WWYCS: "Why Shouldn't I Kill Him?"

[S7Michelle]

This scenario is focused towards those heroes who have a code vs. killing.

Your character arrives just in time to prevent a vigilante-esque hero (Punisher, or Ghost Rider type) from killing a criminal. The vigilante turns to you and asks, "Why shouldn't I kill him? Killing him is the best way to prevent him from harming other innocents in the future." What does your character say?

Discussion with the vigilante will bring the following information/arguments to light.

1. The criminal

a. has either killed more than one person in the past (and is likely to do so again. Doesn't have to be a joker type serial killer, could just be a gang banger, or Kingpin).

or

b. runs or is working in a significant position for a company or government agency that experiments on, tortures, and enslaves mutants and or aliens (see Civil War Runaways issues, Project X, Project X in the Ultimate's Universe, etc).


2. The vigilante is 100 percent certain of the criminals guilt.

a. The vigilante has a detect guilt or sin power.

or

b. The vigilante has direct experience with what the criminal did: was one of the mutants experimented on, saw the individual commit the murder, etc.


3. There are problems with allowing the justice system to take its course in this case.

a. The criminal has already been found innocent of the crime and double jeopardy applies. "So, we just wait for him to commit another crime before he is brought to justice and hope that this time he doesn't get off on a technicality. The fact that proper procedures were followed is going to be cold comfort to the family of the next person he kills."

or

b. The criminal has the resources needed to circumvent the justice system. The criminal has the wealth and contacts needed to tilt the scales of justice in his favor.

or

c. The criminal was working for a government agency who is likely to just try covering the situation up rather than stopping it.

Addition:

If you use the argument, "By killing him, you become no better than he is." The vigilante points out, "No, he hurts innocents. By issuing judgment against him, I prevent him from harming innocents in the future. We both may kill, but the reasons and results are much different."

[wylodmayer]

1. Of my characters, both Ace and Cat have studied ethics, and might argue as follows (Cat better than Ace for being a supergenius):

*Well, the "100% certainty" clause in the set-up is problematic. How can anyone be 100% certain of anything? Even special senses can be fooled - besides, why should I trust that someone else is "100% certain"? So what if you say your "sin detection" powers ensure he's really guilty... why should I trust you? The whole point of the criminal justice system is that we basically can't trust one another - if that's all it took, then we'd just need someone to say, "Well, yup, I saw him do it." But we need more than that, a lot more. A trial, clumsy an instrument as it may be, sets up many "gates" that the accusation must traverse before a verdict can be rendered, ensuring, we hope, that we do not simply rely on one person's "100% certainty" (so called) that some other person did something. Besides, as noted, senses can be fooled. Since Ace is actually a roleplayer, he could point out that he has - as gamemaster - sprung this very kind of situation on players before, who quickly offed the "bad guy" in question... only he wasn't a bad guy at all, but a dupe set up by the real bad guy to appear to have killed someone in front of witnesses, including the superheroes. In other words, the real bad guy made them murderers. Certainty is never all it's cracked up to be.

*Second, even if there WAS somehow certainty, the statement "killing him is the best way to ensure he does no harm in the future" is highly contestable. Technically, it's true, but then it applies equally well to anyone - kill anybody you think *might* do harm in the future, regardless of whether they have committed a crime in the past or not. That's the reasoning, after all. And clearly we can't have THAT. The word "best" is extremely ambiguous. Most certain? Maybe. Best for society? Not even close to guaranteed. If effective, or even reasonably effective, means of rehabilitation exist, then killing him is most certainly NOT the "best" option. Indeed, even if rehabilitation looks like a remote chance, if he can be effectively held harmless while we TRY to rehabilitate him, then the overall cost is virtually negligible.

*Third, the reasoning is self defeating. Suppose we are irate about this person's crimes because we presume there is an innate right to life, which he violated, presumably. If we are proceeding from a discussion of rights, then it hardly seems plausible that someone else can unilaterally deny him HIS right to life. Arguments that he forfeited that right when he killed someone will come back to point #1 - who gets to decide that? If just anyone can decide that I've forfeited my most fundamental right, then we're all in big trouble.

*And if we take a bare-knuckles utilitarian approach to it, that life itself is valuable but killing him is okay because it preserves more lives in the grand scheme of things, we open ourselves to some truly horrible acts - by that reasoning, experimenting on unwilling human patients in the name of medical research is just as, possibly more, acceptable. After all, we assume the villain doesn't want to die, just as the patients wouldn't want to be experimented on. But if it's okay to kill either one against his will because it would save more lives in the long run, there's no principled way of distinguishing the two cases. Besides, even if we take THIS approach, we still need to answer the question of who gets to make those calculations and decides who needs to die for the "greater good." If just ANYONE can do it, we're all in trouble, again.

*This brings us to the last point. The legal system comes from laws passed by the elected officials. It represents therefore, the will of the people. That is to say, NO BODY WANTS YOUR STUPID VIGILANTE ASS TO KILL HIM, so suck on THAT for a while. If he's rigging the system, expose the corruption and nail his butt to the wall. And if he's working for a shadowy gov't agency that is shielding him from the consequences of his crimes, well, expose THAT.

2. Ingrid, on the other hand, is basically a fascist, and she would argue that you can't kill him because only the gov't has the right to take away the lives of one of its citizens, and you are basically committing treason if you do so unilaterally. Furthermore, she's of the opinion that the gov't has absolute discretion to do what it likes with its citizens, from letting murderers go free to executing innoncent people. So she'd be completely opposed to it.

3. Holocaust wouldn't do it because she doesn't trust her own moral judgment, and certainly wouldn't let anyone else do it, because she trusts other people even less.

4. and Terminaxx would probably just say, "I'll hold him down for you."

[Balabanto]

Most of my characters would say this. "It doesn't matter what you believe. No man has the right to judge another's actions and be above the law. The moment that's allowed, jurisprudence collapses. So if you kill him, I'm bringing you in. If I have a chance to stop you, I must."

One of my characters would actually say "That's nice. Your god complex ends right now. Would you like fries with that before I kick you all over creation?"

[input.jack]

"By killing him, you become no better than he is." The vigilante points out, "No, he hurts innocents. By issuing judgment against him, I prevent him from harming innocents in the future. We both may kill, but the reasons and results are much different."


Revenant: Judgement is not yours to mete out, little man. Take him in. Turn him over. See what happens.

If you kill him, three things will happen. First, you will have permanently ended him. That sounds good to you right now, doesnt it. But think about it. No chance to see the error of his ways. No chance to atone. No chance to make restitution. No chance to suffer the due punishment he deserves.

Second, you will have become what he is. A murderer. I dont CARE what your senses tell you. I know hes dirty, too. Otherwise I wouldnt be here, on a rooftop, in the rain. Kill him, and you cross the line. The blood on your hands never washes off. Ever.

And thats where I come in. Kill him, and youll have to contend with ME.

[nexus]

Ivy "It isn't our place to judge but to defend and protect. We already take step outside the law to goal already,, when we start making ultimate choices like this: where does it? Society decides these things, not the individual and if that lines is crossed we go from heroes to criminals and would be tyrants."

Velocity "Oh man, we're heroes, we don't DO that kind of stuff. We're examples, you want everyone to decide to go out and off anybody they think did something wrong? Yeah, you got that Evil O'meter or whatever but what about the joker that decides to imiate you?"

Valkeyrie "This isn't an exuecution its murder. You've stepped outisde the bounds of society already with the best of intentions... and you kow whats said about good intentionss" *deep breath* "Justice isn't about revenge and I can't let you do this."

Tao "My standing orders require that I stop you."

Shidoku is probaby miffed she didn't get the guy first. She'd be more willing to be lenient on a street punk or some random thug than a goverment agent or some other higher up.

[McCoy]

All characters: "You know, if I have to take them into custody, I can't chase you. On the other hand, if you kill them, absolutely nothing is going to prevent me from taking you in. Do you really believe that the Justice System has such a revolving door that you are willing to go through it personally before contining your mission?"

[KarinsDad]

RIP "Societal rules and laws were created to gain cooperation between people and prevent anarchy. Unfortunately, that does not make them necessarily more correct or even more useful than individual judgment. If there were no superheroes and only supervillains and so the law were changed so that all officers of the peace could use lethal force based on their own judgment and even on the mere suspicion of a felony, then that too would be the law. Laws are flexible and based on societal need at the moment, hence, there is no absolute truth in them. What is a crime in one jurisdiction is not in another. That is the weakness of the legal system and the reason vigilantes exist: to fill the void and self correct the system. So, can I help?"

[David Johnston]

Poet: You think death stops people from making trouble? Let me introduce you to my dead friends...

[BcAugust]

To note, Ghost Rider doesn't kill unless the person is a supernatural evil(aka, demons or vampires).

Nox: "It is not your place or duty to determine if another soul can redeem. Even the darkest of human souls can see the light, if they are not dead. Let me take him in, for otherwise I will stop you. As for the justice system." A dry grin. "They will take care of him, or they will face justice themselves. But true justice, not that of a killer in a back alley."

[Blue Jogger]

Ultimatium: (if in his non-hunting mode)
"Although it is entirely possible to have to kill in self-defense, we shouldn't it... I mean, we can't...." (obviously struggling with the argument given unlike the other heroes)

(if in his alien alter-ego hunting a mass-murderer)
Much harder to disagree, his origin is the psychic remains of a dead planet who was genecided by three Kryptonian-level supervillians. Although the alien is perfectly happy to kill mass-murderers out of a twisted sense of revenge, the human part still brings him up to the zero point "Relunctant to Kill".

But, recently, Ultimatium beat the living snot out of a supervillian that was threatening to kill millions (if not billions of people) and Ultimatium was earnestly not holding anything back. But, he's a 16-year-old kid and so the argument of killing one supervillian to save millions of innocent lives is a very tempting arguement for him. :eek:

[Checkmate]

How do you know the person he killed was an innocent? How do you know he didn't just kill the next Hitler, or the mother or father of the next Hitler? So while you claim you can kill him and not be like him, the reality of it is, you can't. You will be doing EXACTLY what he has done, become EXACTLY what he is.

[Spidey88]

Punisher-type-guy: "Why shouldn't I kill him?"

Phidippus: "Because I'll beat you into next week if you do, chucklehead."

"NO ONE dies on my watch. NO ONE."

[assault]

Assault: "If you kill him, I'm taking you in for his murder."

[Lord Mhoram]

Blackcat would give a huge speech about following the law, and how she killed a supervillian once (and she did time for it, she turned herself in). After the philosophising, she'd kick him once, knock him out, take his gadgets away, and say "See house nice it is to wake up. That is every beings right - no individual that has not been granted the authority to end said life can take it. You kill him, I'll be back. And you won't like the results."

Ballistic would say "Show me your badge. Don't have one. Show me your Governemnt granted licence to kill. Don't have one either. Fine. Here is a spell for you" and casts a spell that if he kills anyone, he will have the same effect happen to him (near cosmic magic pools are great for that sort of thing). Then he'd tell him what he'd done. "If you think it is worth it - go ahead"

Meeb would likely stop him, but he has been a cop in the past, and understands that sometimes "He just needed killin' " is accurate statement. Meeb's in a darker toned game than my other characters.

Terminal Velocity - He'd be all "It's not up to us to decide" And call Primus.

Smokeater "When you decided to be a crimefighter you agreed to play by some unwritten laws - not killing the bad guys is one of them. You decide not to play by those rules, well then.. we could see how well you fight crime with your hands burned off" Empty threat there, although he would sell it strongly.

[saiyanslayer]

Ashley: "Because I just got this costume dry-cleaned. Use a rope; it's quieter and less messy."

[Kevin Schultz]

Jake the Troll - "Hm....good point. Lemme check something..." (Steps into the spirit world, steps back.) "Dang. Sorry, Skuld says I'm fated to kick your butt. I said 'Hey, Supernatural's on!', but she was all 'You have a TiVo, moron!' What can I say? Fate's a...really nice person who I would never call nasty names. So, looks like I'm gonna have to stop you. Appeals to authority, and all that. (Dumbass.)"

Icon - "Because you'd do better using that ability to detect evil in rooting out the corruption that allows him to do what he does; killing him will prevent you from doing that, becuase I'm going to arrest you if you do."

Shinji Miromoto - "Because killing creates more kharma than it resolves."

[SatinKitty]

Y'know, killing someone isn't the ONLY way to neutralise them. :sneaky:

We do have powerful Mentalist characters in this Genre. If the crook is truly unrepentant perhaps a bit of Psychic Surgery may be in order. Mindflair would have the Perp committed to her most secure Ward. After enough "Therapy" the Baddie would never be a problem again. :cool:

[nexus]

Y'know, killing someone isn't the ONLY way to neutralise them. :sneaky:

We do have powerful Mentalist characters in this Genre. If the crook is truly unrepentant perhaps a bit of Psychic Surgery may be in order. Mindflair would have the Perp committed to her most secure Ward. After enough "Therapy" the Baddie would never be a problem again. :cool:

True, but some would consider that worse than just killing them.

[steamteck]

I just Gm but here's how I think some of the PCs would handle it

Black Widow ( think female Batman with Spiderman's powers with a little of jean claude Van Dam's kick boxer thrown in) "because then there'd only be one cowardly little criminal with a gun I had to deal with here."

Photon ( Super upright light powers using teleporter) Teleports between them because you'll have to shoot me first. If he can't do that he would probably say that those who try to apprenhend criminals should strive to uphold the laws of the land and avoid becoming criminals themselves and the line between the punisher and the crook is thinner than he thinks.

Bedrock-"because I'm the strongest superhero in the world and it would really piss me off."

Flash ( light energy weilding geeky female scientist) Besides the negative sociatal implications and the setting a poor example for our youth because of presses desire to promote the profain over the heroic the legal fallout would increase the job of other crimefighters to an unacceptable degree. ( See's his blank look and Sighs.) Because I will subject your body to stress from relativistic particles if you do. (Sighs again) Because if you do I'll blast you.

Silver Sphinx ( think elven in modern world good guy female dr. doom) "Because I have not determined his value or worthiness nor yours. Stand down now or face the consquences!"

[moquif]

Assault: "If you kill him, I'm taking you in for his murder."

This could be an interesting can of worms. OK you bring the vigilante to his trial. He puts up a self-defense/psych defense claiming that the victim would have killed again and his mental problems (every vig has them) made the victim a lethal threat at the moment. Then his lawyer drags the criminal's name through the mud. So the jury has to consider putting in jail someone who is protecting them and is killing criminals instead of arresting them. It would be like arresting a police officer but worse if the vig is found not guilty. But if he does go to jail, he's a target to the other criminals and would likely die from a jailhouse stabbing. How would Assault feel about that?

Or if the GM is really mean, he's found guilty but spirited away by a secret government cabal to be part of their secret anti-crime squad who doesn't mind who gets hurt in the war on crime.

[Pyre-Archer]

Pyre-Archer: "Okay, so you kill him here. So what? Justice has to be seen to have an effect, pal. Hauling off and blowing him away right here won't get a message out. Heck, man, In two days they'll just be saying this loser here got nailed by a punk with a zipgun. Or someone else will take over his spot."

And if he has some sort of 'detect sin/evil/guilt' power:
"I'm sorry, but are you on drugs? You do realize you could use that power to make the system better. Be a judge, or an attorney. You could find ways of helping the system without having to fire another bullet, save in self-defense."

Hmm, not too grounded. But then, midnight philosophy was never my strong suit :)

[assault]

How would Assault feel about that?

Relaxed and comfortable.

[TheRealVector]

Y'know, killing someone isn't the ONLY way to neutralise them. :sneaky:

We do have powerful Mentalist characters in this Genre. If the crook is truly unrepentant perhaps a bit of Psychic Surgery may be in order. Mindflair would have the Perp committed to her most secure Ward. After enough "Therapy" the Baddie would never be a problem again. :cool:

But then I would have to accuse her of ripping off the plot to A Clockwork Orange. Viddy well. :p

[Basil]

"To quote Satchmo, 'If you don't understand, I can't explain it to you.'"

[SatinKitty]

True, but some would consider that worse than just killing them.

Well, if you did my idea, you'd at least avoid trouble with the Religious Right/ Pro-Life Nuts.

[Hunter]

Hunter: "Because the bounty on him is more for taking him in alive. After I collect, then you can kill him."

[TheRavenIs]

<point of info: none of these C's have CvK, but do have Hero Mentality>

Bearcat: [Sane Wolverine-homage], "Kid, I'll kill in the heat of a fight but not after, as much as you know he's evil," lighting he's cigar, "you are not going to kill him with me here, you try and if I have to I'll kill you if that is the only way I can stop you."

Sentinel: [Cosmic Brick], "I don think you're going to do that, if you try you'd better kill me first."

Crossfire; [mystic techno-ninja], finds weakness, then KO with stun only attack. Doesn't say a thing.

Flame: [Sunfire/Human Torch homage]. "Not going to happen, you kill him, I take you in for murder."

Snowfall: [female Iceman homage]. "You are a Hero, act like one. We don't kill. You kill him that makes you no better than him."

Electric Blue: [KOS-MOS homage]. Point's a small pistol at him, "you do that and I shoot you, this won't kill you but I can promise it will hurt, and I'll keep shooting you with this till you go down, then I send you to the police, and then I will testify against you."

Night Warrior: [Dare Devil/Spiderman homage]. Looks at the person, "I can't let you do that, if you want to try then go thru me."

[Zed-F]

Sylph: Believes in the sanctity of life, just not very good at expressing herself. She'd wrap the criminal up in a viny entanglement and offer to take him in, expose the corruption that prevents him being prosecuted to UNTIL, and generally try to do the right thing. If the vigilante continues to want to work outside the system rather than to work with the system, she'll entangle him as well and perhaps try to get him some counseling. But she won't hurt him except if necessary for self-defense.

Soulbarb is the vigilante in this story. She can directly sense the criminal's evil and murderous soul with her Soulsight, and will immediately be able to tell that he will never reform and will only further endanger innocents as long as he is able to do so. Her standard quote is: "You're going to hell anyway, I'm just making sure it's sooner rather than later."

Stipulations #1 and #2 of the scenario setup apply. The difficulty is stipulation #3. Usually Soulbarb runs in gameworlds where the justice system is efficacious. There is no revolving prison door, and criminals who are brought to justice are generally locked away, never to be heard from again. This is part of Soulbarb's unwritten and unspoken social contract with society. So long as the justice system works, Soulbarb is in a bronze-age or steel/diamond-age comic, and brings the criminals in rather than killing them.

As soon as the justice system is revealed to be compromised in the game world, the game world is revealed to be an iron age setting... and the body count starts to increase. If Soulbarb feels that she can't rely on the justice system to keep criminals off the streets and away from the innocents they prey upon, she feels no qualms about doing the job herself, permanently. And, subsequently, on focusing her efforts on rooting out and eliminating whatever is causing the corruption and preventing the justice system from doing its job.

Soulbarb wants to believe in the justice system, but given evidence to the contrary, she will not hesitate to investigate and act upon what she feels she must to fix it. If the price of that involves murder staining her own soul, she is willing to pay it. She has long since considered herself to be damned, regardless.

[Pariah]

Pariah: Killing him is the wrong thing to do. You know it. I know it. And I will not allow you to do it.

Thunderstrike: Because you won't want some self-righteous nutcase making the same decision about you one day. Karma can be a b*tch.

Jack Diamond: Kill him? That's the best you can come up with?

[Drhoz]

*And if we take a bare-knuckles utilitarian approach to it, that life itself is valuable but killing him is okay because it preserves more lives in the grand scheme of things, we open ourselves to some truly horrible acts - by that reasoning, experimenting on unwilling human patients in the name of medical research is just as, possibly more, acceptable.

Fine. Perform the medical research on the super-villain instead :eg:

Vitus has no Code versus Killing - in fact, the continued tendency of his teammates and other superheroes to stop him killing incapacitated murderers such as Gravitar bugs him no end, everytime. In fact, it's one reason he's seriously considering VIPER's offer, who have said they're FINE with him killing anybody he feels a need to.

The only time when he worked out something even better than killing the bad guy backfired too. It turned out the Slug was grateful to be turned back into a human, much to Vitus's irritation.

In this case, Vitus would try to find a comprimise that would satisfy everyone. "How about breaking his spine in 6 places instead?"

[assault]

Fine. Perform the medical research on the super-villain instead :eg:

Because nothing could go wrong with that... :snicker:

[Drhoz]

Because nothing could go wrong with that... :snicker:

nah.. no chance at all :sneaky:

[Matt Frisbee]

Why not kill him now?

Because I'm not going to stand by and let you kill him, regardless of your reasoning, and I'm sure the scum will get a laugh out of the idea that a hero had to save his life from another so called hero. The moment we as heroes take the law into our own hands is the moment we lose the trust and confidence of the people and organizations we are trying to protect. When our actions indicate that we have placed ourselves above the law, most people assume that we have placed our goals and motivations above their rights. Justice must be justice for all with due process and the all the rights and procedures that the legal system entails. Sure, mistakes are made and the victims and survivors sometimes feel that they have been treated less fairly than the criminals that victimize them. But in the long run, for the vast majority of cases, the law and legal system is both fair and adequate to the task. What you are proposing is vengeance, not justice, and if you step over that line while I'm around, I will lay down my life in an attempt to stop you from carrying it out -- not because I care about this scumbag, who obviously has some sort of punishment coming, but because I care about the image we as superheroes have to the public and what we represent to them. I will not allow you to cross this line. So you either back off and let the law handle it, or get ready to kill me as well as him. He may not deserve it, but it's not a matter of earning human rights, after all -- he's entitled to his regardless. It's a matter of what's right, and taking life when not absolutely necessary and unavoidable is not right.

I've made my decision, so now it's up to you. So what's it going to be? The vigilante route with two dead bodies, or the heroic route where you let justice be done?

(Short and sweet -- this sort of moral dilema doesn't crop up in my campaigns because I require heroes to be heroes in my universe.)

Matt "Upholding-the-four-color-paradigms" Frisbee

[Amber Nytstar]

Luna Moth: "To be honest, sir, I make it a policy not to let someone kill a person if I could possibly prevent it. Besides which would you prefer, my stopping you from killing him, or having this same conversation with the cops after me as they arrest you for his murder?"
*Looks back over her shoulder.*
"You have less than a minute to decide. As for me, I'm outta here." *Dashes off before the vigilante realizes what she just said and/or what vibes he picked up from her.*

The Flying Kittens: Trisk, "You're telling three young, impressable kids that the only way you can think of to stop this creep from destroying other innocents is to kill him?"
Blackie, "Impressable, Trisk? Where'd you pick that up from?"
Trisk, "Teacher, talking to some lady about our family. He was worried what effect Dad being a supervillain would have on us."
Midnight, "I suppose this 'creep' might have a family too. How would we feel if someone killed Mom or Dad before we chose to become heroes?"
*Trisk and Blackie think for a moment.*
Trisk, "You're right, Midnight. But this is out of our league. Usually we tangle up the villains at the scene of the crime and let the cops do the rest."

[Drhoz]

another compromise. "fine, let him go. From the top of that office block onto his head is good. He'll have a good 15 seconds to learn how to fly"