The X-men Don't Kill Topic

[Killerbee911]

After reading Uncanny issue 7 this week, A couple panels stood out to me

Capture.jpg

Capture2.jpg

Capture3.jpg

Armor breaks out "the once you kill someone it is something you never come back from it" line. I am a comic book reader so I have seen this position taken before but don't people think it is time we put this as default thinking for superheroes to bed. I don't mind Armor not want to kill Nate she has a legit reason and selfish reason for not wanting to do it but the ultra-moral treatment of killing when talking about dealing with a mass murdering mutant who is clearly willing to kill more people feels wrong. If Armor was saying the more reasonable imo "we don't kill if it is absolutely necessary" and "it is the very last resort" and proceed to protect Nate the same way (because him dying in world where he has no powers and she has chance to convince him he is wrong still) I get it but instead she goes into the early comic code era superhero stuff. I actually became a fan of Pixie because presented the reasonable argument " I don't want to kill him but if he gets back to 616 he is going to have back his God-like powers and kill again, This the best chance to stop him." She didn't say want to become Punisher or even Wolverine kill every bad guy, She understood this unique situation where a lot of people die if he goes back.

Which bring us I guess to the questions

1. Do the X-men still have a default stance on killing? What is your preferred stance on killing for the X-men?


2. Did you think the more escapist superhero stance of not killing period fits the X-men who have had murder robots kill 16 million of them or death cloud threatening their survival?


3. What characters for the X-men if any do you think are in the no-kill period group? What characters if any do you think are in the I only kill if it is last resort group? What characters if any do you think is in the Wolverine "we put you down first group"?

4. Pixie and Rockslide is killing Nate Grey murder?

[bladeofdarkness]

After reading Uncanny issue 7 this week, A couple panels stood out to me

Capture.jpg

Capture2.jpg

Capture3.jpg

Armor breaks out "the once you kill someone it is something you never come back from it" line. I am a comic book reader so I have seen this position taken before but don't people think it is time we put this as default thinking for superheroes to bed. I don't mind Armor not want to kill Nate she has a legit reason and selfish reason for not wanting to do it but the ultra-moral treatment of killing when talking about dealing with a mass murdering mutant who is clearly willing to kill more people feels wrong. If Armor was saying the more reasonable imo "we don't kill if it is absolutely necessary" and "it is the very last resort" and proceed to protect Nate the same way (because him dying in world where he has no powers and she has chance to convince him he is wrong still) I get it but instead she goes into the early comic code era superhero stuff. I actually became a fan of Pixie because presented the reasonable argument " I don't want to kill him but if he gets back to 616 he is going to have back his God-like powers and kill again, This the best chance to stop him." She didn't say want to become Punisher or even Wolverine kill every bad guy, She understood this unique situation where a lot of people die if he goes back.

Which bring us I guess to the questions

1. Do the X-men still have a default stance on killing? What is your preferred stance on killing for the X-men?


2. Did you think the more escapist superhero stance of not killing period fits the X-men who have had murder robots kill 16 million of them or death cloud threatening their survival?


3. What characters for the X-men if any do you think are in the no-kill period group? What characters if any do you think are in the I only kill if it is last resort group? What characters if any do you think is in the Wolverine "we put you down first group"?

4. Pixie and Rockslide is killing Nate Grey murder?

Well, its worth noting a couple of facts that relate to this specific storyline.
A)Nate is powerless, and isn't even actively trying to harm any of them in this issue - killing him under these circumstances WOULD be nothing short of murder - Pixie even admits that its not what she WANTS but simply what needs to be done.
B)Nate is also clearly a lot more vulnerable on an emotional level, and Armor has apprently been hanging around him for MONTHS at this point - he's never been an Apocalypse type villain to begin with, but his current state makes him even more sympethetic.
C)The different X-men characters fall on a wide spectrum of classic hero to anti-hero - and Armor has traditionally hovered a lot closer to the Paragon end of that specturm then the Renegade one.

As for the X-men as a whole, I'm reminded of a story in uncanny X-men 150, where Storm runs across a sleeping Magento (he's not symepthetic yet - in fact, its this story that presents him as being sympatheic for the first time).
Storm outright states that she SHOULD kill him - That wolverine would in a heartbeat, that Magneto is a world class threat, and that she herself has killed before.
But even then she can't bring herself to do it.
Killing is treated almost universaly as a line that the X-men are NOT suppose to cross - Scott and Logan keeping X-force secert from even their closest allies for months on end is a fairly good indications that even today this is very much an issue.

[Tycon]

1) It’s kind of ambiguous but out of the Avegers, X-Men, Defenders, Champions, etc etc, they more often than not are willing to kill if necessary. Which is what I think as well, kill if necessary. I actually would’ve loved to see Hisako chew Elixir out for killing William Stryker after he staged a school shooting that led to two deaths and several in critical condition. See how far that shitty neoliberal “no-kill” take goes for this weirdly-written Armor.



2) I resent the claim that the X-Men are “escapist”, but my fav X-Men stories are the ones where they have their backs against the wall and are willing enough to take their enemies down by any means necessary.

3) I’ll have to think about that

4) Meh, I’d call it a justified kill. Between bringing back ancient dinosaurs, nearly flooding a village, putting Oya and Anole in the hospital, erasing religious temples and sacred land, attacking countries with primordial monsters, and his whole plan to raze the world and remake it for the better, Nate rn is a megalomaniacal terrorist.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

4) Meh, I’d call it a justified kill. Between bringing back ancient dinosaurs, nearly flooding a village, putting Oya and Anole in the hospital, erasing religious temples and sacred land, attacking countries with primordial monsters, and his whole plan to raze the world and remake it for the better, Nate rn is a megalomaniacal terrorist.

If the Marvel earth is a reflection of the real one, then we're rapidly reaching a stage where Religious arrogance/ignorance of science, and corporate greed are killing the planet. Plankton, which provides 70% of the oxygen humans need merely to EXIST is now dying off in droves thanks to man-made climate change. We are literally making this world uninhabitable for mammals. Anyone willing to stand up to the establishment or capable of sacrificing millions to save billions isn't ethically speaking, a villain. If the Marvel earth is as screwed as ours, then Nathan really is a messiah. These are the extremes the status quo have brought us to.

[bladeofdarkness]

If the Marvel earth is a reflection of the real one, then we're rapidly reaching a stage where Religious arrogance/ignorance of science, and corporate greed are killing the planet. Plankton, which provides 70% of the oxygen humans need merely to EXIST is now dying off in droves thanks to man-made climate change. We are literally making this world uninhabitable for mammals. Anyone willing to stand up to the establishment or capable of sacrificing millions to save billions isn't ethically speaking, a villain. If the Marvel earth is as screwed as ours, then Nathan really is a messiah. These are the extremes the status quo have brought us to.

Seems a tad extreme to call him a Messiah, even if the 616 world is similar to our earth prime - he's probably powerful enough to use better methods then the ones he employs.

I'd argue that its more a case of the X-men NOT killing ultra powerful mutant threats as a general practice - Magneto, Exodus, Legion, and various other high level threats aren't simply executed "just to be safe".
It's also worth noting that roughly a 3rd of any given X-men line up is usually composed of characters who either started out as villains before joining, or became villains at some point during their career.

If the X-men didn't believe in redemption, they wouldn't have much of a team.

[DragonsChi]

I think as long as they welcome characters like X-23, Wolverine, and Cable (amongst others) on the team then they are all a bunch of hypocrites when they say "X-Men don't kill". Having them on any team is like winking at the audience when they say they are against it.


For the record I would prefer that the X-Men try the find another solution to killing.

[bladeofdarkness]

I think as long as they welcome characters like X-23, Wolverine, and Cable (amongst others) on the team then they are all a bunch of hypocrites when they say "X-Men don't kill". Having them on any team is like winking at the audience when they say they are against it.


For the record I would prefer that the X-Men try the find another solution to killing.

Except that, again - the X-men also believe in redemption.
Sure, Logan and Laura do kill - but in a properly ran X-men team, they aren't SUPPOSE to kill on missions, in anything but the more dire circumstances.

[TheCape]

Is weird how the X-Men had this no-killing rule but his most popular and recognizable member is an assasin (is in his catchphrase!!), to be fair Claremont tried to balance it, by making it so that the group only did it when it was necesary, but most writers seemed to have drop that at some point, if that's the case make you wonder why they keep guys like Wolverine and Cable in the team.

[TheCape]

Speaking of something else, for a while writers had increased the mencae of the enemies by making then even more ruthless and taking more innocent life over the years. Just like almost every recent Batman vs Joker storyline, situations like that with the team refusing to kill an obvious danger just make then look really bad.

[DragonsChi]

Except that, again - the X-men also believe in redemption.
Sure, Logan and Laura do kill - but in a properly ran X-men team, they aren't SUPPOSE to kill on missions, in anything but the more dire circumstances.

I get where you are coming from but at the same time they know and understand better than we do that the bold is like asking a starving lion not to eat gazelle because you told it to.

[bladeofdarkness]

I get where you are coming from but at the same time they know and understand better than we do that the bold is like asking a starving lion not to eat gazelle because you told it to.

That's kind of harsh - virtually all of the "Killer" X-men are still free thinking people, with their own agency, and knowlege of right and wrong.
They don't HAVE like they are addicted to it - and if the situation arises where killing must be done and there's no other choice, then having someone on the team who won't hesitate is probably a good idea.

[Triniking1234]

> The X-Men don't kill
> X-Force

But on a serious note, the X-Men only use killing as last resort. Pixie was on a team with X-23 and Hisako was on a team with Logan so they should know this by now.

[bladeofdarkness]

> The X-Men don't kill
> X-Force

But on a serious note, the X-Men only use killing as last resort. Pixie was on a team with X-23 and Hisako was on a team with Logan so they should know this by now.

Which raises the question - is this really a last resort ?
Is killing Nate really the only option remaining ?

Hell, given that seconds before, they lost what they believed was their only way back - is there even a NEED to kill him at this stage ?

[DavidMunroe]

To be honest this dictum or stricture/edict doesn't really make a lot of sense as it pertains to the X-Men. Like when Wolverine stopped Rachel from executing Selene via mortally wounding Rachel herself only to then realize that Rachel was right when he assembled X-Force to annihilate in during Necrosha...it's an illogical point of recourse because the X-Men aren't the Avengers and consequently they're not afforded the same calibre of resources or access to countermeasures that can protect them in the event of the resurgence of an assailant that they refrained from terminating. From a narrative standpoint it stems from the need to make the X-Men look morally sacrosanct by legitimizing their heroism because they didn't succumb to depravity or lethality but it's not realistic when the X-Men's adversaries have a nasty habit of coming back to bite them, and worse than they did during the opening salvo.

Mystique is a good example of someone who continually gets absolved/exonerated of past transgressions only to betray the X-Men time and again. I don't think the fact that she basically killed Moira has been properly addressed on-panel yet.

On the other hand considering the repertoire of skills and abilities at the X-Men's disposal they might not even need to kill...you could have Forge or Beast cobble together a contraption to induce a permanent comatose state or a concoction that wipes the memories and unilaterally reforms the mind of an enemy that they don't want to eliminate in the case that all other alternatives have been exhausted.

[Snoop Dogg]

On the other hand considering the repertoire of skills and abilities at the X-Men's disposal they might not even need to kill...you could have Forge or Beast cobble together a contraption to induce a permanent comatose state or a concoction that wipes the memories and unilaterally reforms the mind of an enemy that they don't want to eliminate in the case that all other altenatives have been exhausted.

Those are worse than killing.