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

[S7Michelle]

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

 

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

 

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

 

1. The criminal

 

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

 

or

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

or

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

or

 

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

 

or

 

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

 

Addition:

 

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

[wylodmayer]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Balabanto]

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

 

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

 

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

[input.jack]

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[nexus]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[McCoy]

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

 

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

[KarinsDad]

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

 

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

[David Johnston]

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

 

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

[BcAugust]

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

 

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

 

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

[Blue Jogger]

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

 

Ultimatium: (if in his non-hunting mode)

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

 

(if in his alien alter-ego hunting a mass-murderer)

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

 

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

[Checkmate]

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

 

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

[Spidey88]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[assault]

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

 

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

[Lord Mhoram]

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

[saiyanslayer]

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

 

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

[Kevin Schultz]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[SatinKitty]

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

 

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

 

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

[nexus]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Guest steamteck]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Alverant]

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

 

Assault: "If you kill him' date=' I'm taking [b']you[/b] in for his murder."

 

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

 

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

[Pyre-Archer]

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

 

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

 

And if he has some sort of 'detect sin/evil/guilt' power:

"I'm sorry, but are you on drugs? You do realize you could use that power to make the system better. Be a judge, or an attorney. You could find ways of helping the system without having to fire another bullet, save in self-defense."

 

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

[assault]

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

 

How would Assault feel about that?

 

Relaxed and comfortable.

[TheRealVector]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Basil]

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

 

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

[SatinKitty]

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

 

True' date=' but some would consider that worse than just killing them.[/quote']

 

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