaritan helping out.The hero is corruptible just anyone else and killing could easily become a habit or an obsession just like with the villain. You as the reader would of course say 'Of course I would kill them instead of letting them do what they want'. But that puts you in the position of a person who doesn't care about any thing else except for what you want. You want them to die but what is to stop you from deciding who else should die? Should the wife beaters die? Should the hooligans beating people in the street die? Should the child abusers die? Should the corrupt politicians die? It's not simply that they let them run free because they want to but the alternative is very certainly to become like them.

You're talking specifically about murder there. A random individual is allowed to kill in defence of their own life, or others. I don't see anything wrong with a superhero being able to do that. Especially if the police are armed.

 

[springheeljack]

I think it is like the whole villain captures the hero but let's them escape deal or the let's kill off a major superhero but just kidding! They were totally alive the whole time or another person is taking on that superhero role so it is like they never died.

It's a bit annoying at times but everyone would be super pissed if a character was actually killed off and never came back or a villain actually executed the hero like they were going to.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

I generally like it, and I will echo that it works better for DC than for Marvel (or maybe it is just used more often in DC)

It really starts to break down after a while, though. With the most recent Superman movie it seemed kind of pointless for Superman to kill because he probably could have imprisoned that Zod guy with kryptonite or something.

But in the Dark Knight it was almost unquestionably obvious that Joker was going to kill a lot of innocent people and at that point the only morally correct option is to kill the fucking Joker so more innocent people don't die