Why Kill At All?

[OddHat]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Mr. Incredible didn't kill anyone until he was defending his wife and kids; and that was in combat. He threw the guards out of the monorail car even though he could have crushed their skulls like eggs. He wasn't willing to kill Mirage in cold blood despite her clear complicity in what he though was the death of his wife and children mere moments before.

 

I think even Silver Age comics can permit villain deaths under the right circumstances. What they don't do is cold blooded or "casual" killiing. That crosses the line.

Absolutely, though I'm not worried about ages. He was a Hero, and he remained one, even when he needed to use deadly force to protect others. He did not use deadly force when an alternative was available, and he did not use it against a helpless target (Mirage) even when it may have been justifiable. Personally, I'm happy with that standard, both for my Heroic fiction and my games.

 

Edit, Additional: Mirage was a knowing and enthuiastic accomplice in multiple murders, including the attempts on Bob's life, and at least an accessory in the attempted murder of his family. "But she's a good-looking girl" is a weak defense, though admittedly it gets used often. I think he did the Heroic right thing in not killing her, but she was hardly an innocent.

[csyphrett]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

The thing with some of the agents was a lack of skills with combat driving in my opinion.

 

Like George of the Jungle says, "Watch out for that tree!", or rock, or volcano, etc.

CES

[Wanderer]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Coming back to this quite surprising snapshot of comic litterature; I think Morningstar, by his attitude, have no confidence in what lays Beyond. Nucleon's guess is that Morningstar believe his actual life to be the sole usage of his cosmic essence.

 

That must be extremely depressing for a mortal one. Each day brings you closer to... well... nothingness.

 

Nucleon, for one, believes otherwise. And He is not particularly religious.

 

The greatest loser in this story?

 

The Bomber.

 

May redemption rain down over him.

 

Or Morningstar might well believe that Good defines God, not God Good, and be ready to strive in the great Beyond when it's the time and spit in the face of any force, principle or being that calls for letting innocent people be killed and dares proclaim itself divine.

 

Or, to paraphase the immortal James T. Kirk, always the man of the right attitude when dealing with "gods" of dubious standing: "Why God needs people being killed ?"

[Trebuchet]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Mirage was a knowing and enthuiastic accomplice in multiple murders' date=' including the attempts on Bob's life, and at least an accessory in the attempted murder of his family. "But she's a good-looking girl" is a weak defense, though admittedly it gets used often. I think he did the Heroic right thing in not killing her, but she was hardly an innocent.[/quote']Exactly my point. Mirage was certainly no innocent (even if she didn't physically participate in the shooting down of Elastigirl's jet, Mr. Incredible must have known she was responsible for sucking in all those other heroes who were killed the same way she tricked him. ("Hello, Mr. Incredible. Yes, we know who you are...")

 

She was a villain, but a villain with at least some conscience. Mr. Incredible chose not to kill her in cold blood; and to her credit that seemed to refocus her loyalties.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Or Morningstar might well believe that Good defines God' date=' not God Good, and be ready to strive in the great Beyond when it's the time and spit in the face of any force, principle or being that calls for letting innocent people be killed and dares proclaim itself divine.[/quote']

"I don't think I'd think of it in those particular terms," the hero said, turning slightly in his seat. He seemed casual, but there was a vague restlessness about him that belied his comfort with the topic. "That's pretty close, though. I'm what you'd call an agnostic, I guess. I believe in something greater without wanting to define it. Good, however, should be Good no matter what you believe. A god that punishes a person because he tried to save many innocent lives at the cost of one not-so-innocent life isn't my kind of god. Allowing oneself to die rather than kill one's oppressor might be noble; I don't know if I'd agree with that, but that's more semantics than anything. Doing absolutely nothing to save your fellow man, though--or men, women and children, as was the case earlier--because you don't want to kill the bad guy is stupid." The scorn in the young mutant's voice is evident. "That flies in the face of everything I stand for. Maybe that's okay where that guy comes from, but this isn't a perfect world, and if everyone laid down for creeps like that bomber than we'd run out of 'good and noble' people pretty quick. Nobody wants to be put in that position. I certainly don't. But I've been there, and I've had to kill to save people. Just the one time, thank whoever you please, but that was enough. Given the opportunity I'd have gladly traded places with that guy so he wouldn't have had to make that decision. But I still think he took the cheap and easy way out. I mean seriously, there doesn't seem much point in letting the bad guys win, does it? You save your own soul but deprive countless others the opportunity to save theirs? That's not a fair trade."

 

Morningstar shook his head. "No, I stand by my original statement. What that guy did was a waste, plain and simple. He made a choice that cost people their lives, all so he could theoretically save his own soul. If he's going to Heaven because of it then that's one less place I need to visit."

[Zed-F]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Taking the moral high ground does not translate into total pacifism when someone else's life is on the line -- there is the concept of turning the other cheek when it's your own cheek that's at stake, but there is also the concept of loving one's neighbor as oneself.

 

I don't think the man in the bombing story had an accurate view of the source of his own morality. Perhaps he wouldn't have shot the bomber with the intent to kill. That doesn't mean he couldn't have shot the bomber with an intent to disable, or tackled him, or what have you. Taking the moral high ground does not translate to passivity in the face of aggression unless there are no other effective options to resist that aggression that do not involve bringing yourself down to the aggressor's level. This is almost never the case.

[OddHat]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Exactly my point. Mirage was certainly no innocent (even if she didn't physically participate in the shooting down of Elastigirl's jet, Mr. Incredible must have known she was responsible for sucking in all those other heroes who were killed the same way she tricked him. ("Hello, Mr. Incredible. Yes, we know who you are...")

 

She was a villain, but a villain with at least some conscience. Mr. Incredible chose not to kill her in cold blood; and to her credit that seemed to refocus her loyalties.

 

I find the "Heroes should kill helpless foes in cold blood" side of the argument almost as annoying as the "Heroes should never, ever kill, and the writer or GM should cheat to make this possible" side. I don't like either in my Heroic entertainment (anti-heroes being a different matter).

 

The thing with some of the agents was a lack of skills with combat driving in my opinion.

 

When the superhero grabs one vehicle containing a human driver and throws it at another, with enough force to destroy both, that is conscious use of deadly force. Saturday morning genre conventions say "everyone always jumps clear," but those were not the conventions in force in The Incredibles, and are not the conventions in force in any campaign where the question of "Heroes" killing means anything anyway. If you're running a campaign where that can't kill a normal human, your Heroes can do more or less anything with no risk to anyone.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Taking the moral high ground does not translate into total pacifism when someone else's life is on the line -- there is the concept of turning the other cheek when it's your own cheek that's at stake, but there is also the concept of loving one's neighbor as oneself.

 

I don't think the man in the bombing story had an accurate view of the source of his own morality. Perhaps he wouldn't have shot the bomber with the intent to kill. That doesn't mean he couldn't have shot the bomber with an intent to disable, or tackled him, or what have you. Taking the moral high ground does not translate to passivity in the face of aggression unless there are no other effective options to resist that aggression that do not involve bringing yourself down to the aggressor's level. This is almost never the case.

I have always felt that unwillingness to confront evil is neither morally superior or even amoral; it is immoral. Sometimes it simply cannot be done for reasons of safety (the person's in question or friends and/or family); but that was clearly not the case in Vanguard's story. The individual's passivity to evil not only cost him his own life, but permitted another person to commit a greater evil.

 

Ultimately it was an (in)act of selfishness and moral cowardess, not one of moral superiority.

[Zed-F]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

I agree that true heroes should try to avoid killing. Sometimes it may happen accidentally, or if the hero can't think of a non-lethal alternative, but it should be an occasion of great remorse.

 

I don't think a GM should consciously set the players up by presenting a situation where killing is the only possible answer. I don't believe in revolving door prisons. In wartime, heroes known to be reluctant to kill should not be chosen for missions which would require them to kill; others would be chosen instead. The reluctant to kill heroes can still contribute to the war by capturing rather than killing the enemy. Putting a character with a CvK in a position where he must kill, with no possible alternatives, is breaking the player's trust, unless it's being done with the player's consent as part of the character's devlopment.

 

I also don't think the GM should explicitly manipulate matters such that no-one ever dies. I prefer a healthy dose of realism in the world. Given a healthy dose of realism and an avoidance of deliberate Kobiyashi Maru scenarios, there is a sufficient variety of options available to mean that true heroes should not need to kill to emerge victorious. Cops don't usually kill the criminals they apprehend, and superheroes have far greater flexibility in terms of non-lethal attacks and other options, even considering they are going up against other metahumans. Stun-only attacks, NNDs, non-lethal drains and suppresses, ego attacks, the list goes on and on. Every character can afford to have one or more options along these lines if they so choose.

 

That doesn't mean I always want to play a hero of this sort. Not every story has a squeaky-clean protagonist.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Taking the moral high ground does not translate into total pacifism when someone else's life is on the line -- there is the concept of turning the other cheek when it's your own cheek that's at stake' date=' but there is also the concept of loving one's neighbor as oneself.[/quote']

Well, yeah, I agree, but at the time I wrote the original snippet the discussion was regarding absolutes. I went with that theme to help illustrate a point.

I don't think the man in the bombing story had an accurate view of the source of his own morality. Perhaps he wouldn't have shot the bomber with the intent to kill. That doesn't mean he couldn't have shot the bomber with an intent to disable, or tackled him, or what have you.

Many people with similar beliefs often take the stance that even a chance at killing someone is to be avoided. Thus, for someone not familiar with firearms, shooting a gun equates to killing and is to be avoided at all costs. Again, taking a somewhat more extreme point than was made in the actual discussion and using Morningstar as a foil to propose alternate ways of thinking.

Taking the moral high ground does not translate to passivity in the face of aggression unless there are no other effective options to resist that aggression that do not involve bringing yourself down to the aggressor's level. This is almost never the case.

That, sadly, isn't true. There are plenty of people in differing religions and cultures around the world who simply won't take a life. Period. Self-defense and the aggression of others is immaterial to their cause. Ghandi and his followers are an excellent example: you wouldn't expect him to defend himself or to take a life even for just cause ("just", of course, being subjective based on a variety of factors).

 

There are those who have said on this board that taking a life is never an option. I chose to illustrate in fiction that I believe differently.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

I agree that true heroes should try to avoid killing. Sometimes it may happen accidentally' date=' or if the hero can't think of a non-lethal alternative, but it should be an occasion of great remorse. [/quote']

Would Morningstar have felt "great remorse" at killing the bomber? Nope. More like annoyance that he was put in that position to begin with, but ultimately he did what he had to do. No 'great remorse' or even mild guilt. Resignation, perhaps, and a touch of pity for the guy, but not remorse, great or otherwise. Nor would it have been an accident. He would have set out to kill the bomber if that's what he believed it would take to stop him. Killing on purpose with no remorse because that's the option that seemed best at the time.

I don't think a GM should consciously set the players up by presenting a situation where killing is the only possible answer. I don't believe in revolving door prisons. In wartime, heroes known to be reluctant to kill should not be chosen for missions which would require them to kill; others would be chosen instead. The reluctant to kill heroes can still contribute to the war by capturing rather than killing the enemy. Putting a character with a CvK in a position where he must kill, with no possible alternatives, is breaking the player's trust, unless it's being done with the player's consent as part of the character's devlopment.

I agree that it shouldn't be the character's ONLY possible answer, but why have a disad if it's not limiting at some point? I believe it's very important for the GM to test the limits of the character's disadvantages in order to justify their existance. If you never put a CvK hero in a position where death might be an option then how is it a disadvantage? Granted, he should not feel forced to kill, but the repurcussions of his actions might not be what he expected.

 

Let's say through the course of combat a character accidentally lets a bad guy get into a potential hostage situation, and that said bad guy is perfectly willing to die a martyr and kill his hostages. Would the CvK hero allow this to happen? Negotiations won't work--the bad guy is a loon and is just waiting for the right time to "die for his cause". The CvK hero is the only one around who could possibly stop him, and there's no way to ensure a non-lethal solution. Does he take the shot?

I also don't think the GM should explicitly manipulate matters such that no-one ever dies. I prefer a healthy dose of realism in the world. Given a healthy dose of realism and an avoidance of deliberate Kobiyashi Maru scenarios, there is a sufficient variety of options available to mean that true heroes should not need to kill to emerge victorious. Cops don't usually kill the criminals they apprehend, and superheroes have far greater flexibility in terms of non-lethal attacks and other options, even considering they are going up against other metahumans. Stun-only attacks, NNDs, non-lethal drains and suppresses, ego attacks, the list goes on and on. Every character can afford to have one or more options along these lines if they so choose.

But not every character should have to choose one of those options. Even a brick might accidentally kill someone if he hits him hard enough. Use half-strength and hit him with only 6d6, an average of 6 BODY. Not lethal, right? But what if you get a freak roll of all sixes. A normal person with 2 PD and 10 BODY is dead. It's an option, and it should be played as such with no expectation of GM interference. So how does that CvK brick handle it? That's where real role playing comes in.

[csyphrett]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

When the superhero grabs one vehicle containing a human driver and throws it at another, with enough force to destroy both, that is conscious use of deadly force. Saturday morning genre conventions say "everyone always jumps clear," but those were not the conventions in force in The Incredibles,

 

 

No argument there. I was thinking of the scenes where the agents were chasing Dash.

 

 

CES

[OddHat]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Many people with similar beliefs often take the stance that even a chance at killing someone is to be avoided. Thus' date=' for someone not familiar with firearms, shooting a gun equates to killing and is to be avoided at all costs.[/quote']

 

And to be fair, any use of force to subdue a target has some risk, however small, of killing that target. Even a taser can kill if the target has a weak heart, and beating someone unconscious is very serious outside of fiction and role-playing games. Whenever a Hero uses force, he has decided that the need to stop the target is sufficient to justify that risk.

 

That's why I rarely build characters with Codes versus Killing. A Total CvK calls into question why the character has decided to try to fight crime by hitting people in the first place.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

And to be fair, any use of force to subdue a target has some risk, however small, of killing that target. Even a taser can kill if the target has a weak heart, and beating someone unconscious is very serious outside of fiction and role-playing games. Whenever a Hero uses force, he has decided that the need to stop the target is sufficient to justify that risk.

 

That's why I rarely build characters with Codes versus Killing. A Total CvK calls into question why the character has decided to try to fight crime by hitting people in the first place.

Exactomundo!

 

Repped.

 

Edit: Er, "repped" when I can. Heh.

[OddHat]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

No argument there. I was thinking of the scenes where the agents were chasing Dash.

 

Yup. I don't think Dash has any responsibility for those deaths, but then I thought Mr.Incredible's actions were justified as well.

[Zed-F]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Would Morningstar have felt "great remorse" at killing the bomber? Nope. More like annoyance that he was put in that position to begin with' date=' but ultimately he did what he had to do. No 'great remorse' or even mild guilt. Resignation, perhaps, and a touch of pity for the guy, but not remorse, great or otherwise. Nor would it have been an accident. He would have set out to kill the bomber if that's what he believed it would take to stop him. Killing on purpose with no remorse because that's the option that seemed best at the time.[/quote']

I would then suggest that Morningstar is not as moral a character as he might otherwise be. There's nothing wrong with playing a character with less than the highest moral standards. If he has non-lethal options at his disposal (and if he's an experienced hero, there's no reason why he couldn't if he wanted to) and still chooses to kill, then that's his choice. It may not be the most moral option, but it's good enough for him.

 

I agree that it shouldn't be the character's ONLY possible answer, but why have a disad if it's not limiting at some point? I believe it's very important for the GM to test the limits of the character's disadvantages in order to justify their existance. If you never put a CvK hero in a position where death might be an option then how is it a disadvantage? Granted, he should not feel forced to kill, but the repurcussions of his actions might not be what he expected.

We aren't in disagreement here. I agree it's quite useful to explore these sorts of issues in play -- so long as the player is not railroaded. Certainly the GM is well within his rights to present scenarios where killing is the most expedient solution. That doesn't make it the best solution, and it certainly shouldn't make it the only solution.

 

Let's say through the course of combat a character accidentally lets a bad guy get into a potential hostage situation, and that said bad guy is perfectly willing to die a martyr and kill his hostages. Would the CvK hero allow this to happen? Negotiations won't work--the bad guy is a loon and is just waiting for the right time to "die for his cause". The CvK hero is the only one around who could possibly stop him, and there's no way to ensure a non-lethal solution. Does he take the shot?

You've presented the same false dichotomy again. Why is there no way to ensure a non-lethal solution? You've just railroaded the player with the CvK, most especially if he's purchased non-lethal attacks on his character sheet.

 

But not every character should have to choose one of those options. Even a brick might accidentally kill someone if he hits him hard enough. Use half-strength and hit him with only 6d6, an average of 6 BODY. Not lethal, right? But what if you get a freak roll of all sixes. A normal person with 2 PD and 10 BODY is dead. It's an option, and it should be played as such with no expectation of GM interference. So how does that CvK brick handle it? That's where real role playing comes in.

A CvK brick who kills by accident, has killed by accident. Accidental deaths are fair game and great roleplaying fodder. Not every character needs to take non-lethal options, but I should expect that any player who takes a CvK for his character should be thinking about them.

 

----

 

Regarding Ghandi and people like him -- they are not superheroes. They do not have to face choices like the mad bomber scenario. Even so, if Ghandi were in the room with the mad bomber and the only one able to stop him, I expect Ghandi would have acted. He might not have shot the man, but he would have acted -- possibly to the extent of giving up his own life to save the others.

[Zed-F]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

And to be fair, any use of force to subdue a target has some risk, however small, of killing that target. Even a taser can kill if the target has a weak heart, and beating someone unconscious is very serious outside of fiction and role-playing games. Whenever a Hero uses force, he has decided that the need to stop the target is sufficient to justify that risk.

 

That's why I rarely build characters with Codes versus Killing. A Total CvK calls into question why the character has decided to try to fight crime by hitting people in the first place.

A superhero with a military background or who worked in homicide could easily have seen enough death in his line of work and decide to try a different approach that still draws on the skills he acquired previously. It seems a reasonably natural progression for a world with superheroes, all things considered.

 

I try to avoid total CvKs as well, but a Strong CvK wouldn't seem out of line, and if he mostly uses non-lethal methods, he should generally be successful at avoiding causing further deaths. Accidents can still happen, but they would be the exception.

[OddHat]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

A superhero with a military background or who worked in homicide could easily have seen enough death in his line of work and decide to try a different approach that still draws on the skills he acquired previously. It seems a reasonably natural progression for a world with superheroes, all things considered.

 

I try to avoid total CvKs as well, but a Strong CvK wouldn't seem out of line, and if he mostly uses non-lethal methods, he should generally be successful at avoiding causing further deaths. Accidents can still happen, but they would be the exception.

 

I generally agree with the above, but I would point out that there is no approach using force that can completely eliminate the risk of killing the target (except in game-terms, where we know that NNDs really can't kill). If you're reluctant to kill, hate killing, do not want to kill, you can still be a hero. If you're totally dedicated to avoiding any risk to human life, you shouldn't be trying to use force to settle problems, protect the innocent, or up-hold the law.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

...

There's so much avoidance of the actual question and altering of given circumstance in your reply that I don't know where to start a rebuttal, so I'll agree to disagree on the topic of morality. We're just seriously not on the same page.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

You know, on second though nevermind.

[Zed-F]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

There's so much avoidance of the actual question and altering of given circumstance in your reply that I don't know where to start a rebuttal' date=' so I'll agree to disagree on the topic of morality. We're just seriously not on the same page.[/quote']

Perhaps not, since I don't generally consider the 'what if there were no option other than to deliberately kill' question to be valid for a person who is unwilling to kill. Unless the situation is extremely contrived, there's always other options, even if they aren't the most certain or expedient ones. Some of those options will carry the risk of causing death or of failure, but that's not the same thing as deliberately killing or being a moral coward.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Perhaps not' date=' since I don't generally consider the 'what if there were no option other than to deliberately kill' question to be valid for a person who is unwilling to kill. Unless the situation is extremely contrived, there's always other options, even if they aren't the most certain or expedient ones. Some of those options will carry the risk of causing death or of failure, but that's not the same thing as deliberately killing or being a moral coward.[/quote']

Meh.

[CSgeekHero]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

Not lateset:

http://theages.superman.ws/welcome.php

http://batman.superman.ws/welcome.php

 

Thanks for the excellent link

 

There are several things competeing with US comics today:

MP3 players, Internet, hand-held videogame(Gameboy, PSP, etc.), DVD's

 

I remember back to the late 80's early 90's, just before the World Wide Web. We had the Nintendo and Sega Genesis, hand-held football games that had little red dashes for players, walkman's, and VCRs. While they don't compare to what's out there today, they did eat up a lot of my time because they were hot items.

 

So, I think of effects on decline in this order: price, tone/content, the internet( a distant third ).

 

I don't accept defining all this out of the Champions genre as just bunk/stupid/whatever.

 

I wouldn't want it pushed out either. The problem I have is that when it comes to killing in today's comics, there is seems to be a sense of nonchalantness towards offing a character. That includes getting rid of heroes that may not fit where the writers/artists/editors want to take that particular title.

 

For example, what happened to Blue Beetle in DC comics.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Why Kill At All?

 

A superhero with a military background or who worked in homicide could easily have seen enough death in his line of work and decide to try a different approach that still draws on the skills he acquired previously. It seems a reasonably natural progression for a world with superheroes, all things considered.

 

I try to avoid total CvKs as well, but a Strong CvK wouldn't seem out of line, and if he mostly uses non-lethal methods, he should generally be successful at avoiding causing further deaths. Accidents can still happen, but they would be the exception.

I suspect the majority of Champions characters have some level of CvK. As has been pointed out previously, any level of physical violence can plausibly result in death. If you hit a man hard enough to knock him out, you might either just kill him outright or he might fall and hit his head on the curb. This has happened even IRL between men just having a minor scuffle. It's still manslaughter.

 

Hero allows characters to dish out 6 - 8d6 hits on mooks with reasonable safety because damage results in Hero are far more predictable in general than they are in real life. Plus, of course, the mooks can be built to survive hits by metahumans simply by ramping up their BODY a few points. In my first Dark Champions game last weekend, my character Justicar (who is a Roman Catholic priest in Secret ID and has Total CvK) was rather stunned when he hit a gang member with his "puny" 8d6 EB (he even spread it to do only 6d6) and literally hospitalized the kid. Me too, because I've been playing so long in a regular Champions campaign where 8d6 is the smallest attack in the game that I forgot normals are far more fragile than what we usually fight.