Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Capt.S.G.Wiseman

Justice League Rules of conduct,... NO KILLING?

Recommended Posts

I think the ultimate reasoning, at least for the heroes, is that if they are able to take one life and find some way to justify it - then when does it end? No killing. Period. Turns into no killing unless absolutely necessary, and assuredly absolutely necessary will begin to have a very vague outline.

 

And, of course, we can all come up with contrived reasons that any given hero would take a life (recently Grant Morrison did it with Batman *ugh*), but the great thing with writing fiction is that the good guys SHOULD always have a device, power, or means to get around the struggle (even if a deus ex machina is needed).

 

In the end, I prefer the old school heroes that don't take the easy way out. They stand 100% behind their moral and ethical code. And find ways to stop the maniacs time and time again. It is, unfortunately, a more modern writing style however to have the different villains do heavy damage to innocent people first before they can be stopped.

 

Which brings my biggest complaint against modern comics. They aren't about heroic individuals that do the right thing because it's, well, the right thing to do. And they aren't written to be role models towards children any longer. Modern comics are meant to entertain a much older audience that is jaded and dull to violence, blood shed, and other perversions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cognitive dissonance often plays a significant role in all of this. Most people have a need to view themselves in a positive light of some sort and they fulfill this need by establishing rules that define what is "good". The dissonance comes into play because rules are usually kept simple to make them easy to use (i.e. "no killing"), but this also makes them inherently inflexible, limiting the scope of their relevance. Trying to apply simple rules to a reality that is endlessly complex creates conflict. Sooner or later there will be a collision between the reality of a situation and the rules meant to govern the behavior of the individuals involved in it. When topics like this are discussed it often involves heavy usage of self-aggrandizing terms like "noble" or "heroic" because it's not so much about an objective sense of reality as it is about an individual's morality as an extension of the self. For the Justice League, being a very public organization, they have to maintain a sense of connection with the public they claim to protect within the confines of their fictional universe, as well as with the readers they entertain in order to secure their continued cooperation respectively. Among either population the number of people associated with organizations like law enforcement or the military that would adequately prepare an individual for the rigors of the environment that superheroes would ostensibly face are likely to be relatively few, so the rules they follow have to be tailored to keep this in mind. For such a public organization to do otherwise would likely severely frighten the general populace at the very least. It would be akin to transferring a middle school student into a college-level engineering course; entering certain situations requires a certain set of skills and a certain amount of preparation and conditioning that not everyone can or should necessarily have. It's not so much about elitism as it is diversity, and it's the primary reason that any organization capable of using lethal force in the execution of their duties is generally subject to oversight by civilians of differing psychological orientation.

 

One of the more interesting comics I've read in recent years involved Wolverine reflecting back on one of his earliest encounters with Captain America. During the course of the story it was revealed that while Cap was busy punching bad guys to entertain the public, Bucky was sneaking around and "eliminating" bad guys behind the scenes to make sure that the self-absorbed idealism of Cap's methods didn't endanger further lives down the road. As much as we need heroes like Captain America to model desired behaviors we also need heroes like Bucky to reinforce those same behaviors. Everybody has their skill sets and roles to play (i.e. model vs reinforcer) for the betterment of the human condition, it's diversity at its finest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys do realize that one of the main reasons heroes dont go around killing is to separate them from the villains, right? kids do read comics, and sometimes they need clear examples of right and wrong to distinguish whos who. not to mention the parents who probably think comics and heroes are already violent enough getting in an uproar over it. let's not forget about the moral lesson that teaches us that good overpowers evil without having to break the rules, law, etc... i think that the biggest problem is that adults took a liking to something meant for children, and now we(adults) are trying to pretty much wedge them(children) out. no one is thinking about the fact that children emulate cartoons/comics/tv in general. annnnd...i hate the typical "fanboy" excuse "kids are going to see it anyway" bullsh*t. killing should be reserved for more mature titles, and separated from what kids see/read altogether.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys do realize that one of the main reasons heroes dont go around killing is to separate them from the villains, right? kids do read comics, and sometimes they need clear examples of right and wrong to distinguish whos who. not to mention the parents who probably think comics and heroes are already violent enough getting in an uproar over it. let's not forget about the moral lesson that teaches us that good overpowers evil without having to break the rules, law, etc... i think that the biggest problem is that adults took a liking to something meant for children, and now we(adults) are trying to pretty much wedge them(children) out. no one is thinking about the fact that children emulate cartoons/comics/tv in general. annnnd...i hate the typical "fanboy" excuse "kids are going to see it anyway" bullsh*t. killing should be reserved for more mature titles, and separated from what kids see/read altogether.

 

I agree. I know quite a few children under 10 who read comics. Before someone says that comics have evolved and are for more of a grown up audience, I disagree to a certain degree. A lot of the superhero cartoons are aimed for children. While there are violent superheroes and comics like the Punisher, they are branded under the MAX label. I also think other stuff like sexual content should be reserved in more mature comics. No offense, but I think having superheroes having sexual encounters from time to time in popular children's titles like Spiderman is a bit too much. I enjoy stuff with mature content like in the League of Extraordinary series, but those are intended for adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cognitive dissonance often plays a significant role in all of this. Most people have a need to view themselves in a positive light of some sort and they fulfill this need by establishing rules that define what is "good". The dissonance comes into play because rules are usually kept simple to make them easy to use (i.e. "no killing"), but this also makes them inherently inflexible, limiting the scope of their relevance. Trying to apply simple rules to a reality that is endlessly complex creates conflict. Sooner or later there will be a collision between the reality of a situation and the rules meant to govern the behavior of the individuals involved in it. When topics like this are discussed it often involves heavy usage of self-aggrandizing terms like "noble" or "heroic" because it's not so much about an objective sense of reality as it is about an individual's morality as an extension of the self. For the Justice League, being a very public organization, they have to maintain a sense of connection with the public they claim to protect within the confines of their fictional universe, as well as with the readers they entertain in order to secure their continued cooperation respectively. Among either population the number of people associated with organizations like law enforcement or the military that would adequately prepare an individual for the rigors of the environment that superheroes would ostensibly face are likely to be relatively few, so the rules they follow have to be tailored to keep this in mind. For such a public organization to do otherwise would likely severely frighten the general populace at the very least. It would be akin to transferring a middle school student into a college-level engineering course; entering certain situations requires a certain set of skills and a certain amount of preparation and conditioning that not everyone can or should necessarily have. It's not so much about elitism as it is diversity, and it's the primary reason that any organization capable of using lethal force in the execution of their duties is generally subject to oversight by civilians of differing psychological orientation.

 

One of the more interesting comics I've read in recent years involved Wolverine reflecting back on one of his earliest encounters with Captain America. During the course of the story it was revealed that while Cap was busy punching bad guys to entertain the public, Bucky was sneaking around and "eliminating" bad guys behind the scenes to make sure that the self-absorbed idealism of Cap's methods didn't endanger further lives down the road. As much as we need heroes like Captain America to model desired behaviors we also need heroes like Bucky to reinforce those same behaviors. Everybody has their skill sets and roles to play (i.e. model vs reinforcer) for the betterment of the human condition, it's diversity at its finest.

 

I think Batman: The Dark Knight does a good example of this. From what I remembered, Gotham police had to hide Harvey Dent's identity as Two Face since if word got out that he was eliminating other crime lords, a lot of the positive things that Dent worked hard for will crumble, and therefore would probably release some of the criminals that Dent has placed in prison.

 

I also agree with people view themselves in a positive light and see themselves as the superheroes in comics. That is why there are people out there, myself included, who wants to see a more diverse spectrum of Superheroes with different, yet positive personality trait and of different ethnic groups. Not to sway away this topic into a race one, but people, especially, needs role models even in american comics. That includes having people of different ethnic groups and sexual preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys do realize that one of the main reasons heroes dont go around killing is to separate them from the villains, right? kids do read comics, and sometimes they need clear examples of right and wrong to distinguish whos who. not to mention the parents who probably think comics and heroes are already violent enough getting in an uproar over it. let's not forget about the moral lesson that teaches us that good overpowers evil without having to break the rules, law, etc... i think that the biggest problem is that adults took a liking to something meant for children, and now we(adults) are trying to pretty much wedge them(children) out. no one is thinking about the fact that children emulate cartoons/comics/tv in general. annnnd...i hate the typical "fanboy" excuse "kids are going to see it anyway" bullsh*t. killing should be reserved for more mature titles, and separated from what kids see/read altogether.

I'm pretty sure most of us understand that. The ability to succeed on any mission and not have to kill is AWESOME to say the least.

 

Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Flash, and Jonn Jones ALL have the ability to DISARM ANYONE. Wonder Woman and most other JL members are not that crafty. They are powerful, but at some point they use lethal force. I know you hate the "typical "fanboy" excuse "kids are going to see it anyway" bullsh*t. killing should be reserved for more mature titles, and separated from what kids see/read altogether."

I just think that it is hard to create a NEW character these days when the Justice League acts more like a "church group" instead of an enforcement agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are situation that heroes are put into that can lead to the loss of life, but that should be the last option. They tried to give the JLA a hardcore makeover with the Justice League Elite and the X-Men are currently using X-Force as a Black Ops style team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cognitive dissonance often plays a significant role in all of this. Most people have a need to view themselves in a positive light of some sort and they fulfill this need by establishing rules that define what is "good". The dissonance comes into play because rules are usually kept simple to make them easy to use (i.e. "no killing"), but this also makes them inherently inflexible, limiting the scope of their relevance. Trying to apply simple rules to a reality that is endlessly complex creates conflict. Sooner or later there will be a collision between the reality of a situation and the rules meant to govern the behavior of the individuals involved in it. When topics like this are discussed it often involves heavy usage of self-aggrandizing terms like "noble" or "heroic" because it's not so much about an objective sense of reality as it is about an individual's morality as an extension of the self. For the Justice League, being a very public organization, they have to maintain a sense of connection with the public they claim to protect within the confines of their fictional universe, as well as with the readers they entertain in order to secure their continued cooperation respectively. Among either population the number of people associated with organizations like law enforcement or the military that would adequately prepare an individual for the rigors of the environment that superheroes would ostensibly face are likely to be relatively few, so the rules they follow have to be tailored to keep this in mind. For such a public organization to do otherwise would likely severely frighten the general populace at the very least. It would be akin to transferring a middle school student into a college-level engineering course; entering certain situations requires a certain set of skills and a certain amount of preparation and conditioning that not everyone can or should necessarily have. It's not so much about elitism as it is diversity, and it's the primary reason that any organization capable of using lethal force in the execution of their duties is generally subject to oversight by civilians of differing psychological orientation.

 

One of the more interesting comics I've read in recent years involved Wolverine reflecting back on one of his earliest encounters with Captain America. During the course of the story it was revealed that while Cap was busy punching bad guys to entertain the public, Bucky was sneaking around and "eliminating" bad guys behind the scenes to make sure that the self-absorbed idealism of Cap's methods didn't endanger further lives down the road. As much as we need heroes like Captain America to model desired behaviors we also need heroes like Bucky to reinforce those same behaviors. Everybody has their skill sets and roles to play (i.e. model vs reinforcer) for the betterment of the human condition, it's diversity at its finest.

 

I think Batman: The Dark Knight does a good example of this. From what I remembered, Gotham police had to hide Harvey Dent's identity as Two Face since if word got out that he was eliminating other crime lords, a lot of the positive things that Dent worked hard for will crumble, and therefore would probably release some of the criminals that Dent has placed in prison.

 

I also agree with people view themselves in a positive light and see themselves as the superheroes in comics. That is why there are people out there, myself included, who wants to see a more diverse spectrum of Superheroes with different, yet positive personality trait and of different ethnic groups. Not to sway away this topic into a race one, but people, especially, needs role models even in american comics. That includes having people of different ethnic groups and sexual preferences.

 

Those are good points. It'll be interesting to see what the next movie is like now that Batman has taken credit for Two Face's crimes. And speaking of Batman, I've always liked Frank Miller's original version from The Dark Knight Returns. I never found it plausible that criminals would fear a guy who would jump out of the shadows only to slap them around a little and leave them for the cops--but if he were the kind of guy who'll put out the Joker's eye to save a hostage while still honoring his "no kill" code, that's a bit more effective, and interesting, in my opinion. I've long been drawn to characters who will dirty their soul a little for the sake of others, it seems like a more selfless kind of sacrifice to me. I think that gets lost sometimes with the proliferation of violence in comics. One of the most powerful lines that I think I've ever heard in a cartoon series was on the Justice Lords episode of the JLU series when Batman accuses his ruthless counterpart of seizing power and the other Batman replies: "and with that power, we created a world where no eight-year-old boy will EVER lose his parents to a punk with a gun!". I think it's easy for both writers and readers to overlook the fact that for some heroes, fictional or otherwise, killing is an act of honest heartfelt compassion.

 

I think the team-oriented books are a good avenue for promoting diversity. Like you said: everyone needs role models, and there's the added advantage of also introducing characters who might look different on the outside but have admirable character traits that people across all cultures and social groups can embrace and identify with enough to see the value in those who act or think differently as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cognitive dissonance often plays a significant role in all of this. Most people have a need to view themselves in a positive light of some sort and they fulfill this need by establishing rules that define what is "good". The dissonance comes into play because rules are usually kept simple to make them easy to use (i.e. "no killing"), but this also makes them inherently inflexible, limiting the scope of their relevance. Trying to apply simple rules to a reality that is endlessly complex creates conflict. Sooner or later there will be a collision between the reality of a situation and the rules meant to govern the behavior of the individuals involved in it. When topics like this are discussed it often involves heavy usage of self-aggrandizing terms like "noble" or "heroic" because it's not so much about an objective sense of reality as it is about an individual's morality as an extension of the self. For the Justice League, being a very public organization, they have to maintain a sense of connection with the public they claim to protect within the confines of their fictional universe, as well as with the readers they entertain in order to secure their continued cooperation respectively. Among either population the number of people associated with organizations like law enforcement or the military that would adequately prepare an individual for the rigors of the environment that superheroes would ostensibly face are likely to be relatively few, so the rules they follow have to be tailored to keep this in mind. For such a public organization to do otherwise would likely severely frighten the general populace at the very least. It would be akin to transferring a middle school student into a college-level engineering course; entering certain situations requires a certain set of skills and a certain amount of preparation and conditioning that not everyone can or should necessarily have. It's not so much about elitism as it is diversity, and it's the primary reason that any organization capable of using lethal force in the execution of their duties is generally subject to oversight by civilians of differing psychological orientation.

 

One of the more interesting comics I've read in recent years involved Wolverine reflecting back on one of his earliest encounters with Captain America. During the course of the story it was revealed that while Cap was busy punching bad guys to entertain the public, Bucky was sneaking around and "eliminating" bad guys behind the scenes to make sure that the self-absorbed idealism of Cap's methods didn't endanger further lives down the road. As much as we need heroes like Captain America to model desired behaviors we also need heroes like Bucky to reinforce those same behaviors. Everybody has their skill sets and roles to play (i.e. model vs reinforcer) for the betterment of the human condition, it's diversity at its finest.

 

I think Batman: The Dark Knight does a good example of this. From what I remembered, Gotham police had to hide Harvey Dent's identity as Two Face since if word got out that he was eliminating other crime lords, a lot of the positive things that Dent worked hard for will crumble, and therefore would probably release some of the criminals that Dent has placed in prison.

 

I also agree with people view themselves in a positive light and see themselves as the superheroes in comics. That is why there are people out there, myself included, who wants to see a more diverse spectrum of Superheroes with different, yet positive personality trait and of different ethnic groups. Not to sway away this topic into a race one, but people, especially, needs role models even in american comics. That includes having people of different ethnic groups and sexual preferences.

 

Those are good points. It'll be interesting to see what the next movie is like now that Batman has taken credit for Two Face's crimes. And speaking of Batman, I've always liked Frank Miller's original version from The Dark Knight Returns. I never found it plausible that criminals would fear a guy who would jump out of the shadows only to slap them around a little and leave them for the cops--but if he were the kind of guy who'll put out the Joker's eye to save a hostage while still honoring his "no kill" code, that's a bit more effective, and interesting, in my opinion. I've long been drawn to characters who will dirty their soul a little for the sake of others, it seems like a more selfless kind of sacrifice to me. I think that gets lost sometimes with the proliferation of violence in comics. One of the most powerful lines that I think I've ever heard in a cartoon series was on the Justice Lords episode of the JLU series when Batman accuses his ruthless counterpart of seizing power and the other Batman replies: "and with that power, we created a world where no eight-year-old boy will EVER lose his parents to a punk with a gun!". I think it's easy for both writers and readers to overlook the fact that for some heroes, fictional or otherwise, killing is an act of honest heartfelt compassion.

 

I think the team-oriented books are a good avenue for promoting diversity. Like you said: everyone needs role models, and there's the added advantage of also introducing characters who might look different on the outside but have admirable character traits that people across all cultures and social groups can embrace and identify with enough to see the value in those who act or think differently as well.

 

youre missing the point with batman. theyre not afraid of just getting beat up,, theyre afraid because no matter how many shots they fire, who they hire, what they try...they cant kill him. besides, if a guy could beat you and 9 of your buddys effortlessly, while breaking your legs, arms, and jaws...you wouldnt want to run in to him again either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cognitive dissonance often plays a significant role in all of this. Most people have a need to view themselves in a positive light of some sort and they fulfill this need by establishing rules that define what is "good". The dissonance comes into play because rules are usually kept simple to make them easy to use (i.e. "no killing"), but this also makes them inherently inflexible, limiting the scope of their relevance. Trying to apply simple rules to a reality that is endlessly complex creates conflict. Sooner or later there will be a collision between the reality of a situation and the rules meant to govern the behavior of the individuals involved in it. When topics like this are discussed it often involves heavy usage of self-aggrandizing terms like "noble" or "heroic" because it's not so much about an objective sense of reality as it is about an individual's morality as an extension of the self. For the Justice League, being a very public organization, they have to maintain a sense of connection with the public they claim to protect within the confines of their fictional universe, as well as with the readers they entertain in order to secure their continued cooperation respectively. Among either population the number of people associated with organizations like law enforcement or the military that would adequately prepare an individual for the rigors of the environment that superheroes would ostensibly face are likely to be relatively few, so the rules they follow have to be tailored to keep this in mind. For such a public organization to do otherwise would likely severely frighten the general populace at the very least. It would be akin to transferring a middle school student into a college-level engineering course; entering certain situations requires a certain set of skills and a certain amount of preparation and conditioning that not everyone can or should necessarily have. It's not so much about elitism as it is diversity, and it's the primary reason that any organization capable of using lethal force in the execution of their duties is generally subject to oversight by civilians of differing psychological orientation.

 

One of the more interesting comics I've read in recent years involved Wolverine reflecting back on one of his earliest encounters with Captain America. During the course of the story it was revealed that while Cap was busy punching bad guys to entertain the public, Bucky was sneaking around and "eliminating" bad guys behind the scenes to make sure that the self-absorbed idealism of Cap's methods didn't endanger further lives down the road. As much as we need heroes like Captain America to model desired behaviors we also need heroes like Bucky to reinforce those same behaviors. Everybody has their skill sets and roles to play (i.e. model vs reinforcer) for the betterment of the human condition, it's diversity at its finest.

 

I think Batman: The Dark Knight does a good example of this. From what I remembered, Gotham police had to hide Harvey Dent's identity as Two Face since if word got out that he was eliminating other crime lords, a lot of the positive things that Dent worked hard for will crumble, and therefore would probably release some of the criminals that Dent has placed in prison.

 

I also agree with people view themselves in a positive light and see themselves as the superheroes in comics. That is why there are people out there, myself included, who wants to see a more diverse spectrum of Superheroes with different, yet positive personality trait and of different ethnic groups. Not to sway away this topic into a race one, but people, especially, needs role models even in american comics. That includes having people of different ethnic groups and sexual preferences.

 

Those are good points. It'll be interesting to see what the next movie is like now that Batman has taken credit for Two Face's crimes. And speaking of Batman, I've always liked Frank Miller's original version from The Dark Knight Returns. I never found it plausible that criminals would fear a guy who would jump out of the shadows only to slap them around a little and leave them for the cops--but if he were the kind of guy who'll put out the Joker's eye to save a hostage while still honoring his "no kill" code, that's a bit more effective, and interesting, in my opinion. I've long been drawn to characters who will dirty their soul a little for the sake of others, it seems like a more selfless kind of sacrifice to me. I think that gets lost sometimes with the proliferation of violence in comics. One of the most powerful lines that I think I've ever heard in a cartoon series was on the Justice Lords episode of the JLU series when Batman accuses his ruthless counterpart of seizing power and the other Batman replies: "and with that power, we created a world where no eight-year-old boy will EVER lose his parents to a punk with a gun!". I think it's easy for both writers and readers to overlook the fact that for some heroes, fictional or otherwise, killing is an act of honest heartfelt compassion.

 

I think the team-oriented books are a good avenue for promoting diversity. Like you said: everyone needs role models, and there's the added advantage of also introducing characters who might look different on the outside but have admirable character traits that people across all cultures and social groups can embrace and identify with enough to see the value in those who act or think differently as well.

 

youre missing the point with batman. theyre not afraid of just getting beat up,, theyre afraid because no matter how many shots they fire, who they hire, what they try...they cant kill him. besides, if a guy could beat you and 9 of your buddys effortlessly, while breaking your legs, arms, and jaws...you wouldnt want to run in to him again either.

 

I think the devil is in the details, so to speak. Are we talking ten guys who are sneaking into a warehouse in the middle of the night to steal something to make ends meet? Or are we talking a full-on home invasion crew? I think it can depend on the extent of the criminal's pathology. More violent criminals will need a little more "persuasion" than less violent criminals. It might work on some guy who has simply fallen on hard times and is running out of options, but if we're talking criminals who have no qualms about hurting other people then any effect on their behavior will likely only last for as long as they think they are being watched.

 

Or to put it another way, there are plenty of guys who like to get drunk and get into bar fights, and no matter how many times they get beat down or get put in a drunk tank sooner or later they'll be right there in a bar again. Even if it's one guy beating up them and nine of their friends.

 

The other detail is that, in my experience, there are many times where there aren't a lot of specifics made clear about the extent of the injuries received from the beatings Batman hands out. Miller's "Dark Knight" made these details clear with lines like "he's young, he might actually walk again" suggesting that there will be long term effects from the beatings that will be more likely to yield long term results. But that's not to say that they should necessarily be showing or mentioning compound fractures being forced through the skin either. I think it's the kind of thing that has to be tailored for whatever age group the intended audience fits into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few of things come to mind on this topic.

 

1. Most heroes, not all mind you, strive to uphold the law. Therefore, they see themselves as not having the legal right to kill their villains.

 

2. Most heroes probably wouldn't feel they have the moral right to decide when a villain should die. As a soldier, I can tell you that ending the life of a human being, even with every good the reason in the world to do so, is a much bigger deal than the media portrays it as.

 

3. If the majority of heroes start killing based on their own judgement, that could set up a "Meta Human Registration Act" type of scenario. Who wants that?

 

4. There is always room for the "lesser of two" evils scenario. Examples include Wonder Woman & Max Lord, and Batman & Darkseid. Those situations can lead to major character development, but you wouldn't want it to become cliché.

 

5. Realism doesn't always make for good story telling. (I personally hate it when people use the words "realistic" and "superhero" together.)

 

6. Killing a major villain doesn't always make good business sense. Especially when you know that in certain cases you'll eventually have to bring them back for the fans anyway. There isn't a non-lame way to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting the "super" aside for a moment, we're comparing heroes to vigilantes (and soldiers ...and policemen...) These are solidly distinct (if you need some help with the vigilante point of view, watch William Wellman's The Ox-Bow Incident.' Heroes stand for something 'bigger' than their baser impulses. You can argue that their motives are moral or religious (and you'd probably be right), but in the case of the Justice League I think that you'd have to include the notion that their motives are American. They are servants of the law in a land that was founded on the premise that no one is above the law.

 

I mean they could have joined together under ANY premise the chose American Justice (...as in the Justice League of America).

 

Individually it's a simple existential argument if you kill people ...you are a killer. Anything else is just rationalization.

 

DC VERTIGO does a lot of killing. DC handled this very topic quite famously with The Watchmen (...who watches the Watchmen?)

 

So, Superman "watches" Superman

Batman "watches" Batman

and the Justice League "watches" the Justice League

 

They draw the lines that they won't cross, in advance then they deal with the issues that come with restriction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marvel doesn't have as many heroes with the "No Kill" rule like DC, though they do exist. I think if it really came down to it being do or die, or better yet, do or this person you care about dies, many DC characters would make the kill. They would be torn up over being forced into that position. Best example I can think of would be Superman's first battle with Doomsday. After fighting Doomsday for hours, trying to stop him ithout using lethal force, Doomsday arrived in Metropolis. There he became a threat to Superman's loved ones. In fact it was immediatly after Lois and Jimmy were put in danger that Supes finally took off the restraint gloves and unleashed his full fury upon Doomsday. Realising there was no way to stop him and keep him alive. The only way to stop him would be to "put him down" and with his final punch seemingly killed Doomsday.

 

However, DC retconned this by having Doomsday survive, meaning Superman still has a clean slate in the kill dept, but it doesnt change the fact that Superman had the intention to kill Doomsday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha you could debate this topic til you're blue in the face but Superheroes are characters that are suppose to be held to a higher standard and are people we should aspire to be. Rolemodels so to speak. If they start just killing their adversaries they're no better than everyone else or who they're fighting.

 

A perfect example of this is The Avatar, he knew he had to stop the firelord and wanted to find another solution to stop him other than killing the Firelord! With all of the Avatar's power he could have easily killed the Firelord but it shows wisdom and integrity to find another solution other than just killing your opponent. So he came up with the next best thing, he took away his power that way he couldn't hurt anyone else. It takes more effort to control and choose the right thing to do with great power than to just use your abilities like a blunt instrument.

 

Now characters that consider themselves good but decide to kill like the Punisher are considered outcasts sort of by the regular Superheroes. Antiheroes if you will, and are kept at arms length. Wolverine will kill but is kept at arms length by some heroes or considered an animal.

 

So I would say a true heroe shouldn't just kill for the sake of killing unless the UNIVERSE depended on it or something like that. hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now characters that consider themselves good but decide to kill like the Punisher are considered outcasts sort of by the regular Superheroes. Antiheroes if you will, and are kept at arms length. Wolverine will kill but is kept at arms length by some heroes or considered an animal.

 

This was what I was sort of getting at with "everyone needs role models" and "promoting diversity". Characters like Wolverine and the Punisher are trained soldiers so they live like soldiers. I would say off the top of my head that most of the superheroes are civilians who were created by civilian comic book writers and therefore have strong civilian attitudes and beliefs. I'm not trying to knock that in any way. I think it's important to have characters like Superman and Spider-Man who embody a sense of innocent idealism that often appeals to certain target demographics like children. But I also think it's important to have a little variety. I would like to think there's room for everybody to have a hero who reflects their attitudes and beliefs. The strong military themes embodied by characters like Wolverine and Punisher are refreshing for those of us who have some sort of military affiliation that makes more civilian-themed characters less relatable and therefore less accessible in some ways. At the moment I'm taking college classes at the local military base and it's a comforting feeling when I show up in my Wolverine t-shirt and find a couple of other guys wearing Punisher and Captain America t-shirts. It's a little heartbreaking to hear personal stories from some of them explaining that they have to sleep in separate rooms from their wives because after doing tours in Iraq and Afghanistan they still wake up in combat mode sometimes. Being a part of that world in some way can make it difficult for some to relate as strongly to fictional characters who haven't been a part of that world in any way.

 

Ironically enough, a big part of the reason those guys are taking classes on base is because there is a pretty noticeable difference in the environment when you're surrounded by military versus civilians. Most of us take classes for two years at the local community college and then transfer to the university on base to save money. It's always funny when somebody brings it up because everybody hates the experience. It's not just a military thing either, most of the professors are there because they prefer dealing with active duty and veteran military members over civilians. It's just a big culture clash is all. A bunch of us toured a local mental health center as part of a school activity a while back and the head counselor who gave us the tour and briefed us on what it's like to work there put a pretty fine point on it. He told us that one of the biggest problems they have with new workers is that when they see one of the children who are patients there sitting alone and looking sad their first impulse is to hug them in an attempt to provide comfort. The problem is that most of the kids there have been physically or sexually abused in some way so being touched by a stranger, or any adult, can be a very difficult ordeal for them. He summed it up by saying that you have to ask yourself: "Am I doing this to make them feel good, or am I doing this to make me feel good". Most people aren't part of specialized microcosms like the military or mental health professions where these particular types of considerations are most often made so their assessments are easier and simpler like "hugging feels good, therefore hugging is good" or "killing feels bad, therefore killing is bad". For people who are a part of those worlds fictional characters who embrace the same simple judgments can be inherently alienating by their nature. Personally, I suspect that if not for the strong civilian bias in most levels of society we wouldn't call characters like Wolverine and Punisher "antiheroes" instead of more neutral terms like "military-themed heroes". I'm not saying there's anything wrong with civilian sensibilities, I'm just saying that those of us who aren't or haven't always been civilians like to be included too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Find Action Figures on Ebay

×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE