Should Heros Kill?

[Killer Cyborg]

I am all for the death penalty.
I simply love movies like Boondock Saints, The Crow, and Deathwish, where criminals are executed by vigilantes.
But I also have an incredibly high amount of respect for Superman, Captain America, and the other heroes who hold life sacred and refuse to kill villians no matter how vile that villian is.
Even as a kid, I kind of thought that Cap was a wimp and a boyscout... but he's not a wimp for not killing and the world needs boyscouts.


Once, when Vash the Stampede and his brother Knives were little kids, they saw a butterfly caught in a spider's web. Vash wanted to save the butterfly, so Knives killed the spider. Vash got really upset. He wanted to save the butterfly, but he did not want the spider to die. He wanted them both to live. Knives claims that if he saved the butterfly, then the spider would either eat a different butterfly, or the spider would starve. There is no way to save everybody.
Vash believed that there must be a way.
The entire series of Trigun is just this same theme explored in a number of ways. Vash tries to save victims without killing those that prey on them.
He's got the skill and superhuman abilities to do it too, most of the time.
Unlike most comic books (any comics that I know of), the series Trigun explores the price that is paid for the heroic semi-pacifism of refusing to kill one's enemies.
There are times in the series where people die as a result of Vash's refusal to kill, and he has to make that hard choice over and over again.
Spider or butterfly.
He almost always chooses both.

So my questions are, how do you feel about heroes that refuse to kill? How do you feel about heroes who choose killing as a primary form of crime-prevention? Is there an ideal middle-ground?
When you get down to it, should heroes kill their enemies?

[Sentinel]

I feel that there is an ideal middle ground for death and killing for super-heroes.
To me, series like Punisher and Wolverine go to an extreme I don't like.
Hero teams like the Avengers, who (used to have) Gov't privilages should be able to exercise deadly force with the same guidelines as the FBI for example. Private groups like the FF can make their personal determinations about life, while a military sponsored and sanctioned hero (or group) ought to be able to execute Extreme Predjudice in the field without an alighnment change as long as it was during the execution of their duties and not just personal.

I don't think that the Punisher is an evil man (he doesn't kill cops that he doesn't know for a fact are corrupt, nor will he pass by and let someone in need go unaided), but he is a man who simply isn't a hero: I can relate to him, but I can't look up to him.
I can look up to Cap: he has high ideals and standards; he is the picture of something to aspire to, to reach for, to want to be like because he is better than the average person. He doesn't give in to his base human nature: he rises above it. He leaves certain matters for courts to decide, when anyone else would've just killed the dastardly fiend.
Even the Red Skull once said " I hate you Captain, for being more good than I am evil".

I like that in Palladium, a hero can "kill or subdue" their opponent and not lose out on experience. Even a Principled Paladin can kill his opponent in fair combat, and he shouldn't be dropped in alignment (necessarily: there might be mitigating circumstances).

[Cardiac]

So my questions are, how do you feel about heroes that refuse to kill? How do you feel about heroes who choose killing as a primary form of crime-prevention? Is there an ideal middle-ground?
When you get down to it, should heroes kill their enemies?

Depends on the crime. Most criminals out there? Beat em up and turn em in to the authorities.

Someone like the Joker (a mass-murdering psycopath)? Put a bullet (or super-powered fist) through his head. Actually - put several in there just to be sure.

[ApocalypseZero]

I am sort of having a problem like this in my game right now. i have 4 players, 2 willing to Kill, 2 not. Of the 2 that are not, one doesn't do so because of the alignment slip and not because he doesn't want to, but I do let him know that by 'accidentally' killing someone, it's beyond his control (super strong).

Where as I am not opposed to Kill or Capture, it does seem to strain the game mood if people are split in their decision. If I had a 3:1 ratio (either way), it wouldn't be as bad. Unless you get the hero who seems to borderline villain.

But my personal tastes differ as well. I like the Punisher and Wolverine for their style. And they don't seem to be more of a 'eager to kill' as they seem more 'have to kill', but that could be seen as something in the writing. In a way, I am reminded of an old saying amongst women (and repeated by Jean Grey in X2), "Have fun with the Bad Boys, but end up with the Good Ones."

[Uncle Servo]

There is a balance, yes. I don't necessarily think the "spider and butterfly" analogy is a good one, however, because the spider isn't killing the butterfly out of malice or greed but rather a need to ensure its own survival by feeding on the butterfly.

I feel that using deadly force on villains is justifiable once their crimes reach a certain level where it's obvious that incarceration/rehabilitation is no longer effective and the only way to truly stop them from destroying many more lives is to kill them (Joker is a prime example). However, it should NEVER be the first recourse of anyone who aspires to be considered a "hero." If it is, then you're in truth no better than the scum you square off against.

Also, the character's own alignment is going to have an effect on just whether or not killing is justified. Someone of Principled alignment is only going to take an opponent's life in the most extreme of circumstances, with those circumstances getting less and less extreme as you work your way down the alignment ladder.

[Killer Cyborg]

There is a balance, yes. I don't necessarily think the "spider and butterfly" analogy is a good one, however, because the spider isn't killing the butterfly out of malice or greed but rather a need to ensure its own survival by feeding on the butterfly.

That is true, at least in most cases.
Other than that though, it's a good analogy.
Both criminals and spiders kill/harm because it is their nature.
(Although some criminals can be reformed)

[VR Dragon]

I also fall into the "Kill only when nothing else is an option" for my heros. I am a major Superman fan. I love how that given his powers he could splater a villan with a glance or a offhanded backhand, yet he does. Of course I love that part in the JLA tv show where the alternate earth "Justice Lords" Superman labotimized that doomsday looking villian when he crashed on earth.

Scene:
Badguy is on the street giving his "bow down and kiss my A$$" speech when evil superman shoots his eyebeams at the jerk's head. Badguy says something like "Foolish human, your powers cannot hurt me! I am um... blah.." as his speech trails off into a drooling babbling stuper, two little holes burned into his forhead. Stunned the crowed then they cheered.

I have a hero who tried to avoid lethal force on badguys, but when protecting and innoccent, self defense, or left with no other choice.... Badguy sucks full powered energy blasts.

The formula is simple.

Shoot to stop them. (leg shots, arm shots, hands or feet.)
Shoot to maim.( Blow off legs or arms.)
Shoot to kill. (Blow off head or blow through mainbody.)

[Sentinel]

So my questions are, how do you feel about heroes that refuse to kill? How do you feel about heroes who choose killing as a primary form of crime-prevention? Is there an ideal middle-ground?
When you get down to it, should heroes kill their enemies?

Depends on the crime. Most criminals out there? Beat em up and turn em in to the authorities.

Someone like the Joker (a mass-murdering psycopath)? Put a bullet (or super-powered fist) through his head. Actually - put several in there just to be sure.

I have to wonder why the State hasn't ordered his execution already. To my line of thinking, Batman isn't as much at fault as the Gotham and State legal system (what ever state Gotham is in). I think any jury in the country if faced with a criminal of the Jokers' Status would give him the chair.

[Sentinel]

So my questions are, how do you feel about heroes that refuse to kill? How do you feel about heroes who choose killing as a primary form of crime-prevention? Is there an ideal middle-ground?
When you get down to it, should heroes kill their enemies?

Depends on the crime. Most criminals out there? Beat em up and turn em in to the authorities.

Someone like the Joker (a mass-murdering psycopath)? Put a bullet (or super-powered fist) through his head. Actually - put several in there just to be sure.

I have to wonder why the State hasn't ordered his execution already. To my line of thinking, Batman isn't as much at fault as the Gotham and State legal system (what ever state Gotham is in). I think any jury in the country if faced with a criminal of the Jokers' Status would give him the chair.

Have they stated whether whatever state Gotham is in has the death penalty?

Haven't other criminals in Gotham gotten the chair?
It gets easy to mix them up after a while.
I seem to recall a Batman Villain who was sentenced but somehow survived.

[Killer Cyborg]

In the case of the spider however, Mother Nature doesn't have rules that say you can't eat butterflies.

Only because she doesn't have her own comic book yet...

[Killer Cyborg]

So my questions are, how do you feel about heroes that refuse to kill? How do you feel about heroes who choose killing as a primary form of crime-prevention? Is there an ideal middle-ground?
When you get down to it, should heroes kill their enemies?

Depends on the crime. Most criminals out there? Beat em up and turn em in to the authorities.

Someone like the Joker (a mass-murdering psycopath)? Put a bullet (or super-powered fist) through his head. Actually - put several in there just to be sure.

I have to wonder why the State hasn't ordered his execution already. To my line of thinking, Batman isn't as much at fault as the Gotham and State legal system (what ever state Gotham is in). I think any jury in the country if faced with a criminal of the Jokers' Status would give him the chair.

Have they stated whether whatever state Gotham is in has the death penalty?

Haven't other criminals in Gotham gotten the chair?
It gets easy to mix them up after a while.
I seem to recall a Batman Villain who was sentenced but somehow survived.

Gotham is based, I believe, on Chicago... which I further believe would mean that they do have the death penalty.

[Sentinel]

So my questions are, how do you feel about heroes that refuse to kill? How do you feel about heroes who choose killing as a primary form of crime-prevention? Is there an ideal middle-ground?
When you get down to it, should heroes kill their enemies?

Depends on the crime. Most criminals out there? Beat em up and turn em in to the authorities.

Someone like the Joker (a mass-murdering psycopath)? Put a bullet (or super-powered fist) through his head. Actually - put several in there just to be sure.

I have to wonder why the State hasn't ordered his execution already. To my line of thinking, Batman isn't as much at fault as the Gotham and State legal system (what ever state Gotham is in). I think any jury in the country if faced with a criminal of the Jokers' Status would give him the chair.

Have they stated whether whatever state Gotham is in has the death penalty?

Haven't other criminals in Gotham gotten the chair?
It gets easy to mix them up after a while.
I seem to recall a Batman Villain who was sentenced but somehow survived.

Gotham is based, I believe, on Chicago... which I further believe would mean that they do have the death penalty.

At one time, Metropolis and Gotham were separated by Suicide Slum. They seemed to be different sides of New York, and in time got further apart.
I would be willing to bet that the only people who knew exactly where they where are now all dead (Otto Binder, Gardner Fox, Julius Swartz, etc).

[Killer Cyborg]

I always thought of Gotham in the north east, like Boston or something. There was some comic I saw where they were taking off or something from Gotham and you could see it was in New England.
The architecture (gothic) would indicate New England as well. But I'm nowhere near enough of a batman expert to know.

According to Wikipedia it's New York or Philadelphia and was envisioned as a seedy part of New York...

In terms of how Gotham City's atmosphere is usually depicted, it has been said by some that, metaphorically, Metropolis (home to Superman) is "New York during the day," and Gotham is "New York at night." This comparison is helped by the fact that Metropolis is more often seen during the day, and Gotham more at night. Longtime Batman writer and editor Dennis O'Neil has also said figuratively that Metropolis is New York above 14th St., and that Gotham City is New York below 14th St. Within the comics themselves, however, New York, Metropolis and Gotham City all exist as separate cities.

Huh.
I heard (I forget where) that Gotham was Chicago and Metropolis was New York.

[Nekira Sudacne]

So my questions are, how do you feel about heroes that refuse to kill? How do you feel about heroes who choose killing as a primary form of crime-prevention? Is there an ideal middle-ground?
When you get down to it, should heroes kill their enemies?

Depends on the crime. Most criminals out there? Beat em up and turn em in to the authorities.

Someone like the Joker (a mass-murdering psycopath)? Put a bullet (or super-powered fist) through his head. Actually - put several in there just to be sure.

I have to wonder why the State hasn't ordered his execution already. To my line of thinking, Batman isn't as much at fault as the Gotham and State legal system (what ever state Gotham is in). I think any jury in the country if faced with a criminal of the Jokers' Status would give him the chair.

I don't know about the comics, but in the (actually pretty good) batman cartoon they ran, Joker never got the chair because he was certifiablly insane, and so always plead the insanity defence in court, and so was always sentanced back to Gotham Asylum where he always broke out....

[Sentinel]

I always thought of Gotham in the north east, like Boston or something. There was some comic I saw where they were taking off or something from Gotham and you could see it was in New England.
The architecture (gothic) would indicate New England as well. But I'm nowhere near enough of a batman expert to know.

According to Wikipedia it's New York or Philadelphia and was envisioned as a seedy part of New York...

In terms of how Gotham City's atmosphere is usually depicted, it has been said by some that, metaphorically, Metropolis (home to Superman) is "New York during the day," and Gotham is "New York at night." This comparison is helped by the fact that Metropolis is more often seen during the day, and Gotham more at night. Longtime Batman writer and editor Dennis O'Neil has also said figuratively that Metropolis is New York above 14th St., and that Gotham City is New York below 14th St. Within the comics themselves, however, New York, Metropolis and Gotham City all exist as separate cities.

Huh.
I heard (I forget where) that Gotham was Chicago and Metropolis was New York.

If Batmans' parents were killed in Suicide Slum, and Superman fought a character called Sleez in Suicide Slum, then the two cities must be close.
But, it is never consistant.

[JTwig]

I always thought of Gotham in the north east, like Boston or something. There was some comic I saw where they were taking off or something from Gotham and you could see it was in New England.
The architecture (gothic) would indicate New England as well. But I'm nowhere near enough of a batman expert to know.

According to Wikipedia it's New York or Philadelphia and was envisioned as a seedy part of New York...

In terms of how Gotham City's atmosphere is usually depicted, it has been said by some that, metaphorically, Metropolis (home to Superman) is "New York during the day," and Gotham is "New York at night." This comparison is helped by the fact that Metropolis is more often seen during the day, and Gotham more at night. Longtime Batman writer and editor Dennis O'Neil has also said figuratively that Metropolis is New York above 14th St., and that Gotham City is New York below 14th St. Within the comics themselves, however, New York, Metropolis and Gotham City all exist as separate cities.

Huh.
I heard (I forget where) that Gotham was Chicago and Metropolis was New York.

If Batmans' parents were killed in Suicide Slum, and Superman fought a character called Sleez in Suicide Slum, then the two cities must be close.
But, it is never consistant.

I once read an interveiw by one of the Batman creators (sorry don't remember which one), and in it he said that Gotham was a combination of New York and Chicago, but in his mind it was more Chicago than New York.

[Sentinel]

I once read an interveiw by one of the Batman creators (sorry don't remember which one),

Either Bob Kane or Bill Finger.
I vaguely recall that one myself.

[Glistam]

I don't believe heroes should deliberately take another's life. A hero should be trying to uphold the law and protect others. It's not their place to be the judge, jury and executioner.

There are certainly characters in comics who believe in death for those who they feel "deserve it." But to me they are certainly less of a hero than those who uphold the value and sanctity of life.

[Snowtiger]

True heroes are not executioners, as they realize that life, no matter how rotten and evil it may make the bad guys, is still a valuable thing and killing a bad guy just because he is evil is not the right thing to do, because sometimes being left alive is far more worse than getting killed. And as we have not yet devised a way to prevent it from happening naturally, it's usually just a final relief instead of being a punishment for his evil deeds.

There's also a plus in the heroes not killing the bad guys, from the gaming POV, as a GM you never run out of bad guys and can improve on them and introduce new aspects of evil on them, when they make a comeback. Sure if you want to, you could still create henchmen and stuff to act as cannon fodder for the heroes, but at least you can be sure that the bad guy behind the scenes lives to make the hero's life miserable another day.

[sinestus]

any closet psychopath or guy that got picked on as a kid can kill...

most players (IMO) get off on killing 'cause gaming lets them do all the stuff they don't get to do in real life...
thus the dungeon crawl of the old days lets them kill, pillage, and the like... and the modern gaming lets them kill and destroy while still claiming to be the good guy...

it's easy to play a guy who does something for the "greater good" and being just as bad as the people they stop... you just gotta let go of inhibitions and blast away...

the challenge comes from rising above all that.

[Thinyser]

A (wise?) Texan once said "He needed killin' "

There are people who are evil to the core and the world (fictional or real) is a better place with them dead.

I think this often applies to villains in RPGs as well as all child molesters in real life...

Some people just "need killin' "...

[Qev]

As far as I'm concerned, in the Real World, while killing in defense of oneself or others may sometimes be necessary, the death penalty (ie. killing the incarcerated) is always wrong...

But this is a game.

Really it all depends on the character being played, and the atmosphere of the game itself. The 'truly heroic' character, I don't think, would kill unless that was the last resort necessary to save the lives of the innocent. After all, a 'true hero' aspires to a higher ideal... otherwise, they begin to cross that line between themselves and those they strive to thwart.

Once a hero starts meting out punishment, they stop being a 'hero' and become more of a 'vigilante'. Though, of course, to the people they protect and save, they're still heroes.

[Sir_Spirit]

It also should be noted that Arkham is a fictional region created by H.P. Lovecraft in the Miskatonic (also fictional) valley in New England.
Since all types of scary stuff tended to come out of Arkham they used the name for the asylum in gotham, which adds to the sensation that its in the NE US.

Except for it having the Statue of Liberty, and being shown to be an manhattenesue Island in the No Mans' Land storyline.

[Prince Artemis]

just a few things, in the manga it was actually knives that wanted to save both and vash was the one that di the speil about nessicary death, that struck a cord deep in knives and that's why he went nuts. When he went nuts vash beats himself up over it and swears never to use that methodology again.

This is common in anime though as a similar 'idea' reversal happens alot, most noticably is kikashi's never leave a man behind idealism which was not what he beleived when he was young but i won't spoil what happened there.

Also, in the bat man cartoon series batman eventually does kill the joker after the joker kidnapped the second robin and brainwashed him to be joker junior. It wasn't pretty.

[Overlord Rikonius]

To Me, it depends on what the villain does and what he will do again.

Kill the guy who steals improbably sized diamonds from the GOtham Museum of Easily Stealable Art? No, of course not.

Kill the guy who just blew up an office building with his death ray after getting out of Easily Escapable Comic Book Prison for the nth time? Yeah. At some point, if a superhero keeps capturing a villain and the villain keeps getting out and killing more innocent people, you reach a point where the hero has to know that arresting the guy means more innocent people die later.

How many times has Batman arrested Joker? How many times has Joker killed innocent people? Now, had Batman just snapped the Joker's scrawny neck a few years back, all of those people Joker killed would be alive. So, once the pattern of catch/escape/killing spree becomes apparent, every decision point where the hero decides to arrest instead of kill means many innocent people will die.

[KillWatch]

Superman stopping a mugger and turning himover fine.
Superman knowing that anyone one of his villains espescially lex is going to kill again on awhim but does nothing = stupid if not neglegent

Said it before, I blame every murder after say the 10th one committed by Lex or Joker on Supes and Batman.

say I had a sister in gotham. Despite my pleadings for her to get out of Gotham because there are plenty of psychos running around, she stays. Everytime Joker escapes I worry. Everytime he kills yet another mass of people, I worry. But somehow she manages to live. Then it happens. Joker deep fries everyone from the KFC she was working at to avenge the poor ghost chickens that came to him for vengeance and would not stop clucking until he's done so

who am I going to blame?
the cops Sure but their hands are tied
the system yeah
but mroe so the "vigilante" who isn't so vigilant or just who does the equivalent of tsk tsk and puts him in a hotel room called arkham

or how about Lex
say my brother worked for lex corp as an accountant
he stumbles onto soemthing seriously wrong with soem of the numbers and finds out Lexcorp is buying massive amounts of nuclear weapons and stashing them in a South American country for a small price of a couple armaments. He's never heard from again and now my life is ruined as Lex is trying to find out if he told anyone and to kill anyone who has better than an even chance of knowing, me, my deep fried sister, his wife and children, etc
who do I blame?
Lawyers that keep him from going to jail sure
Superman who knows damn well he is going to try and kill him and anyone else he may feel he needs to

Heroes?
not even close in my book. They are about as effectual as Forbush man Gee thanks for all those nifty morals that do a whole bunch of nothing for me or my family

the guys who CAN do soemthing don't , and I believe there is a quote about that
something like Evil wins when good men do nothing

[Grey Death]

While I totally agree with you (Montague). Take Batman as an example. Part of his thing is he doesn't kill people (ya theirs been some exceptions, but in general). The rationalization being that if he kills them hes no better than them. Kind of makes me think of the line. With great power comes great responsibility. This is the price of being a hero. Much like being a sports star you set an example children/people by your actions. Not to mention polices primary purpose is to arrest criminals. Not execute them. With that say though I am very much in the punishers camp of vigilantism. Myself I consider vigilantes and superheros in two distictive groups. Both operating in different ways. Superman, ect should try to bring the criminal to justice. They represent more than justice, they also represent morality, goodness. While vigilantes represent justice in more of a real world context. Personally I think they should not mix (with exceptions, I have a really sweet punisher/batman crossover). Example I hate seeing super hero/villains in punisher comics. Bugs me.

[Overlord Rikonius]

Example I hate seeing super hero/villains in punisher comics. Bugs me.

I dunno about that. The Spider-Man cameo was great.
"Ugh, what happened?" (Spider-Man after being used as a human shield to block the Russian's punches)
"We had a team-up. You were great!"

[KillWatch]

that was good the russian

anyhow
Where I can see superman trying to be an Icon Batman has never "tried" to be a kiddy role model. He was made to inspire fear. What fear of him am I going to have if I know he's only going to send me up the river. hell even if I fire on him he's still going to take me in alive. Beat up but alive. Big whoop

as for superman you got someone who is a slave to the system. Why fear him? With a good enough lawyer why should I worry about him?

in the criminal world they are both jokes

[KillWatch]

but hasn't he tried to kill doomsday? when he thought he lost Lois to Darkseid didn't he try to kill him?

[Qev]

but hasn't he tried to kill doomsday? when he thought he lost Lois to Darkseid didn't he try to kill him?

There was also the end of Kingdom Come... but grief and rage can make one do things one might not even consider otherwise.

I think the Doomsday scenario was one of those 'no other choice' instances... though why he didn't just uppercut the spiny jerk into orbit is well beyond me...

[KillWatch]

isn't in grief and rage exactly WHEN You are suppose to exert self control?

and what constitutes as no other choice?

joker will get out and he will kill again
Luthor will avoid punishment and escape and kill again

Doomesday has been chained up and put into a capsule and left alone

[Killer Cyborg]

joker will get out and he will kill again
Luthor will avoid punishment and escape and kill again

Realistically, they wouldn't do that though.
The only reason why the Joker and Lex Luthor constantly escape is because the writers (and fans) want them to.

[Borast]

KC...personally, in certain cases I am all for the Death Penalty ... killing a cop, for instance.

As for whether or not a hero should kill...when ever possible...no. If there literally is no other choice...it's called justifiable homicide for a reason. However, if the hero has "come upon" a situation and has not seen it from the start, then no. Some cops in the US came upon a costume party a couple of years ago. One of the party goers was dresses in a gun-man constume and brandishing his toy gun. The cop shot him dead through the window without even attempting to understand the scene. As you may suspect, the shooting was determined to be "justified."

But, even Superman has killed...deliberately ended the life of a sentient being...three to be exact.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC...personally, in certain cases I am all for the Death Penalty ... killing a cop, for instance.

I'll assume that you mean that you're for the death penalty for people who kill cops....

[Gomen_Nagai]

everytime a hero saves someone, he wins.
everytime a hero stops a foe, he wins.
everytime a hero fails to stop a foe, he tries again.
everytime a hero kills someone, he loses.

sometimes, even heroes lose.

note: it applies also to female heroes:lol:

I disagree. Aeon Flux is a hero, and she Kills Waves of faceless enemies and Assasins are often societies GREATEST heroes. ...

[Killer Cyborg]

I disagree. Aeon Flux is a hero, and she Kills Waves of faceless enemies and Assasins are often societies GREATEST heroes.

Aeon Flux! that's a long a time since I heard of her...

You haven't heard about the upcoming movie, then?

however

I didn't say heroes don't kill, but that when a hero kills he/she has lost that battle. For there is hope for anyone to do something good if they are alive...
sometimes comes that odd adventure where a villain teams up with a hero to go against a greater evil, and the support of the villain is fundamental to win.
or a villain alone does something good, saves someone, even within a twisted logic.
if they were killed they couldn't do it.

comes to mind doctor doom or venom. they are two of my favourite characters. They did countless evil things, but some good things, too.

said that, we are talking about fictional characters, in a real world...

For that matter, there are a number of heroes who are reformed villians.
If Hawkeye had been killed, for example, then the Marvel Universe would be short one of its better, more interesting characters.

[Killer Cyborg]

Aeon Flux is a hero, and she Kills Waves of faceless enemies and Assasins are often societies GREATEST heroes. ...

How is Aeon Flux a hero?

[KillWatch]

1) Hawkeye
Um was he anywhere near the level of joker doomsday luthor doom carnage? no

2) Aeon Flux
Hero: KIlled many, saved an entire civilization from oppression and freed them=hero

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Aeon Flux is a hero, and she Kills Waves of faceless enemies and Assasins are often societies GREATEST heroes. ...

How is Aeon Flux a hero?

about the same lines as punisher and characters along that lines

[KillWatch]

No. I disagree. Aeon was fighting a battle against a specific foe and once that foe was done she was done. For her it's a mission. a one shot. For him it's a job. I got the feeling that She does it because she has to. Punisher does it because he wants to

I don't know how closely the movies follows the comic books. but the Liquid Television version well I just didn't understand. IT was trippy and interesting but I gave up trying to find a plot other than her gunning down hundreds of foot soldiers

[Killer Cyborg]

Aeon Flux is a hero, and she Kills Waves of faceless enemies and Assasins are often societies GREATEST heroes. ...

How is Aeon Flux a hero?

about the same lines as punisher and characters along that lines

She was shooting criminals?

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't know how closely the movies follows the comic books. but the Liquid Television version well I just didn't understand. IT was trippy and interesting but I gave up trying to find a plot other than her gunning down hundreds of foot soldiers

Agreed. Hence my puzzlement.
I didn't know that there was a plot beyond that.

[dark brandon]

I'm going to go with a hero will kill when nessissary, and when the punishment fits the crime.

I don't see a hero killing someone for robbing a bank, but I don't see them letting someone who has killed letting them go.

A hero to me will only kill when they have to. I dont' see a hero playing judge, jury and execution constantly on the spot.

For example, he'll kill a villain he watched kill someone in cold blood or something of that nature (Such as the joker actually admitting to killing). I do not see them killing someone who 'may have' killed someone. He will try and bring him in to justice.

[Sentinel]

I don't think Heroes should kill necessarily.
But, I feel that are situations which may necessitate it.
It Captain Mar-Vell (Kree) and Super-Skrull were going at it for their respective races and empires, and neither was backing down, someone is going to get killed (most likely Mar-Vell).
In WWII, I doubt that Human Torch, Sub-Mariner, and Captain America avoided every possible occurance where some enemy soldier was killed (Torch downed planes, Namor crippled sea-going ships and submarines, etc), but war-time is different than peacetime, and when your opponent won't back down, it's likely they will be killed in the heat of battle.

That said, it's different than cold-bloodedly executing them after they have been defeated.
Heroes might have to kill: Heroes should never murder.

[Killer Cyborg]

Heroes might have to kill: Heroes should never murder.

Interesting.

[Sir_Spirit]

Hero's may have to kill, in times of duress, such as war, for instance.


And Superman only "killed" those three due to writers fiat. And his later writers made of point of him having to see a therapist due to that incident and they then had him reject his actions then but NOT killing aguy he KNEW had killed Lois.
It turned out she wasn't dead but that the villian was trying to get superman to kill him and then find out that Lois was alive. Believing that this would "break" Superman.

[Gomen_Nagai]

further along the Killing Heroes bit...

in the movie HERO, the main character kills dozens, Conspires to kill the empire that killed his family, conspires to kill the assasins to get close to the emperor.. Only to finally realize that one strong nation was better then settling vendettas for fallen kingdoms.. and commits "Assisted suicide" by letting the king's guards kill him.

As for Aeon flux, She was a member of the monaccans, an order of assasins created to fight for all that was once lost, Living in an enclosed society where super computers and mad scientists ran things, finds out the truth behind matters and realizes to save the society she needed to destroy the system.

[Killer Cyborg]

further along the Killing Heroes bit...

in the movie HERO, the main character...

How about you don't spoil the movie for people who haven't seen it?

[Gomen_Nagai]

Pft. if you haven't seen hero by now it's your own fault, that movie has been out for years. YEARS.