Super Heroes and Killing

**ShinDangaioh** · May 15th, '03, 02:30 AM

Since the Punisher thrread seems to be drifting that way, I figured it better be a topic on its own.

Punisher's kill first mentality is wrong. But by the same token, leaving the Joker alive is also a problem.

I had no problem when the GLC executed Sinestro. The GLC had tried everything to contain the nut and it failed. They put it to a vote and the entire GLC voted for Death.

I agreed with Kyle Rayner about Alexander Nero. He's a nut that need to be put down quick.

**death tribble** · May 15th, '03, 02:59 AM

In the first long running campaign we did, one of the DMs had a very powerful character (capable of a casual 20D6 Eb but eventually upto 40D6 I kid you not) and so part of the charter was that killing was a no-no. If you killed you faced a jury of your peers even if the normal authorities let you off.

It also did not help that several of the characters including a Wolverine rip off had a very casual attitude to life.

**dbsousa** · May 15th, '03, 04:37 AM

Leaving the Joker alive is a decision for the courts, not the cops. If Batman lived in Gotham, Texas, he would have less of an insane villian problem. Of course, the villains would also hear his Bat-Pickup miles away...

**Storn** · May 15th, '03, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by dbsousa
Leaving the Joker alive is a decision for the courts, not the cops. If Batman lived in Gotham, Texas, he would have less of an insane villian problem. Of course, the villains would also hear his Bat-Pickup miles away...

In RDU, as players, we have faced this conudrum many, many times. The conclusion that I have come to; is that it "depends"... which is a crappy system... cause who made my character judge, jury and executioner? But no prison was going to hold Dr Destroyer... taking him out with "natural causes" was a decision that I have never regreted. A decision who's ramifications scares the hell outta me as player and that particular PC. Because 3 paranormals were able to kill another in plain sight of thousands of witnesses and no one knew that it was an execution. {Destroyer was peeled out of his armor, was an ancient withered crone of a man, unconcious, I telekinetically stopped his heart while the mentalist, Locke, drained Destroyer's Mental Defenses to allow my ALVD killing attack to work. to the world, Destroyer dies of a heart attack.}.

The power that decison represented is enormous.... what is stopping us from doing that to Prez Bush who is ramming a Paranormal Regsitration Act that is frightening in its fascist tromping over the Constitution? Where is the line that seperates us from villains?

I also must state, that Neil has run RDU with this strong caveat; if a villain is captured and makes it to jail... he/she is there for a long, long time. Only Dr. Destroyer was able to spring Firewing from Stronghold... very few other cases have escaped. Now both Dr. Destroyer and Firewing are dead. Firewing died because his "son" {a PC} had to inherit the Firewing mantle. But most villain teams are eviscerated by incarceration in RDU. We as the PCs might not win every battle, but picking off two or three of the bad guys and putting them in jail is a winning strategy in this game. So most of the time; we as PCs do not kill at the "superhero" level. The Campaign "rewards" us for using non lethal force.

At the Black Ops level, where razor titanium blades and Uranium depletedd rounds are the tools of the trade... death comes quickly and often. There, the game resembles more of a war than a comic book slugfest. The carnage last game I ran in RDU was pretty high. But the PCs survival is at stake, they do not have the defences to bounce Razor Titanium Blades and Uranium Depleted Rounds. That is the nature of the genre.

Lastly, as my main PC, who is very concerned with the welfare of normal people... I will not hesitate in using all lethal force at my command to take down a villain in combat IF teammates or innocents are at stake. I think to do otherwise is morally wrong. Using kid gloves on the villains during a hostage situation might get the hostages killed... you dont' give the other side the chance to recover if possible. But, there have been times when there are no hostages, and I will allow my PC to take some shots to try and do "the right thing" to bring someone in alive.

So. It comes back to "it depends". And I have been chosen as Judge, Jury and Executioner because I'm the Jonny on the Spot. That is the life of a Player Character.

**Yamo** · May 15th, '03, 06:52 AM

Rule #1: Supervillians always escape to kill again.

That being said, if you live in a world where you can observe that and therefore know it to be the case, the blood of the inevitable future kills is on your hands if you don't take the villian out when you have the chance.

How many innocent lives could Batman have saved by killing the Joker after their first confrontation?

And this whole "killing = bad" nonsense is a direct result of that damnable Comics Code that hamstrung so many good writers for so many years. I think it's a real shame if that prudish nonsense shaped anyone's opinion of what a hero is or isn't.

Batman carried a gun and used it in the old books. Pulp men of mystery weren't usually casual killers, but they didn't hesitate when it was the the best choice. Heracles killed. The Knights of the Round Table killed. Robin Hood killed. And so on and so on and so on.

It's not unheroic. It's a valid way to deal with unrepentent evil.

***Hermit*** · May 15th, '03, 07:09 AM

It is one of those things a GM should discuss with the players before the campaign starts. What 'age' (Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron, etc) is this play going to try to emulate? That should tell you right there. If it's Silver with a "Super Heroes walk a higher road" attitude, then no killing. If it's Iron, with the "I'm just a person with powers" then no doubt killing will be more common on both sides.

Too many times, GMs put their PCs into a feeling of "What's the point? He'll just get out again..." and I agree that keeping criminals in stronghold for a long time is a good idea. The PCs have to feel like they are accomplishing something. Even better is the reward when a villain goes to jail, and honestly reforms! Admitedly, it's rarely the mad killer types that this works for, but it's a way of showing rehabilitation might actually NOT be a joke.

Another thing that works well in comics, but I don't see that much in games... and it's a shame because it's VERY Silver Age. Villains kill themselves off. When the hero is ready to kill the villain, then stops himself to hold onto his ideas... that's when the villain makes a last treacherous lunge or attempt, and it backfires killing him instead. He falls into the volcano, he's killed by his own slaves, his own glider hits him in the chest

and so on. It should not be over used, but there are times the GM should play "The universal force of Karma".

I, personally, am in favor of super heroes who do NOT Kill. I prefer they take the higher road, and the nice thing about super powers is that it means they often can. A knight of old used a sword. Hard to merely 'subdue' despite D&D alternate rules. A cowboy SHOT people...with hard lead things. Super Heroes, as a rule, have more versitlity, more control, and, let's be honest, more OPTIONS than these heroes of old.

**Jeff T.** · May 15th, '03, 07:15 AM

Remember the other thread asked if the Punisher was a 'hero'. Some arguments against that were essentially 'So what if he killed, he kills the bad guys'. This really has little to do with heroism.

The Punisher is a psychotic sociopath for one. He is also a casual killer. He does not display heroic qualities. Heroism is a choice, Castle's extreme mental instability prevents choice.

"Yeah, but he doesn't kill innocents!"

So. He is still one man deciding another's permanent fate. No judge, no jury. HE decides who is innocent. This type of thinking is inherently flawed. That goes along with the topic of this thread. Generally, superheroes abide by normal justice. They do not decide a criminal's fate. If a criminal deserves to die and doesn't, that is the fault of the justice system.

Remember also, that many supers are vigilantes. Is it legal for them to constantly respond to lethal force with lethal force? I think severe questions would begin to arise. However, a government-sponsored team such as the Avengers shouldn't have a problem with responding with lethal force, similar to police.

**misterdeath** · May 15th, '03, 07:21 AM

If you don't want to see the hero finally killing off the villian to keep him from escaping yet again, don't let the villian escape.

If you don't want to see the hero using lethal force because nobody stays dead, so Red Skull is coming right back, then let the villian stay dead.

Eventually, Batclone's going to snap, and put EvilClown in the ground permanently, because OldArkham's a sieve and can't keep anyone inside and, hey hell, EvilClown's coming back anyways.

The choice you as GM make forces the choice that the players make.

Discuss things with your players, and, stick with it. Let the villain go to jail, or die, and stay there. Come up with a new villian, and move on.

Like Hermit says, it's about the genre you run (except I'd put self destructive villains in more Golden Age, but that's a quibble).
____

A hero might or might not kill, depending on the circumstances. He might have to kill to save a life, he might kill accidentally, but he doesn't kill for no reason, or with no forethough.

A knight would kill, a policeman would kill, but they aren't casual killers.

Killing is an option, but not the preferred method of dealing with any and all situations.
____

D

**Deathwatch** · May 15th, '03, 07:43 AM

I think you must consider the players and how they will react in various situations as well. in a game long ago a group i ran would not have thought to "kill" any of the villians but, when the villian killed one of thier number the playing field at least for this one villian shifted to a hunt for vengence. This villian was then killed later in that adventure.

this event came up repeatedly within the game as a question " were we right to do that? " when issues such as leadership and tactics were developed people looked at each other with a do i really want to be seen with that hero? (the one who did the killing) this attitude added to the role-play options of the game.

The member who did kill the villian saw himself as above normal men thus this was not a crime to him, but to some of the others this would taint the way he was viewed for the remaining years of the game.

Deathwatch

**BishopofB&W** · May 15th, '03, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Yamo
Rule #1: Supervillians always escape to kill again.

That being said, if you live in a world where you can observe that and therefore know it to be the case, the blood of the inevitable future kills is on your hands if you don't take the villian out when you have the chance.

How many innocent lives could Batman have saved by killing the Joker after their first confrontation?

And this whole "killing = bad" nonsense is a direct result of that damnable Comics Code that hamstrung so many good writers for so many years. I think it's a real shame if that prudish nonsense shaped anyone's opinion of what a hero is or isn't.

Batman carried a gun and used it in the old books. Pulp men of mystery weren't usually casual killers, but they didn't hesitate when it was the the best choice. Heracles killed. The Knights of the Round Table killed. Robin Hood killed. And so on and so on and so on.

It's not unheroic. It's a valid way to deal with unrepentent evil.

The Spider never worried if it was "wrong" to gun down a Tommy-gun-carrying mobster.

**BishopofB&W** · May 15th, '03, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Hermit

Another thing that works well in comics, but I don't see that much in games... and it's a shame because it's VERY Silver Age. Villains kill themselves off. When the hero is ready to kill the villain, then stops himself to hold onto his ideas... that's when the villain makes a last treacherous lunge or attempt, and it backfires killing him instead. He falls into the volcano, he's killed by his own slaves, his own glider hits him in the chest and so on. It should not be over used, but there are times the GM should play "The universal force of Karma".

I've seen this happen in so often in movies, TV, and books that I think its actually deliberate. Perhaps something they teach in the last week of Superhero School(tm).

**mrswing** · May 15th, '03, 08:22 AM

Part of the problem is the way villainy has shifted over the years as well. Joker was a buffoon for many, many years, and seemed to be only out to kill his arch-nemesis (and occasionally some law-enforcment people or fellow rival criminals). Over the years and especially since The Killing Joke he has turned into a horrifying sadist, who seems to enjoy inflicting pain for the fun of it. And since the Batwriters keep bumping him off (didn't Nightwing kill him a year or two ago during the Last Laugh crossover?) only to bring him back three issues later in another shocking development no one could ever see coming

, the stakes keep getting upped and Batman's refusal to deal with the problem permanently (whether killing or physically disabling forever) becomes less and less believable. (I always thought Joker should have been killed at the end of Killing Joke, myself, because of the sheer horror of what he inflicted on Barbara and Jim Gordon in that merry little tale).
I guess it comes down to how nasty your villains are - if they are mostly glorified bank robbers or personal rivals of the PCs, killing them will seem very out of place. If they are sadistic psychopaths who strike again and again, sooner or later a player will probably want to eliminate them permanently. And let's face it, that is the way movie heroes have been dealing with their opponents since the Bond movies and Dirty Harry series - in pop culture, being assigned a jail sentence seems to be no longer considered a real punishment (OZ notwithstanding).
Punisher was once not just considered a villain, but went totally nuts, trying to kill jaywalkers and litterers (lawbreakers) in some Peter Parker The Spectacular Spiderman issues. Since getting his own series, he has become a murderous hero, with the absolute low (or high) point being reached in the Garth Ennis run where the main interest is what innovative, graphic, sadistic and 'funny' way Frank Castle will think up this month to slaughter his (equally sadistic and 'funny) opponents or humiliate Wolverine...

**death tribble** · May 15th, '03, 08:31 AM

The other thing to remember when killing takes place is what will the Legal authorities do ?
And if some of the police don't think that the Hero is wrong, some ambitious DA or Senator or journalist (to use American examples) might think there is a case to answer and haul the heroes in front of grand or ordinary juries.
So there is something else to think about. Regardless if it was justified or not the Public may villify the character for his actions. To die to save you is noble; to kill to save you may mean you could kill them......

**JmOz** · May 15th, '03, 08:58 AM

I found one comment interesting: It depends on the type of villain...

As was said above a bank/jewrey robber does not deserve to take the ride to there eternal rewards...

On not killing, you can blame the whole CCA for it if you want (and there is some reason for doing so) but it goes beyond that, a true hero, is to represent an ideal, to be better than we actualy are, from a common morality it is wrong to kill under normal circumstances, so a hero won't kill even when by common morality it would be acceptable, thus the Joker lives. By the way did anyone read the recent issue where Bats was going to kill him, well written.

Personaly I uee the Bronze standard of Hero's don't kill normally, but may in extrordinary situations

**zen_hydra** · May 15th, '03, 09:32 AM

In the old serial, Captain Marvel would kill people all the time. I remember one scene where he was on a high-rise rooftop being attacked by a group of thugs. His solution was to toss them one at a time over the edge to there deaths. Are you telling me that Captain Marvel is not a hero? The problem, as I see it, is how sensitve people are about death nowdays. You would probably find people wanting to try and rehabilitate Adolph Hitler if he were alive today. In a world of subjective morals, who are you to define what a hero is?