How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

[nexus]

Pretty much like it says in the thread title. Post your observations, preferences and rants here.

[nexus]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Personally, I think that a Superhero can kill and remain a hero but killing should generally by the final option. Like a police officer, lethal force is an option but one with serious consequences. Any superhero that begins killing easily and casually has, IMO, crossed a line. It doesn't make them "evil" (that is more complicated) but at least somewhat tarnished.

[Iuz the Evil]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Depends on the genre of superhero. If it's Silver Age, they're very naughty. Iron Age, and it almost defines the genre. A hero who doesn't kill in an Iron Age comic is either very principled or... well, dead.

 

And another factor is the level of the "CvK" the hero exhibits. Do they plunge into grave danger to save the hired goon of the supervillain (or the villain themself) from the crashing supervehicle they just tried to ram into a bus-load full of nuns? Or pretty much "collateral death due to own actions" is ok? Killing is definitely a line that differentiates one type of genre/hero from another, but I don't think of it as "cut and dried"... rather more of a plot construct or story enhancement.

[Blue]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

First off, does he kills a matter of course? I think heroes who routinely kill aren't so much heroes really.

 

A hero that kills had better have had one heck of a story that lead up to it. I can only point to Daredevil's climactic duel with Bullseye where he has the chance to pull him in and instead let's him drop. Now mind you he couldn't know that Bullseye was going to live, but it's a great dramatic moment of reckoning when the hero finally makes that gesture.

 

I have a hero NPC in my game who does kill, but that's really build up for the moment when they come to blows with the heroes over method and results.

 

I can't think of any comic book that I've collected where the hero killed consistently.

 

And I think that's part of the charm of the Superhero genre in RPGs. You make it a killing contest and you might as well be playing D&D.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Hmmm...what is she wearing?

[OddHat]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Hmmm...what is she wearing?

 

See End Game, Fausta or Flag Girl in my Supers with Pics thread to find out.

[madgoblin]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I think the whole thing with DareDevil Letting Bullseye Drop was really a matter of knowing bullseye woudl definitely kill again. which would be worse letting One person live so that he could kill hundreds if not thousands or Killig him to save those lives. If you think about it, If Bats had applied that to the Joker, How many of Mister J's Victims would still be alive. It shouldnever be an esy thing to do and it should really mess the hero up a LOT. (Give HIm a traumatic Flashback disad for No points.)

[assault]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Depends on the genre of superhero. If it's Silver Age, they're very naughty. Iron Age, and it almost defines the genre. A hero who doesn't kill in an Iron Age comic is either very principled or... well, dead.

...

Killing is definitely a line that differentiates one type of genre/hero from another, but I don't think of it as "cut and dried"... rather more of a plot construct or story enhancement.

 

Yep. Golden Age lethality is different from Silver Age is different from Bronze Age is different from Iron Age...

 

Early killer Batman is no more or less a hero than the later child-safe version, or the Dark Knight Returns version. His CVK makes no sense whatsoever, but he has no defences against editorial decisions...

 

World War II era Captain America is no more or less a hero than the 50's fascist-minded Commie Smasher, or the later blander version(s). (I find the fascist version amusing).

 

The Walt Simonson/Archie Goodwin Manhunter was a killer (back in the 70s). I don't regard him as any less of a hero for that.

 

Wolverine began as a hero too. He had his dark side, but he attempted to resist it.

 

And so on...

 

Except, of course, that many Iron Age characters are just exercises in pandering to the immature tastes of pointless fanboys. The issue here, however, isn't that they kill, but rather that they're rubbish in general. And this extends to earlier characters who get worked over in this way too.

 

For what it's worth, Batman is one of the many victims of this. He gets caught between two factors: the increased Iron Age bloodthirstiness of his villains, and the greater attention paid to continuity in recent decades than in earlier times. Continuity gets him, because it means that Arkham Asylum really does have revolving doors, and the Joker really does have a monstrous body count. The increase in bloodthirstiness means that that body count mounts up faster and faster...

 

Frankly, he isn't any less of a hero for this. He's just being pooched by hacks. Unfortunately, that problem seems to be shared by a lot of characters these days. It seems that writers like Alan Moore and so on have spawned a huge crop of really cr*ppy imitators.

 

They're the real villains.

[McCoy]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Personally' date=' I think that a Superhero can kill and remain a hero but killing should generally by the final option. Like a police officer, lethal force is an option but one with serious consequences. Any superhero that begins killing easily and casually has, IMO, crossed a line. It doesn't make them "evil" (that is more complicated) but at least somewhat tarnished.[/quote']

I do not require PC's take Code vs Killing, but I would never allow a PC with a "casual killer" disad. PC's in Champions are throwing around atttacks at lease as deadly as handguns. Their opponents will sometimes get killed. On the other had PC's should not adopt a "Kill them all, let God sort them out" attitude.

 

To me, the Dawn of the Iron Age was when the Punisher became a protagonist.

[fbdaury]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Frankly, he isn't any less of a hero for this. He's just being pooched by hacks. Unfortunately, that problem seems to be shared by a lot of characters these days. It seems that writers like Alan Moore and so on have spawned a huge crop of really cr*ppy imitators.

 

They're the real villains.

 

That's like blaming the renaissance artists for those who later tried to copy their style, poorly. Moore and Miller can not be blamed because oters could not write as well as them. And lets face it- some of the worst writing ever came from Silver Age comics- they were stripped of anything even remotely resembling a point by being handcuffed to the Comics Code.

[Force]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Unless it's a very dark campaign, it is very frowned upon in my neck of the woods.

 

Killing for a superhero should be a matter of absolute last resort.

[Publius]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

To me' date=' the Dawn of the Iron Age was when the Punisher became a protagonist.[/quote']Before he used "rubber bullets" in other people's comics or after?

 

An interesting question though. I agree that it has become the recurring theme for Iron Age heroes. What does this say about us? I recall some of the discussions had some time ago on these boards that suggested that comic book heroes are a reflection of the culture. If the Iron Agers are ready and willing to kill, does this say something about our social mores, or is this merely an aspect of the comic code finally being slipped off?

 

Personally as a GM, I prefer that my PCs do not kill, but I am not a fanatic about it.

[OddHat]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Before he used "rubber bullets" in other people's comics or after?

 

An interesting question though. I agree that it has become the recurring theme for Iron Age heroes. What does this say about us? I recall some of the discussions had some time ago on these boards that suggested that comic book heroes are a reflection of the culture. If the Iron Agers are ready and willing to kill, does this say something about our social mores, or is this merely an aspect of the comic code finally being slipped off?

 

Personally as a GM, I prefer that my PCs do not kill, but I am not a fanatic about it.

 

Good questions.

 

Personally, if the NPC Villain in question is a known killer, the need is urgent, and the PC is seriously outmatched, I'm willing to accept the use of deadly force to try to bring down the bad guys. A player who kills captured foes or goes for the kill when a capture would be possible will get a warning, and possibly be asked to leave (I've done this a few times). On the other hand, there is a social contract here; I do not casually face my PCs with utterly vicious foes who can't be captured and held, and I never run the Prison Break scenario. If the PC does manage to capture a serial killer alive, that NPC is not coming back, except possibly in a cameo or as an information source.

[assault]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

That's like blaming the renaissance artists for those who later tried to copy their style' date=' poorly. Moore and Miller can not be blamed because oters could not write as well as them. And lets face it- some of the worst writing ever came from Silver Age comics- they were stripped of anything even remotely resembling a point by being handcuffed to the Comics Code. [/quote']

 

You misinterpreted what I wrote. Sorry. Of course I wasn't blaming Moore and Miller.

 

A lot of Bronze Age writing was a lot worse than most Silver Age stuff. The code wasn't quite as big a bugbear as it is sometimes portrayed as being.

 

But then, I enjoy a lot of stuff that is technically quite poorly written. The raw madness of Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen, for example, completely overwhelms the fact that none of it makes the slightest bit of sense. The Lois Lane series might also be worth a laugh or two.

 

Obviously, I read different stuff depending on my mood.

[JmOz]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

That's like blaming the renaissance artists for those who later tried to copy their style' date=' poorly. Moore and Miller can not be blamed because oters could not write as well as them. And lets face it- some of the worst writing ever came from Silver Age comics- they were stripped of anything even remotely resembling a point by being handcuffed to the Comics Code. [/quote']

 

Can I blame Miller for DKR at least, because it stinks to high heaven...

[JmOz]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Ironicaly I post this on the eve of me starting my dark city campeign

 

I do not like killing heroes, mostly I think it is because of the abundance of the psyco's during the early days of image and the rampant popularity of characters like punisher and wolverine during those days.

 

Put another way, Wolverine was cool as here was a character fighting a never ending battle with himself over his based instints (To kill) and his more noble self. Sometimes the battle was won and others lost. This was cool.

 

Wolverine taking down people because he was KEWL was stupid.

 

When everyone became a tortured hero it was stupid.

 

As an interesting aside, I start a true Dark Champions (read Street level supers) Campeign tomorow, all but one character has a CvK (3x 5 point CvK, 1x10 point CvK, 1x 0 point CvK).

 

Can a hero kill and be a hero. Yes, but it has to be for a reason. When Superman executed three kryptonian villains in a pocket verse I did not consider him no longer a hero, but if he starts lobotamising villains because they annoy him then yes Super Hero he is no longer...

[OddHat]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Can a hero kill and be a hero. Yes' date=' but it has to be for a reason. When Superman executed three kryptonian villains in a pocket verse I did not consider him no longer a hero, but if he starts lobotamising villains because they annoy him then yes Super Hero he is no longer...[/quote']

 

For a while, DOc Savage was taking criminals to his secret island sanatarium, and cutting out the "criminal" parts of their brains.

 

Looked at in a certain light, Doc was a fairly creepy guy.

[Kristopher]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Before he used "rubber bullets" in other people's comics or after?

 

An interesting question though. I agree that it has become the recurring theme for Iron Age heroes. What does this say about us? I recall some of the discussions had some time ago on these boards that suggested that comic book heroes are a reflection of the culture. If the Iron Agers are ready and willing to kill, does this say something about our social mores, or is this merely an aspect of the comic code finally being slipped off?

 

Personally as a GM, I prefer that my PCs do not kill, but I am not a fanatic about it.

 

As bad as it often was, the Iron Age was an inevitable result of the Comics Code, like the kid from the pathologically uptight and repressed household that goes off to college and turns into the biggest party machine on campus, but can't handle it, and has almost died of alcohol poisoning three times by the time he's a senior, has been treated for STDs multiple times, and barely kept his grades up far enough to stay in.

[tusaboss]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I think the Code vs. Killing of Silver Age has some (not planned) degree of realism...Unless the superheroes work for the government or the police they have no authority to do what they do; they are basically (pseudo-fascist) vigilantes. As such, they can operate as long as public opinion and authority are willing to tolerate them. So, it's better that they avoid controversial behaviour such as killing...Even if the killing was for self defense, they would be likely asked to prove it in a court, bt they can't go in a court without revealing their secret identities. In fact, even minor charges would be a problem...

Also, since we are talking about supers, it's likely (or at least, desiderable) that they adhere to a superior ideal of justice and so they are above killing their foes...

[McCoy]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

For a while, DOc Savage was taking criminals to his secret island sanatarium, and cutting out the "criminal" parts of their brains.

 

Looked at in a certain light, Doc was a fairly creepy guy.

I always though so.

 

But remember this was Pre WWII, criminality was thought to be a disease, and Doc was "curing" them. He was also erasing their memories so that now well, they would not be tortured by the memories of what they had done while "sick." And IIRC, it did end up biting him in the rear.

 

But still creepy.

[McCoy]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Before he used "rubber bullets" in other people's comics or after?

 

An interesting question though. I agree that it has become the recurring theme for Iron Age heroes. What does this say about us? I recall some of the discussions had some time ago on these boards that suggested that comic book heroes are a reflection of the culture. If the Iron Agers are ready and willing to kill, does this say something about our social mores, or is this merely an aspect of the comic code finally being slipped off?

 

Personally as a GM, I prefer that my PCs do not kill, but I am not a fanatic about it.

IIRC Punisher's first few apperences he was a complex character. Even as they symphathises with what made him go psycho the heros had to stop him. And I seem to recal some internal struggles that he was as worthy of death as any of the others that he killed, that while he preyed only on the guilty he was still breaking the law.

 

But once he was a solo, the moral balance of heroic opponent was gone. It was no longer a choice beteween black and white, but dark grey and light grey. While the term was never (that I recall) used, his vigliantism had become an act of civil disobedience, if the police had only done their jobs he would not have to be doing it for them.

 

As to what it says about our social mores, I would have to check the timelines, but again IIRC this was after Darryl Gates had started reorganizing the LAPD along paramilitary lines, we declaired a "War on Drugs," and crime became a hot-button political issue with those trying to ge elected saying the incumbants had done nothing, and the incumbants saying they needed to do more (ironically, while actual crime rates were trending downward). The United States resumed capital punishment about this time with the execution of Gary Gilmore. Rambo; don't remember if that started a trend, or capitalized on it, but it was part of the devil's brew that gave birth to the Iron Age. So I would say that the Iron Age reflected a sensability that rehabilitation usually did not work, killing criminals is an acceptable solution, the police can't or won't do their jobs, and a state of war exist between criminals and law abiding citizens.

 

[edit] and the rubber bullets were totally out of character. Punisher had to be enough of a bad-ass to hit Spiderman, but Spiderman could not be seriously wounded. Poor writing, poor editing.

[Publius]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I think the Code vs. Killing of Silver Age has some (not planned) degree of realism...Unless the superheroes work for the government or the police they have no authority to do what they do; they are basically (pseudo-fascist) vigilantes. As such, they can operate as long as public opinion and authority are willing to tolerate them. So, it's better that they avoid controversial behaviour such as killing...Even if the killing was for self defense, they would be likely asked to prove it in a court, bt they can't go in a court without revealing their secret identities. In fact, even minor charges would be a problem...

Also, since we are talking about supers, it's likely (or at least, desiderable) that they adhere to a superior ideal of justice and so they are above killing their foes...

I have had the pleasure of playing with some players that share my own basic viewpoint, that heroes should not go out of their way to kill, yada yada; but this brings up I think why it is important not to kill. If the players leave some schmuck dead on the street there should be a wave of negative reaction by the public, which could have the effect of creating a negative reaction by government. This might be true for sanctioned heroes as well as unsanctioned vigillante types.

 

Governments, at least democratic governments (note small "d"), are very sensitive to public reaction and indiscriminate killings are going to produce all kinds of negative reaction. Government leaders have proven quite willing to let their assets hang out to dry in public-relation meltdowns. Unless there is some attempt to either (a) sweep these things up before they can get out or ( censor the media the public is going to find out about it and react (note also that a and b would both be considered "fishy" if evidence of them surfaced publically). Some reactions are going to be positive and/or accept that lethal force is necessary. Civil lawsuits of course have become the bette noir of the modern legal system, and while I can see sanctioned heroes being immunized in some way by laws (assuming of course that the courts accept such laws as being constitutional, which I think could go either way) unsanctioned/vigillante heroes open themselves up to these sorts of things. And as assinine as some of these suits are, the fact of the matter is that some of these dumb suits do get into the system and thus they will have to be dealt with.

 

In the end, it might be like police officers, a complex network of regulations and legal precedents might create a zone where lethal force can be used; then when lethal force is used there is some sort of investigation which follows. Or it might force government sanctioned heroes to come in two different varieties, the open heroes (which are backed and protected by PR machines) and the more secretive "black ops" heroes which tend to use more force. Interestingly enough, the use of codenames and costumes might be useful here in that a government agency might want to use its heroes in both roles (or switch from one to another on a more-or-less permanent basis if a blowup happens) and covering their identity would make this much more helpful. Of course, the public reason would be that "...these brave men and women, and more importantly their families and friends, need to be protected."

[OddHat]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I have had the pleasure of playing with some players that share my own basic viewpoint' date=' that heroes should not go out of their way to kill, yada yada; but this brings up I think [i']why[/i] it is important not to kill. If the players leave some schmuck dead on the street there should be a wave of negative reaction by the public, which could have the effect of creating a negative reaction by government. This might be true for sanctioned heroes as well as unsanctioned vigillante types.

 

Governments, at least democratic governments (note small "d"), are very sensitive to public reaction and indiscriminate killings are going to produce all kinds of negative reaction. Government leaders have proven quite willing to let their assets hang out to dry in public-relation meltdowns. Unless there is some attempt to either (a) sweep these things up before they can get out or ( censor the media the public is going to find out about it and react (note also that a and b would both be considered "fishy" if evidence of them surfaced publically). Some reactions are going to be positive and/or accept that lethal force is necessary. Civil lawsuits of course have become the bette noir of the modern legal system, and while I can see sanctioned heroes being immunized in some way by laws (assuming of course that the courts accept such laws as being constitutional, which I think could go either way) unsanctioned/vigillante heroes open themselves up to these sorts of things. And as assinine as some of these suits are, the fact of the matter is that some of these dumb suits do get into the system and thus they will have to be dealt with.

 

In the end, it might be like police officers, a complex network of regulations and legal precedents might create a zone where lethal force can be used; then when lethal force is used there is some sort of investigation which follows. Or it might force government sanctioned heroes to come in two different varieties, the open heroes (which are backed and protected by PR machines) and the more secretive "black ops" heroes which tend to use more force. Interestingly enough, the use of codenames and costumes might be useful here in that a government agency might want to use its heroes in both roles (or switch from one to another on a more-or-less permanent basis if a blowup happens) and covering their identity would make this much more helpful. Of course, the public reason would be that "...these brave men and women, and more importantly their families and friends, need to be protected."

 

This is much the way I've always thought of it.

[casualplayer]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Let's see: as a GM I made sure that my players realized that they weren't above the law. Actions had consequences, and nothing irritates authority like being disrespected. One of my players (Rage) was a MA of the "two men enter, one man leaves" mindset. He had killed before and had no compunctions about killing again. I was subtle about the consequences. Rage killed the handler of a Hulk-ish creature and then had to deal with a Rampaging Hulk. He used killing force against his respectful rival Catspaw, and then had to race against time to get Catspaw to the hospital. When a mass immigration of demons poured out of the Sonoran Desert, he waded in both blades drawn. After the demons petitioned for Refugee status Rage was jailed for Man (Demon?) slaughter. It was a setup for a Mission for Pardon adventure, but it also tempered his steel a bit.

 

For NPCs, it is very difficult to get the worms back in the can after you open it. If you turn your game into a bloodsport, the players will lash out at the slightest hint of danger and it will be difficult to advance a plot. Casual killers that elude justice make the players feel ineffectual. Joker types have to snuff it and on-screen, or it becomes a farce.

 

I personally don't like playing bloodthirsty characters. I am a "talk to the dragon" kinda player. One of my characters didn't know his own strength yet and killed several FBI agents with a fire extinguisher (threw it hard enough to rupture and explode.) I had him bend over double and puke his guts out on the spot, giving the surviving and very angry agents the drop on him.

 

I do however read books like The Punisher, and Jon Sable is my favorite comic ever. I like people who bring a gun to a gunfight, rather than counting coup in some sort of super-cage match. Something that people overlook about Ennis' Punisher is that Frank has no tolerance for collateral damage and he only unleashes on proven criminals. When he saw a pimp was running underaged girls, he mangled the pimp and told the girl to go home. I got no problem with that.

[Kristopher]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I think the Code vs. Killing of Silver Age has some (not planned) degree of realism...Unless the superheroes work for the government or the police they have no authority to do what they do; they are basically (pseudo-fascist) vigilantes. As such, they can operate as long as public opinion and authority are willing to tolerate them. So, it's better that they avoid controversial behaviour such as killing...Even if the killing was for self defense, they would be likely asked to prove it in a court, bt they can't go in a court without revealing their secret identities. In fact, even minor charges would be a problem...

Also, since we are talking about supers, it's likely (or at least, desiderable) that they adhere to a superior ideal of justice and so they are above killing their foes...

 

I'm not sure how most superheroes would be classified as anything fascist, super or otherwise.

 

What strikes me as vaguely fascist is the the notion that the physical superiority of superhumans should somehow connect with moral superiority as well, but that's more along the lines of you-know-who from WWII than "real" fascism.

 

Something I'm trying to understand is the longing people have for heroes. Why are people eternally shocked and outraged when a famous athlete or actor turns out to be, of all things, human, and falible, and maybe even a rotten person. Why is there still this idea floating around that athletes, for example, should be paragons of both physical prowess and personal character?