Why Kill At All?

[Nucleon]

This thread is a kinda branch of the loonng "How do you feel about Heroes who kill" one, wherein the opinion that "killing is okay to save many future victims" is largely represented.

 

Well, I think killing, in most cases, is but on option, and I am not being moralistic here, hear me well.

 

For you puny Humans, Death is the great beyond. Your myriad religions all have failed to prove you what is waiting for you beyond, says Nucleon.

 

So why would someone would send another one there? What is your assurance that said ennemy is not better off now that he is dead? What if he really got to get his 92 virgins, for instance?

 

So, you're a hero facing a quite lethal threat; Capture is not the point here: Concussive damage, Entangles, Gas, Mental holds... everything may work. Then...

 

... Then, if you're conscious and a standard, you may believe in salvation for your fallen foe. You can also believe in reparation, or any such noble ideals. You're a "real" hero.

 

If you're more expeditive, or radical, what about Dismembrement? Brainwash or mental wipes (like what happenned in DC's Identity Crisis), Cryogenic Detention? Or if one is sick enough, why not torture? A lot more liberating for one's angst, Nucleon would think.

 

In a comic book setting, all these solutions are as "final" as death anyway. So why kill at all in this genre?

[OddHat]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

The goal of the Heroes I play and GM is to protect the innocent. The punishment, reform or redemption of the Guilty is rarely an issue, and is never as important as the protection of the weak from the Evil strong.

 

Heroes in my campaigns don't kill if another option is available. Other options are not always available, depending on the game world and the situation. Not all game worlds are alike, nor should they be.

[Iuz the Evil]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

In a comic book setting' date=' all these solutions are as "final" as death anyway. So why kill at all in this genre?[/quote']

 

I'd say the answer to this is... genre.

 

Iron age, death is semi-final. Silver age it should be more "see you next week bob! With a new power set too".

 

Heck the Silver age baddies should be begging the heroes to take them out, it's a foregone conclusion they'll be back more nasty than before come to think of it.

[TheRealVector]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Cause some people just needs kill'in.

[Blue]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Why kill at all?

 

Because without the threat of harm, what's the point? Heroism and the chance of death are inextricably linked.

[Tech]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

The goal of the Heroes I play and GM is to protect the innocent. The punishment, reform or redemption of the Guilty is rarely an issue, and is never as important as the protection of the weak from the Evil strong.

 

Heroes in my campaigns don't kill if another option is available. Other options are not always available, depending on the game world and the situation. Not all game worlds are alike, nor should they be.

 

Agreed, OddHat. Everyone's campaign is different; mine for example holds a very high morality standard whereas someone else's won't. My campaign is occasionally very lighthearted whereas someone else's may have a constantly gritty theme.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

This took me a while to answer as I wanted to get into the head of my main PC Morningstar. I’ll try and answer in his words:

 

“If I thought I could go through life—this life, the one I’ve chosen—without ever causing the death of another human being I’d be ecstatic. Unfortunately that’s not the world we live in. People die every day. Violently, and sometimes for no more reason than the proverbial “wrong place, wrong time†excuse. That’s not good enough for me. Everyone should have a chance to live. Everyone, bad guys included. But again, that’s not the world we live in.

 

See, thinking about what happens after we die doesn’t come into it for me. I don’t know God exists, or if there’s another god or gods or aliens or some cosmic nerd running things, or even nothing at all. But it doesn’t matter, because I’m here now.

 

What it comes down to is choice. For most people the choice is easy, and they probably didn’t even realize they made it. They don’t kill. They don’t cause pain or anguish in a purposefully hurtful manner. They just want to live their lives, get married, have kids, make oodles of cash, and whatever else they deem as part of a ‘successful life’. They don’t consciously choose not to kill or harm anyone—it just never comes up in life.

 

Then there are those few who do purposefully cause harm and/or kill people, for whatever reason. Maybe it’s a means to an end. Maybe the victims were just in the way. Or maybe the guy just gets off on causing pain and suffering. I’ve had run-ins with a few guys like that. For them the choice is easy, too. They kill because they can. It doesn’t occur to them not to because for them it’s part of their life.

 

Now, with all that in mind, the question is ‘why kill at all?’. Again, knowing that if I could get through life without ever killing someone I would, it comes down to choice. If it’s a choice between taking the life of some asshole who steps on people the way most of us step on ants then I’m going to take him down. Yes, I’ll do it without killing him if possible. But if you show me a guy who has a dozen murders under his belt and can give me no good reason to believe he’ll stop if left to his own devices, I’m going to put him down any way I can. And if he dies because of that…well, I guess that’s something I have to live with since it was my choice to put myself in that position. But it’s easier knowing that he made his choice, too, and his choice had a profound impact on mine. If he wasn’t out there killing people then people probably wouldn’t need someone like me around, and if I can stop him from killing one of those other people who just wants to live their life without any fuss or muss then that’s what I’m going to do.

 

Yeah, it’s a real blurry line, and I worry about it every damn day, but when it comes down to it I’m pretty sure I’ll sleep easier knowing Freddy Krueger is off the streets, as opposed to nightmares I might have if I let the guy get away knowing I could’ve stopped him and he chops up Ma and Pa and Baby Joe suburban family. And for what it’s worth, I’ll do it as cleanly as possible. What the system does isn't my business. If they jail a guy, give him the death penalty, cut off his hands, neuter him, put him in a coma or a block of ice or whatever, that's up to the system. If the local badges can’t handle it or there’s just plain and simple no one else around to stop him, I’ll step up and he goes down, plain and simple. That’s why I wear the mask. That's my choice.

 

There are predators out there, and they prey on the people I’ve sworn to protect. If a fence will keep ‘em out, cool. A scarecrow, so much the better. But if takes a plasma blast to the face to keep scum like that from getting to my people then so be it. It was his choice.

 

So, does that answer your question?â€

[BNakagawa]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

because sometimes it's the only option available to you.

 

Example: I have a character who has a doppleganger that has absorbed a portion of my character's soul. This doppleganger has basically identical powers to my character and identical memories as well.

 

It has been revealed that the two are locked in a struggle for existence and that only one of them can secure a permanent existence at the expense of the other.

 

Sometimes, it's a zero-sum game.

[Nucleon]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

See, thinking about what happens after we die doesn’t come into it for me. I don’t know God exists, or if there’s another god or gods or aliens or some cosmic nerd running things, or even nothing at all. But it doesn’t matter, because I’m here now.

 

Mmmh, Nucleon ponders: Why would you send somebody to a place/state you have but very few idea about? All that for getting rid of him/her on the here and the now.

 

It's like putting stuff into a locker without you knowing where it leads.

 

Then there are those few who do purposefully cause harm and/or kill people, for whatever reason. Maybe it’s a means to an end. Maybe the victims were just in the way. Or maybe the guy just gets off on causing pain and suffering. I’ve had run-ins with a few guys like that. For them the choice is easy, too. They kill because they can. It doesn’t occur to them not to because for them it’s part of their life.

 

Ah, I think we are closer to the problem. It must be kind of hard for an un-killeable mutant armed with nothing but Evenantium claws not to kill.

 

In other words, when one's only tool is a hammer, he tends to see all problems he encounter as nails.

 

Now, with all that in mind, the question is ‘why kill at all?’. Again, knowing that if I could get through life without ever killing someone I would, it comes down to choice. If it’s a choice between taking the life of some asshole who steps on people the way most of us step on ants then I’m going to take him down. Yes, I’ll do it without killing him if possible. But if you show me a guy who has a dozen murders under his belt and can give me no good reason to believe he’ll stop if left to his own devices, I’m going to put him down any way I can. And if he dies because of that…well, I guess that’s something I have to live with since it was my choice to put myself in that position.

 

Althought giving the guy the same kind of treatment he himself gave to so many does have a pleaseant ring of Talion justice, Nucleon sees it for the vicious circle it is.

 

Couldn't we transform the guy into some vegetal, passive lifeform?

 

But it’s easier knowing that he made his choice, too, and his choice had a profound impact on mine. If he wasn’t out there killing people then people probably wouldn’t need someone like me around, and if I can stop him from killing one of those other people who just wants to live their life without any fuss or muss then that’s what I’m going to do.

 

Cosmic-friendly Nucleon tends to think that killing, or any other act of destruction of life, is solution by amputation; What is gone can't grow back. Each killing of the Cosmic Essence of Life leaves a void behind.

 

(And we must avoid Void; He is Nucleon's arch-ennemy!)

 

Yeah, it’s a real blurry line, and I worry about it every damn day, but when it comes down to it I’m pretty sure I’ll sleep easier knowing Freddy Krueger is off the streets, as opposed to nightmares I might have if I let the guy get away knowing I could’ve stopped him and he chops up Ma and Pa and Baby Joe suburban family. And for what it’s worth, I’ll do it as cleanly as possible. What the system does isn't my business. If they jail a guy, give him the death penalty, cut off his hands, neuter him, put him in a coma or a block of ice or whatever, that's up to the system. If the local badges can’t handle it or there’s just plain and simple no one else around to stop him, I’ll step up and he goes down, plain and simple. That’s why I wear the mask. That's my choice.

 

It's all coming down to the mask, like Green Arrow said in Identity Crisis. For their part, they messed with poeple's mind. The ethical problem stays; only difference, better the evil you know...

 

So, does that answer your question?

 

Quite Nicely, thanks.

[llao]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

I always try not to use lethal force if at all possible. The key, if a madman is killing people, is what is the fastest way I can stop him. Police use lethal force mainly due to effectiveness. Their non-lethal means are still not nearly as effective. We supers however have many other means with which to remove the immediate threat of a villain - usually.

 

Here I am speaking of an immediate threat to innocent lives - a super or non super threat. Use whatever force you have that is the fastest at removing that threat. If that is an attack that may well kill the creep then so be it. If you have options however...use them IF it does not endanger lives!

 

Now if it's a villain that keeps escaping killing, getting caught escaping and killing again then more moral thinking has to be done. Put the creep down like a rabid dog? I must admit in cases where I have met beings like this I am more inclined to use lethal force. I will not murder them in cold blood or hunt them down with intent to kill, but if I should accidently kill them in battle?

The worst ones are the smart ones that surrender at once. Oh the temptation to burn them to a cinder...

 

Llao

[David Blue]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

The goal of the Heroes I play and GM is to protect the innocent. The punishment, reform or redemption of the Guilty is rarely an issue, and is never as important as the protection of the weak from the Evil strong.

 

Heroes in my campaigns don't kill if another option is available. Other options are not always available, depending on the game world and the situation. Not all game worlds are alike, nor should they be.

What OddHat said.

 

Since I should add something, I'll use Last Hero as an example. Threaten the egg he guards and you trigger a Total psychological limitation. Congratulations, you have now convinced the equivalent of a 12ft tall Pak Protector that you are a prime menace to his bloodline. The rest has a tragic inevitability - unless you fall down, out cold (no longer a threat to the egg) but alive. In which case you trigger a Moderate psychological limitation: love of life, all life, even the lives of enemies. In no case does punishment have anything to do with it.

 

PS: almost the same example in a more familiar form: suppose Surtur's demon minions catch up with the fleet of the sleeping alien race guarded by Beta Ray Bill and Skuttlebutt. Combat ensues. Stormbreaker and Skuttlebutt's cannons slay many. What has this to do with whether the demon minions get 72 virgins apiece in a possible after-life? Nothing.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

The goal of the Heroes I play and GM is to protect the innocent. The punishment, reform or redemption of the Guilty is rarely an issue, and is never as important as the protection of the weak from the Evil strong.

 

Heroes in my campaigns don't kill if another option is available. Other options are not always available, depending on the game world and the situation. Not all game worlds are alike, nor should they be.

That's right where I stand on the issue. Of course, we play in a four-color campaign. IIRC only one member of MidGuard does not have a CvK; and that one is the professional military officer, Cyberknight. OTOH, I'm pretty sure he's ever killed anyone in a superhero battle. He does have three "kills" of enemy aircraft in his Secret ID of Col. Eric Thorssen, USAF Reserve, over Iraq during Desert Storm and later the Balkans. But even then those enemy pilots may have safely ejected.

[Tech]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

[non-seriousness on]

 

Well, it seems to me that there are some villains that just needed to be killed. Yep, some of them need to be gutted like a kipper!

 

[seriousness back on]

[Nucleon]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Because without the threat of harm' date=' what's the point? Heroism and the chance of death are inextricably linked.[/quote']

 

Yes, I do agree.

 

However, accidental death or death due to one's own malicious plans is one thing- the risk that comes with the job's description. Like catching a cold if you work in a hospital.

 

But to willingly seek to bring death as a self-styled superhero... seems to me like taking the easy way... do we really need superheroes for that? All conventional forces are capable of killing, and they even start to sport our ridicule costumes as well. What's left to us? Maybe that's because that's all some supers got... powers that are eventually lethal.

 

Ahhh, just a thought...

[Blue]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Only one character in my campaign fits that description, and she's an NPC, revered by the people of her community because of her use of the Batman tactic of ruling the streets by making criminals afraid. Many in the community know her I.D., but none of the locals will ever finger her because of the "service" she is performing.

 

What's more, nobody is wholly certain she's actually killed. That is, the forensic evidence hasn't been definitive, and as I've mentioned, eye-witnesses are unlikely.

 

My intent is that eventually she'll come to blows with the heroes over technique; Most of them thinking like the folks in this thread, with her thinking that the ends justify the means. If I do this right, I can cause a split in the hero team. (Believe it or not, my players enjoy that sort of opportunity to be divisive, so I aim to please.)

[Vondy]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

When it comes right down to it, philosophy is bunk. There are times when the only choice is kill or be killed. Either you choose to live or die, choose to keep your family alive or not, or choose to keep innocents alive or not. The choice, is of course, up to the individual. I've made mine. Sophistry won't affect it.

[ShinDangaioh]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Really depends on the character concept and what he or she is fighting.

 

Amethyst: Princess of Gemworld killed Black Opal. Black Opal wasn't giving her a choice. Much later Amy found a way to save not only Gemworld, but other magical realms by pointing out that most magic realms give off a residue of magical waste that the people who were trying to destroy Gemworld could use.

 

Chemo and the Plutonium Man's multiple deaths? Fine. That's part of the Metal Men stichk to come back every issue after being destroyed. So it should logically extend to some of their villians.

 

Green Lantern Hal Jordan killed over fifty people in a single issue of Green Lantern. The Qwardians had invaded Oa and he killed several Thunderers in the repulsion effort.(Green Lantern power rings don't kill? Yeah right.)

 

 

Fates worse than death:

Dr. Destiny had one of the worst punishments ever dropped down a villian. He had his ability to dream stripped away from him.

 

The pre-Crisis Phantom Zone villians also had punishment dropped down upon them with the Phantom Zone Projector.

[Nucleon]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

When it comes right down to it' date=' philosophy is bunk. There are times when the only choice is kill or be killed. Either you choose to live or die, choose to keep your family alive or not, or choose to keep innocents alive or not. The choice, is of course, up to the individual. I've made mine. Sophistry won't affect it.[/quote']

 

And what if the person one kills acted by the same "ideals"?

 

And what if some of one's powerful peers decide that because one killed, one must also be killed? What of the Talion, is it an Ourobouros by itself?

 

***

 

Nucleon still thinks that killing (not necessarly death) reflects either a lack of self-control, morale, imagination or more commonly, means to do otherwise.

 

-In comic world, of course-

 

[Vondy]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

And what if the person one kills acted by the same "ideals"?

 

What if they did? Its irrelevant. If someone comes to kill you, kill him first.

 

And what if some of one's powerful peers decide that because one killed' date=' one must also be killed? What of the Talion, is it an Ourobouros by itself?[/quote']

 

Talion, as it is called in western culture, was never applied in this manner, and had nothing to do with homicide. As a result, I don't see anything to respond to in an ethical sense.

 

Nucleon still thinks

 

Why are you speaking in the third person?

 

that killing (not necessarly death) reflects either a lack of self-control, morale, imagination or more commonly, means to do otherwise.

 

-In comic world, of course-

 

 

This depends on the genre of comics (or fiction) being read. I don't enjoy fiction where character's live in carefully scripted ivory towers that shield them from making hard decisions and allow them to champion unsustainable ethical models and abdicate personal responsibility. I like fiction where heroes are confronted with hard choices in bad situations and are forced to do their best and soldier on. This is why I stopped reading comics years ago. The world isn't black and white and perfect people are boring.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

And sometimes Killing is fun.

[Nucleon]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Why are you speaking in the third person?

 

Under his secret guise, Nucleon frequents political, naval, history and social boards, where He is serious enough for two. When he comes here, it is with the very same spirit He has when He goes to His weekly gaming session. Nucleon finds comfort that way, leaving "real world" pretenses behind on what is basically a leisure board. You should relax and do the same, mortal. Works wonders.

 

I like fiction where heroes are confronted with hard choices in bad situations and are forced to do their best and soldier on. This is why I stopped reading comics years ago. The world isn't black and white and perfect people are boring.

 

May Nucleon suggest you Kingdom Come? Coming from such a four-colour company as DC, this critically acclaimed serie is all about these choices you're writing about -just tell your comic dealer Nucleon sent you.

[David Blue]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

If someone comes to kill you' date=' kill him first.[/quote']Jesus of Nazareth took a different attitude, and he has quite a fan club. Rejecting the use of deadly force even in self-defence can be a morally serious position, it's not trivially wrong.

 

This depends on the genre of comics (or fiction) being read. [...] I don't enjoy fiction where character's live in carefully scripted ivory towers [...] This is why I stopped reading comics years ago. The world isn't black and white and perfect people are boring.

"HERO GAMES Discussion Boards > Genres > Champions"

 

We are in a discussion area for Champions, which is supposed to be based on comic-book superheroes. This thread, "Why Kill At All?" is within this genre.

 

Within this genre, codes versus killing require no defence. Supereroes who don't kill are commonly portrayed as superior to killers (in power and in all sorts of ways). Superheroes that kill are often bad superheroes or not superheroes at all. (Villains, more likely.) Writing or editing that forces superheroes to kill or something worse will happen is likely (not certain) to be bad writing or editing.

 

(In much the same way that it would be abominable writing for action movies if the action heroes were regularly placed in positions where they really did have to kill innocents including their loved ones or else the villains would nuke whole cities. There is nothing inherently good about writing where heroes are confronted with hard choices in bad situations and are forced to "do their best and soldier on". The decision that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" may be the right, the inescapable one, and still leave the hero or former hero irreparably soiled.)

 

All this emphasis on the merits of restraint and even on sometimes turning the other cheek is not the only approach to comic book superheroes, but it is second to none in popularity and artistic success.

 

You don't like this genre, you have negative/hostile feelings towards it, you don't buy or enjoy the source material. OK, fine, that's your preference.

 

I and others do like this genre, we have positive feelings for it when it's done well, and we do buy and enjoy the source material.

 

I don't find "perfect people" boring. I find them inspiring. It's the morally compromised thugs I find boring.

[David Blue]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

There's a strong scene in Insomnia (2002) where an intelligent killer (Walter Finch, very well played by Robin Williams) talks about the special, irrevocable line that's crossed in killing and the whys and wherefores, and Detective Will Dormer (well played by Al Pacino) answers him: "You don't get it do you Finch? You're my job. You're what I'm paid to do. You're about as mysterious to me as a blocked toilet is to a f******g plumber. Reasons for doing what you did? Who gives a f**k?"

 

I prefer my superheroes to be like the magical, special, genuinely superior people who don't kill, and not like a blocked toilet.

 

It's just that, for reasons of necessity, for reasons of duty, for many valid and even in some cases highly heroic reasons (as in the famous cowboy movie Shane), remaining a non-killer isn't an acceptable option.

[Vondy]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Jesus of Nazareth took a different attitude' date=' and he has quite a fan club. Rejecting the use of deadly force even in self-defence can be a morally serious position, it's not trivially wrong.[/quote']

 

I really advise against using the Jesus stick.

 

"HERO GAMES Discussion Boards > Genres > Champions"

 

Thank you for presenting a straw man. Champions does not by default mean the silver or golden age comic genres. It isn't iron age, either, but what used to be "Dark Champions" was rolled up into Hero's superhero line. Champions (as a forum) is therefore dedicated to superheroes in general.

 

We are in a discussion area for Champions' date=' which is supposed to be based on comic-book superheroes. This thread, "Why Kill At All?" is within this genre.[/quote']

 

Comic book superheroes run the gambit from golden age to iron age.

 

Within this genre' date=' codes versus killing require no defence. Supereroes who don't kill are commonly portrayed as superior to killers (in power and in all sorts of ways). Superheroes that kill are often bad superheroes or not superheroes at all. (Villains, more likely.) Writing or editing that forces superheroes to kill or something worse will happen is likely (not certain) to be bad writing or editing.[/Quote']

 

Using the term "in this genre" you impose your preferred genre on the forum. I'm not interested. Not everyone here feels limited to silver and golden age campaigns.

 

(In much the same way that it would be abominable writing for action movies if the action heroes were regularly placed in positions where they really did have to kill innocents including their loved ones or else the villains would nuke whole cities. There is nothing inherently good about writing where heroes are confronted with hard choices in bad situations and are forced to "do their best and soldier on". The decision that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" may be the right' date=' the inescapable one, and still leave the hero or former hero irreparably soiled.)[/quote']

 

You freely admit it is preference, and then conclude with a tenuous and theologically charged philosophical statement. If the decision was right then the hero is not rationally soiled by it.

 

All this emphasis on the merits of restraint and even on sometimes turning the other cheek is not the only approach to comic book superheroes' date=' but it is second to none in popularity and artistic success.[/quote']

 

For how long?

 

You don't like this genre' date=' you have negative/hostile feelings towards it, you don't buy or enjoy the source material. OK, fine, that's your preference.[/quote']

 

You bet. I also don't like people who assume the champion's forum is for their particular sub-genre, and then start making theological arguments to support their preferences.

 

I and others do like this genre' date=' we have positive feelings for it when it's done well, and we do buy and enjoy the source material.[/quote']

 

Which is well and good, but you aren't the only one's on the Champions forum. Nor was it made just for you.

 

I don't find "perfect people" boring. I find them inspiring. It's the morally compromised thugs I find boring.

 

A hero who kills may not be a morally compromised thug, but from your black and white perspective, you have to be a saint to be heroic.

[Nightfire]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

I run a very involved campaign where most villians like heroes evolve, gaining experience, and moving through the 'weight" classes. As a consequence of this, Heroes and Villians get to know each other. The Heroes try to sway the villians to the good side, though the insidious act to getting to know them, and test their convicitons. Some reform, so go to jail, and some just keeep getting wrose and worst. When they cross the line (mass murder and the like) then the gloves come off.

 

To date only a small handful of villians have been so monsterous as to "need killin".

 

Both sides call it the game. It is "okay" for villians to commit crimes, the heres try to capute them. the villains try desperately to avoid this bacause villians in the campaign serve real prision sentence, not revoling door method of comic books. I'm creative enough to make new villians,

 

Villians are "allowed" to try to kill heroes. 99% of the time they fail, Heroes are notoriously hard to kill. The Heroes are allowed to beat the stuffing out of the villians proportional to the closeness to success. If the Villians actually succed then the heroes friends are allowed to retailiate, but must yield if the villian begs for mercy.

 

The villians are "Allowed" to kidnaap DNPC andloved ones, after all that's part of the convention. But if they actually defile said persons the Hero is allowed ti retaliate to the full exent that their psych lims allow.

 

Some villians are so nasty that even other villians will join in dispatching them. It is one thing to serve an evil elder god of chaos, it is is another matter altogether to actually slaughter 10,000 peole to that entity.