Should Superman kill?

[Jon Clark]

Not all opinions are equal.

You can claim that Superman killing Zod or Mongul or Bizarro or whoever in self defense or defense of others is no different than him committing organ theft in the name of saving a life. It doesn't mean it isn't a ridiculous opinion to hold no matter how you try to justify it to yourself.

And you can hold that killing one person to save another is somehow justified. But to me that is just saying that your opinion of what is or isn't justified is somehow universal and that anyone who doesn't hold that same belief must be flawed. I might agree with you on whose life is more valuable than whose or that killing 10 people is worse than killing one- but I don't agree that it makes someone who sincerely disagrees silly.

[Ascended]

Ah, this old debate again.

I've posted my views on this too many times to get into the details of it again, so I'll just say this.

Superman has killed people in almost every incarnation across formats, decades, and continuities. It's not a common event, but it's relatively consistent.

To say that Clark wont ever take a life is to ignore a consistent character trait we've seen over and over. People might ignore it, downplay it, or wave it off as bad writing, but it happens. We don't have to like this aspect of Clark or his history, but if the goal is to keep Clark "in character" then yes, he's willing to kill. He hates doing it, it usually weighs heavily on him, but it's there, from the Golden Age to the modern Age, and pretending it isn't is putting blinders on to maintain an ideal that Superman himself has never really tried to live up to.

This debate is just an aspect of the legend being bigger than the man (character) that has plagued Superman since before any of us here were born.

[Jon Clark]

Ah, this old debate again.

I've posted my views on this too many times to get into the details of it again, so I'll just say this.

Superman has killed people in almost every incarnation across formats, decades, and continuities. It's not a common event, but it's relatively consistent.

To say that Clark wont ever take a life is to ignore a consistent character trait we've seen over and over. People might ignore it, downplay it, or wave it off as bad writing, but it happens. We don't have to like this aspect of Clark or his history, but if the goal is to keep Clark "in character" then yes, he's willing to kill. He hates doing it, it usually weighs heavily on him, but it's there, from the Golden Age to the modern Age, and pretending it isn't is putting blinders on to maintain an ideal that Superman himself has never really tried to live up to.

This debate is just an aspect of the legend being bigger than the man (character) that has plagued Superman since before any of us here were born.

Superman was willing to kill in the Bronze Age, but felt that this was a sign that he lacked the ability to use his powers responsibly. "No one has the right to kill, not even a Superman... especially not a Superman"

[HeroVladimir93]

Ah, this old debate again.

I've posted my views on this too many times to get into the details of it again, so I'll just say this.

Superman has killed people in almost every incarnation across formats, decades, and continuities. It's not a common event, but it's relatively consistent.

To say that Clark wont ever take a life is to ignore a consistent character trait we've seen over and over. People might ignore it, downplay it, or wave it off as bad writing, but it happens. We don't have to like this aspect of Clark or his history, but if the goal is to keep Clark "in character" then yes, he's willing to kill. He hates doing it, it usually weighs heavily on him, but it's there, from the Golden Age to the modern Age, and pretending it isn't is putting blinders on to maintain an ideal that Superman himself has never really tried to live up to.

This debate is just an aspect of the legend being bigger than the man (character) that has plagued Superman since before any of us here were born.

I have no problem with Superman being forced to kill, but it has to be done in a natural and organic manner, not just for shock value.

Superman was willing to kill in the Bronze Age, but felt that this was a sign that he lacked the ability to use his powers responsibly. "No one has the right to kill, not even a Superman... especially not a Superman"

That is simply one way to interpret the character.

[Agent Z]

And you can hold that killing one person to save another is somehow justified. But to me that is just saying that your opinion of what is or isn't justified is somehow universal and that anyone who doesn't hold that same belief must be flawed. I might agree with you on whose life is more valuable than whose or that killing 10 people is worse than killing one- but I don't agree that it makes someone who sincerely disagrees silly.

I find it interesting for you to say this when you'll defend Superman saying "no one has the right to kill".

[Jon Clark]

That is simply one way to interpret the character.

Yes, my preferred interpretation. Not the only one. Not the better or worse one. But a valid one as much as the interpretation others are arguing for.

[Jon Clark]

I find it interesting for you to say this when you'll defend Superman saying "no one has the right to kill".

I'm defending Superman's right to have that belief. Not arguing that it is the only valid belief or necessarily one that I 100% ascribe to.

My actual opinion is closer to saying that Superman has the right idea but that no one short of Superman can live by it. You might be justified in killing someone in the heat of battle because you legitimately can't think of any other way to stop them. But if you are as powerful as Superman and can't think of another option, just maybe, you lack the ability to wield that power effectively and should avoid split-second life-or-death situations.

[Superlad93]

For me, has he killed and will he actively kill under any conditions after aren't the same thing. Speaking in terms of a baseline Superman, I'm fine with him having killed at some point in his time as a hero, but it being a thing for him after isn't something that I see much point in on really any level. Like, past that one introspective, grim, and sobering time of going over the limit--whatever form it may take--what's the actual gain? Like, what's the real story gain to a Superman that's willing to kill? Less villains? Oh gosh, super stars like Atomic Skull and Conduit better watch their backs, right? More sobering introspection on the same topic? The real world peace of mind that the fictional character is willing put the fictional bad guys in the dirt? What avenues of story does it actually open past that one time?

Logic would argue that the character having to actively find new a increasingly more creative ways solve an issue without reducing the bad guy to a red smear on his fist yields the greater amount of returns when it comes to actual story. When it comes down to it there's just more of a "how's he gonna get out of this one" to it, and that's literally the point of an action adventure story.

So, yeah, I wouldn't say "never" in the sense that he's never ever done it, because that time is a story in and of itself, but after that verity and imagination win out easy. Simple as that, as far as I go.

[Agent Z]

I'm defending Superman's right to have that belief. Not arguing that it is the only valid belief or necessarily one that I 100% ascribe to.

My actual opinion is closer to saying that Superman has the right idea but that no one short of Superman can live by it. You might be justified in killing someone in the heat of battle because you legitimately can't think of any other way to stop them. But if you are as powerful as Superman and can't think of another option, just maybe, you lack the ability to wield that power effectively and should avoid split-second life-or-death situations.

You pretty much contradict yourself with the bolded. So if you don't always act like Superman, you shouldn't be a hero?

Also, Superman has killed before when the villain wasn't a human. I'd say that type of blatant prejudice is more grounds for not being a hero than not coming up with convoluted ways to not kill someone.

[Agent Z]

For me, has he killed and will he actively kill under any conditions after aren't the same thing. Speaking in terms of a baseline Superman, I'm fine with him having killed at some point in his time as a hero, but it being a thing for him after isn't something that I see much point in on really any level. Like, past that one introspective, grim, and sobering time of going over the limit--whatever form it may take--what's the actual gain? Like, what's the real story gain to a Superman that's willing to kill? Less villains? Oh gosh, super stars like Atomic Skull and Conduit better watch their backs, right? More sobering introspection on the same topic? The real world peace of mind that the fictional character is willing put the fictional bad guys in the dirt? What avenues of story does it actually open past that one time?

Logic would argue that the character having to actively find new a increasingly more creative ways solve an issue without reducing the bad guy to a red smear on his fist yields the greater amount of returns when it comes to actual story. When it comes down to it there's just more of a "how's he gonna get out of this one" to it, and that's literally the point of an action adventure story.

So, yeah, I wouldn't say "never" in the sense that he's never ever done it, because that time is a story in and of itself, but after that verity and imagination win out easy. Simple as that, as far as I go.

Let's see:

* Writers might actually have to come up with new villains as opposed to relying on the same villains over and over again. I doubt many will be so broken up about Atomic Skull and Conduit.

* A less childish and strawman take on lethal force than Kingdom Come and Action Comics 775.

* Writers would have to come up with other sources of tension other than "will Superman finally break his sacred rule?"

* Actually deal with how this affects him in nuanced, mature ways. And no, I don't mean that idiocy with Gangbuster.

[Jon Clark]

You pretty much contradict yourself with the bolded. So if you don't always act like Superman, you shouldn't be a hero?

Yes, my opinion is that any Superman who can only come up with a single solution to ANY problem is not worthy of the title. I don't find a "no-win scenario" an acceptable option. O allow for an option where I can't see any other solution, but that is because I am incapable of finding it- not because it isn't there.

Also, Superman has killed before when the villain wasn't a human. I'd say that type of blatant prejudice is more grounds for not being a hero than not coming up with convoluted ways to not kill someone.

I never said I agreed with Superman when he killed non-human opponents. I actually agree he was contradicting himself when he'd kill a Bizarro, a sentient machine, or something like a Kryptonian dragon. Never claimed that the Silver/Bronze Age Superman was always right, just that I preferred his general stance on killing.

[Ascended]

I have no problem with Superman being forced to kill, but it has to be done in a natural and organic manner, not just for shock value.

That's typically my opinion on all things. Shock value is overrated.

[Superlad93]

* Writers might actually have to come up with new villains as opposed to relying on the same villains over and over again.

Just throwing away IPs? And then killing the new IPs that they make because logically they'd be pretty dangerous too. Unlikely, my friend.

I doubt many will be so broken up about Atomic Skull and Conduit.

Ah, welcome, you seem to have arrived at the joke lol

* A less childish and strawman take on lethal force than Kingdom Come and Action Comics 775.

I don't subscribe to the way both writers presented Superman's stance at all. Those were the worst aspects of both those stories but only due to how the writers decided to communicate the idea.

* Writers would have to come up with other sources of tension other than "will Superman finally break his sacred rule?"

What I suggested would alleviate that while functionally adding in a wide birth of options on solutions. As opposed to wondering how he's gonna keep to his code. You wonder, simply, "how's he gonna solve it" because not killing will be as ingrained as expecting him to fly. All that's left is the interesting way he'll subdue the bad guy.

* Actually deal with how this affects him in nuanced, mature ways. And no, I don't mean that idiocy with Gangbuster.

Yeah, and this would be totally great for a story. But after we deal with it in a nuanced and mature way we keep it moving, because constant introspection on that one thing after the fact gets old. And if he's not going to be introspective about it, then he's just killing a character and that being the end of it. An inherently more limiting situation in terms of story telling acrobatics than him having to think of some off the wall sh!t.

[Ascended]

So, yeah, I wouldn't say "never" in the sense that he's never ever done it, because that time is a story in and of itself, but after that verity and imagination win out easy. Simple as that, as far as I go.

I think there's more mileage to a killing than just the impact it has on Clark the first time he's forced into that position. Each time is different and brings different things to the equation, yknow? But again, the story of Superman taking a life isn't a story that should be told very often at all. Once a decade is more than plenty. I'm not saying Clark should start melting every villain he runs into or anything like that. Clark should struggle with the notion, hate himself when he does it, and it should always carry heavy ramifications. And it's not something we should see very often at all.

For example; Our Worlds At War. Clark throws Brainac 13 and Imperiex into the Big Bang, effectively killing them both (yes, Imperiex died; even if he was on a cycle of rebirth you can't be reborn unless you were dead first). So the entire Event ultimately comes out of Clark's decision to kill the villain, not to mention the fun of seeing Superman go sun dipping and performing feats that're usually impossible even by his standards. That story doesn't play out quite the same way without that finale, especially since it hammers home the idea that Clark's actions have consequences the whole universe feels.

When Clark threw Darkseid into the Source Wall (as close to death as a New God can get); that was a totally different kind of moment than the OW@W thing or when Clark killed the Pocket dimension Zoners. Killing Darkseid was a crime of passion, while the OW@W thing was a weird self defense/murder combo and the Zoner thing was a straight up execution. Each narrative offers different insight into Clark's mind and opens different ways for him to deal with it. OW@W put Clark into therapy, the execution of the Zoners (along with some other stuff) put Clark into exile, and the Darkseid thing came back around and ultimately saw Clark pull the Omega God back into the land of the living and we subsequently saw Clark trying to deal with the fact that he was directly responsible for Darkseid's death *and* return.

Whether these stories *should* be told or not......that's just a matter of taste. And given that Clark has talked about never killing far more than he's killed, you can't blame people for wanting to write all those deaths off and forget them. All I'm saying is that Clark has killed on several occasions, fun stories have been pulled out of those moments, and the debate about his No Kill rule is (and has always been) a moot point because he's never actually followed it. Clark doesn't have a No Kill rule, he has a Tries Really Hard Not to Kill rule.

[Agent Z]

Just throwing away IPs? And then killing the new IPs that they make because logically they'd be pretty dangerous too. Unlikely, my friend.

Why not? They do it all the time as long as it isn’t the main lead and the supporting cast that are popular.

I don't subscribe to the way both writers presented Superman's stance at all. Those were the worst aspects of both those stories but only due to how the writers decided to communicate the idea.

It’s never been presented as any other way since he had that code. When the question of lethal force comes up in a Superman story, that’s what it will be like.

What I suggested would alleviate that while functionally adding in a wide birth of options on solutions. As opposed to wondering how he's gonna keep to his code. You wonder, simply, "how's he gonna solve it" because not killing will be as ingrained as expecting him to fly. All that's left is the interesting way he'll subdue the bad guy.

Yeah, and this would be totally great for a story. But after we deal with it in a nuanced and mature way we keep it moving, because constant introspection on that one thing after the fact gets old. And if he's not going to be introspective about it, then he's just killing a character and that being the end of it. An inherently more limiting situation in terms of story telling acrobatics than him having to think of some off the wall sh!t.

You seem to be under the impression that those of us who don’t care for the no killing rule, want him to kill all the time and consider no other option. Seriously, this happens everytime this argument comes up. There is a difference between Superman having the option to kill and him making it his modus operandi. No one is asking for Super Punisher. Nor does he have to introspect every time he kills someone because why the hell should he be? You only expect him to because the comics have hammered home this nonsense that killing is always wrong.