True heroes should have a no kill rule, amirite?

True heroes make the hard choices. Weak people doesn't get to be a hero

by Maleficent-Fact-4902 3 months ago

it kills more innocent people if big villains stayed alive some people cant be changed, conquest for example needed to be killed, if he left him alive him, eve, and many more people wouldve died i can guarantee it

by Anonymous 3 months ago

I think when a heroes choosing not to kill ends up getting more innocent people hurt, that is worse. I can appreciate an aversion to killing, trying other options first. But a flat out refusal feels negligent.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

Yeah, I assumed everyone felt this way. It's so cringy when a hero keeps not killing a villain & the villain keeps slaughtering innocents because of it.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

If it were me i'd either kill them or sever their spinal cord somewhere between C1 and C8 to cause quadriplegia. I personally think paralyzing them would be more cruel than killing them outright.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

In the real world I would see Batman as a villain.

by qcrooks 3 months ago

No kills rules in comics only exist so they can reuse villains. If the hero just killed the villain every time, the story would be a lot shorter with less drama. Killing the villain is the most logical and beneficial thing to do.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

It's the trolley problem. Do you kill one supervillain and rescue millions or do nothing and leave millions to die?

by Anonymous 3 months ago

I see where you're coming from. It's difficult to be against the death penalty irl and simultaneously cheering on fictional vigilantism.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

Not that hard. Fictional worlds have different scenarios alltogether, thus the fictional part. If someone like Conquest ended up existing in the real world I may re-examine my view on the death penalty, but since that's not the situation, I'm comfortable still being against it.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

Disagree. In general, heroes should avoid killing because they're acting as cops, who we don't want to be judge, jury, and executioner. Division of power and all that. However, for someone like Conquest or Darkseid invading, Mark and Superman, respectively, are acting as soldiers in a war. The rule for soldiers' killing is different than it is for cops, as it should be.

by Muellersylvan 3 months ago

Well so here's the problem is containment. Batman and joker? Joker goes to jail. Can't simply walk out of the jail. He's confined.obviously he can "break out" but he can't simply walk out the front door any given day like he owns the joint. Problem with someone like Conquest is how do you contain him humanly? You can't just shoot the sound at him 24/7, there's not much they can do in terms of a physical constraint. Maybe they have the technology to hold him temporarily but to my knowledge there's no ethical way to contain someone that strong today with their given technology. I'm probably wrong as they did contain mark in another universe but we don't know for sure how comparable he is, what their tech is like, etc.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

Disagree strongly. In a world with super heros and super villian they should kill them. Of not they just keep coming back and killing more people until you catch them again. I don't think they should kill someone robbing a bank. However, someone threatens their family for sure, should be given a dirt nap

by IllustriousForm8364 3 months ago

🙄 Okay, Smallville.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

I think heros can be allowed to kill, but as a last resort. Superman doesn't have a no killing rule in most instances, but he still tries not to in the vast majority. He just doesn't get disturbed about it like Batman does. Mark's kill rule is: protect my family first I think its fair

by Current_Scale3444 3 months ago

I completely disagree. For example on that Amazon show invincible. Invincible is always trying to not kill the bad guys but the bad guys keep killing, going to jail breaking out and killing. Same with in batman joker breaks out tons of times and always kills people. If I had powers I would definitely adopt the if you ever break out and harm people you forfeited your life.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

If a hero has a no-kill rule, the first thing villains will do is force them into a position where someone is going to due by their decision. The last thing they do is abuse their mercy to get away alive so they can go hurt more people. I agree there's a difference between wantonly killing everything in sight vs. only killing the main villain as a last resort, but a no-kill hero only makes sense if you want the bad guy to win.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

Why? You want the government to arrest him because he is a murder now? Or you want the 100k people protesting and vandalizing on the street because of hero brutality? You want the people to give government a good reason to arrest him, kill him, and dissect him for experiments?

by Armand52 3 months ago

Okay Jesus, I forgot superheroes need to lose their human element.... /s

by Anonymous 3 months ago

Don't worry, Spawn, Wolverine, and Punisher don't consider themselves heroes. Especially Punisher

by Short-Inflation4008 3 months ago

I feel like ‘no kill rules' make for bad heroes (but let the narrative keep running without an army of forgettable villains). How many lives would Batman have saved if he offed the Joker? No - let's put him back in the same system that released/failed to keep him. Many of these villains are shown to be beyond remorse and beyond the capabilities of any ‘normal' institution - and yet ‘heroes don't kill'. Tell that to the people we call war heroes.

by InspectorFun 3 months ago

It works for batman and daredevil because it's not that their moral or above it's more they do it to preserve the image of nobility on their own heads over it being the right thing.

by Anonymous 3 months ago

This is why I have always hated Batman, the dumb "don't kill no matter what" rule. Heroes should not go running around murdering every criminal they see. But if a criminal has and will kill a bunch of people over and over again, then it is the hero's responsibility to ensure the most lives are saved from that point forward by making the hard decision. How many people has Batman inadvertently gotten killed because he wants to keep playing cat and mouse with the Joker for decades? We all know how it goes, the Joker kills a ton of people, schemes to kill more, Batman throws him into Arkham Asylum, Joker breaks out, rinse and repeat for 80 years. It's so infuriating seeing "heroes" like him take the moral highroad with the no kill rule all the while knowing that their villain of the week is going to immediately get right back to their murderous shenanigans. Shoutout to Red Hood man, he was onto something

by Anonymous 3 months ago