If you were a superhero, would you have a no kill rule or not?

And how would you limit yourself, if at all? Would you go full Punisher or only kill in extreme cases?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/f14qNOyemck
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

That depends on whether I'm merely Batman-tier or Superman-tier. If the former hell fucking no, because I'm not bulletproof and I can't afford to pull punches. If the latter I'm probably powerful enough that I can find alternatives to killing, so why not?

I would have the same rules as either the army or the police, depending on my power set and who I'm fighting/context.

So, most of the time, I'd only kill as often as a police officer.

Yes, it's a setup..

I'd pull a technical pacifist. Like the first post said, if I'm batman-level then I'm going to cripple the bastards who try to kill me. So basically, I'm a cop.

As long as it's not necessary I won't kill. And I wouldn't hold back in a fight against someone who is dangerous.
I also would probably kill someone like the Joker if his death wouldn't meant to make him into some kind of lunatic messiahs.

For the average criminal, I'd certainly have a no kill rule. But for those who exploit the system and who ultimately harm and/or kill others as a result of exploiting the system, I'd probably just kill them. It's the utilitarian answer, imho.

It depends. Far as random crooks go I'd break their limbs or cripple them depending on the gravity of the crime.
For supervillains I'd give them 2 extra chances, if they escaped and returned to their crimes twice after being put away by me then I wouldn't have any mercy.

It would depend entirely on the world. On how many people die/get hurt even when I do stop the bad guy. On how often bad guys break out of jail to resume their dastardly deeds. On how powerful I am, and how many people like me there are. On how likely the bad guy is to get the death penalty.

no kill rule is dumb, you cant prevent accident and collateral a lot of the time. other than that, kill only for the evilest of bastard that are shielded by normal justice

I have a no-kill policy now. And it's pretty easy to kill people, so it's not like I would need super powers to reveal this moral question.

what about a no rape rule?

Can someone give me the original of that gif, it drives me crazy that there's no splash.

No killing, but after a certain point the grace period has to end.

I would do my best to have a "no kill" rule, but there are circumstances where it isn't possible. It'd be less "no kill" and "be entirely responsible for your actions and understand the weight of consequence."

This.
Common crooks and low level villains deserve a fair chance,but when you start doing 9/11's for shits and giggles and serial killing as an idle animation you gotta be put down.

I'd only kill those who I see no chance in them ever being rehabilitated. the maniac who kill for fun or child rapist or sex traffickers, hardcore drug dealers, you better watch your ass or I'll be cleaning the streets with your entrails. Everyone else go to jail, do your time, don't catch me in a bad mood

that's how i introduce myself...

I wouldn't like it, but I would. The idea that if you commit a crime some unstoppable god is going to bust down your walls and break your neck would prevent far more crimes than I could ever fight on my own. Deterrence is a real thing.

It depends. If I'm an urban vigilante, I'll probably have no choice but to kill or severely injure targets.

If I'm Superman, I would never kill, ever. This is because I have the absolute luxury of not killing. It doesn't mean that it wouldn't hurt opponent, but I'll do everything I can not to kill them. (I'm hardly about to stop the police or the army from killing them, however.)

I assume this question is for Batman-level characters because if you are Superman you can generally avoid killing on virtually every instance.

My system would be:
Beat up muggers/punks and let the police/system handle them.
Kill them if their crime falls on the "multiple murder" scale or anything beyond that like rape or terrorism.
And I'd try to at least recruit people if they could be redeemed, were willing to atone and I had the resources to handle a organization.

Murderers, Rapists, and Pedos all kill anyone else is taken into custody. Also if I cant prove they did it I'll kill them like a dirty politician or well protected drug lord.

Life should be protected whenever possible, and nonlethal or diplomatic solutions should always be sought out.

That said, I refuse to value the life of a supervillain more than the thousands of innocents they endanger. Killing should never be done callously or without exhausting other options, but that may not always work. Obviously it would be better to capture or negotiate, but that can't be relied on 100% of the time.

It shouldn't become an easy thing, or the go-to option though. If i'm doing superhero shit, I'm doing the 'It's okay, I'm here to help!" shtick.

I would kill if i caught them in the act

Would probably kill child molesters.

Totally non lethal until a recurring super arch nemesis villain shows up and ice him right then and there.

Make an example and draw a line in the sand.

only not kill if it were a deconstruction. If not, then would not purposely kill, but wouldn't really care if they were killed in the crossfire. Although I would prioritize saving civilians.

I wouldn't kill, I'd just give them a time out.

...

in space

Why am I even a superhero in the first place and not just a cop with superpowers?

I would murder everyone just in case they think about committing crimes in my city.

Fpbp makes sense for Superman not to kill, but Punisher is human

t. Sentry

same t b h

I would only kill when my eyes turn red.

youtu.be/f14qNOyemck

Depends on how viable the "no kill" rule is.
If the bad guy is capable of hurt me or my loved ones I wouldn't risk.

I'd have either an equal force or one strike rule. For example, Kite Man breaking a window and stealing a pearl necklace doesn't warrant getting shot in the face when I catch him, but the minute he has a body count or is threatening to kill, he's done. But no cold blooded executions if I could help it. One strike rule would be if I do catch the criminal without killing him and he gets out and goes right back to it, then cold blooded execution becomes an option.

For as meh as Civil War was, that "When is it Spider Man's fault?" line is pretty good.

Carry them back to Somalia/Mexico and repeat. If anyone opposes my trafficking as inhumane, I carry them there too.

No kill rules are retarded because in real life you can kill someone by accident by just trying to restrain them, as soon as you use force on someone it might escalate to them dying because they might really kick off or simply fall over and crack their head.

I'd have the same policy as I do in real life: only use force on someone if they are physically threatening someone and use as much force is needed to end the threat. Any prick like the Joker who keeps escaping prison can be ruled as in a constant state of physically threatening others though, if the state won't permanently stop him from hurting others then I'm already a vigilante so might as well be me.

There's really only one way to save the world.

no because that's moronic. But I would follow the laws of the land and kill only in self defense or in defense of others.
But it's a moot point. If I had superpowers and decided to se them I'd end up as part of some police force, or part of some other officially sanctioned organization.
The idea of the independent superhero is comic bullshit.
Unless I have some kind of power that allows me to act without showing myself, like powerful psychic powers or flash level speed, but in that case I wouldn't be a superhero, there wouldn't be any name or identity or costume to asssociate the things I do to. People wouldn't know if they are done by a single person by multiple people or just some force of nature or they're just random.
Again, superheroes are comic bullshit.

knowing myself I would end up going full justice lord fairly quickly

I'd have an only-kill rule. Only engage with villains who I intend to kill. If I help you, someone else is dying.

Honorable Rogue 4 life.

This guy knows what's up.

I'd be going all out, killing human traffickers, drug king pins, ISIS cells, you name it.
The average drug dealer/low-level stooge? I'd turn them in to the cops.

Isn't this a subjective matter?

If I was a hero, if someone really couldn't stop being a threat to the public and killed at every opportunity, then I'd probably off him. Then again, if it was someone who was insane and had no control over themselves, I'd try and get them some help.

I wouldn't kill jobbers or clearly insane villains who are manageable. Psychopaths with a blood lust, irredeemable shits, and villains for the sake of villainy/edge are free game though.

I would kill exactly half the people on the planet.
There are way too many humans.

...

Absolutely, because I live in a state with the death penalty so I have no problem leaving that up to a judge

Here's the thing.

Superheroes with a "no kill" rule still kill people. The people they kill though, are small fry. Henchmen. Miscellaneous, accidental, whoops-he-dead-but-it-doesn't-matter unimportant people.

But for some absurd reason they choose to draw the line at killing THE BIG BADS. The villains with bodycounts in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Because this would be somehow morally wrong.

>Superheroes with a "no kill" rule still kill people.

You should try reading comics sometime, user. Many of them are quite entertaining.

I'm leaning towards, 'as an absolute last resort' level (I.E Superman, good/competent Cops). There's no reason to kill a person who either isn't an immediate threat to my life or the lives of others. Throwing cat-burglars, pot dealers, and Condiment King into the Sun is basically murder, on top of being completely disproportional

But if a person proved such a threat that incarcerating/institutionalizing them for any length of time was proven impossible, and they kill people, they might require a firmer hand. All things said, I'd want to defer the the proper authorities, be it state, federal, or international, when it comes to whether killing was an option or not. But that's assuming said authorities are a little more sensible than they are in most cape comics; for my government's flaws IRL, I think they'd put the Jokers and Carnages of society out of commission a lot more expediently.

Are there any heroes who take this kind of stance? I'm curious.

Pft. If I had powers I'd be a fucking warlord.

Only kill if the situation actually calls for and would use judgement like an actually goddamn human being. Also, any super villain that escapes and kills again gets the axe.
Finally, someone gets it.

Godtier: kill all
Superman tier: kill only when necessary.
Batman tier: no kill rule