Do you like your favorite characters to be invincible?

[Frontier]

I'd take competent over invincible.

[Jackalope89]

I'd take competent over invincible.

This.

Having a powerful favorite character is one thing. They're strong, but have shortcomings that allow for growth.
Invincible means they never really have a true threat. Nothing to challenge them or make them grow.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Even invulnerable people have vulnerabilities.

Superman's is his heart.

[Jackalope89]

Even invulnerable people have vulnerabilities.

Superman's is his heart.

And a radioactive rock. And a red sun.

[phonogram12]

Even invulnerable people have vulnerabilities.

Superman's is his heart.

Like I said, I'm talking purely in the kind of physical terms that cause message board meltdowns for certain fans. When their weakness is that 'he just cares too much' fans just don't seem to think that counts as much for whatever reason.

[Frontier]

And a radioactive rock. And a red sun.

And magic .

[TheBatman]

Depends on the character. For example, Batman is my favorite Superhero and I think he should be the most effective member of the Batfamily, and the most effective non-meta hero in general. I admit that I do get annoyed when a writer suddenly decides that their pet character is on Batman's level, when that character has never really been in the conversation in regards to the top tier DC fighters or geniuses.

As for someone like, say, Plastic Man, I feel like they should be more vulnerable.

[Zero Hunter]

The problem with invincible characters is sooner or latter writers have to come up with something to beat them. Doomsday is the perfect example of this. Then future writers want to use that character again and again constantely upping the stake until is is Dragonball Z levels of stupidity where every character can destroy the planet.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

And magic .

And hitting him a lot

[hareluyafan1]

And if so, why? Just curious.

No. As other posters have said, invincible characters are boring. Sure it's great to see our heroes prevail but if it doesn't feel like there's a real chance of them losing during the battle (suspending disbelief obviously), then where's the excitement? Seeing our heroes prevail is only satisfying if their win feels earned.

IDK, I guess what prompted this post is that it seems as if so many fans get into such a tizzy whenever anyone even hints that one particular character would lose to another.

No offence but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Just because we (strongly) disagree with one verdict (i.e. Character A beats Character B) doesn't mean we disagree with all such verdicts (i.e. Character C beats Character B).

For example I'm a big fan of Captain America. I freely admit that he'd lose to Superman, Martian Manhunter, the Flash etc. So no, I don't want him to be invincible. But I do think he'd defeat say, Batman, and so I will disagree with anyone saying otherwise. It just seems like a pretty big leap to go from "people complain about this character losing to one opponent" to conclude "people want this character to always win." Just seems like a strange conclusion.

[SiegePerilous02]

No, but I dislike it when really powerful characters are nerfed or "brought down to normal" to prove some kind of dubious point. Usually the writer is just lazy and can't come up with viable threats, or (worse) there is the need to make them "relateable." Morrison is not a lazy creator, and can come up with challenges for these characters while embracing them for their full ridiculous capabilities. Because it's silly fantasy at the end of the day.

The most powerful characters can be vulnerable and challenged, but challenge them with stuff that actually makes sense and is on their level. Or give them a situation that they cannot resolve with their powers, while at the same time do not reduce their intelligence.

[Micael]

Morrison is not a lazy creator, and can come up with challenges for these characters while embracing them for their full ridiculous capabilities.

That's the thing I love about Morrison. He writes the characters at their best and the villains have to step up their game to pose a real threat.

[Jon Clark]

At the end of the day, they are all invincible. No matter how much Green Arrow can be physically defeated, the bad guy will never be able to actually kill him (and have it stick). And no matter how down and out they are just before the end of the story the hero always winds up on top come the last page. The "invincible heroes are boring" crowd would have a point if we had stories where Batman really lost and Hal Jordan didn't prevent the universe from being destroyed.

[Ascended]

No, but I dislike it when really powerful characters are nerfed or "brought down to normal" to prove some kind of dubious point. Usually the writer is just lazy and can't come up with viable threats, or (worse) there is the need to make them "relateable." Morrison is not a lazy creator, and can come up with challenges for these characters while embracing them for their full ridiculous capabilities. Because it's silly fantasy at the end of the day.

The most powerful characters can be vulnerable and challenged, but challenge them with stuff that actually makes sense and is on their level. Or give them a situation that they cannot resolve with their powers, while at the same time do not reduce their intelligence.

This.

I have no problem with my favorite characters getting their asses kicked. If the hero isn't challenged, what's the point? Hell, I want my heroes to get bones broken, I want them to be scared, I want blood and black eyes. If they're not working for the win it's not really a win. But I loathe writers who dont have game and can't write on the character's level, so they dream up ways to pull the character down to places they can manage.

Superman is always the guy who gets these "invincible" complaints, and it's sad BS. Who does the guy fight? It's not bank robbers with revolvers and shotguns. It's gods, alien armadas, living concepts and cosmic manifestations. Most of his foes are on his power level, if not stronger. He can, does, and should, get his ass beat by these threats. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't read the damn books, or the issues they've read were by those lazy writers who got no game.

If you cant think of a threat to physically challenge Superman, the problem isnt Superman, it's your lack of imagination. Or any other powerful character, obviously, not just Clark. *Every* character should be written at their best, and challenged honestly. If you cant cut it, if you lack the skill and imagination for it, quit.

[lemonpeace]

At the end of the day, they are all invincible. No matter how much Green Arrow can be physically defeated, the bad guy will never be able to actually kill him (and have it stick). And no matter how down and out they are just before the end of the story the hero always winds up on top come the last page. The "invincible heroes are boring" crowd would have a point if we had stories where Batman really lost and Hal Jordan didn't prevent the universe from being destroyed.

Competency and invincibility are two different things. Batman HAS lost a few times, Hal Jordan HAS failed in his duties, but they will eventually bounce back because they are competent which is why they're the protagonist.