What do you think would change Peter's mind about killing?

[Heasensy32]

Let's say Peter acknowledges some evil forces need to be put down for good. And Peter as Spider-man must protect people he cares about no matter what or he will never live it down when even his loved ones berate him in stopping a irredeemable scum bag who had killed people before hand even when after spidey stopped them.

Will it get to the point spidey like Thor or Carol Danvers for example will have to put down threats too big to spare. I believe spidey killing should be considered and make him more human than this pure paragon human marvels trying to make. Plus it makes him not as crazy as batman. I mean he still let's the joker go and is fine with raising a assainan boy wonder, Batman is nuts.

Cap has killed too and he's regarded as Marvel's patron big good along with spidey.

[cyberhubbs]

Peter has killed before. It should be more of a last resort thing, rather than a first resort for say the Punisher.

[Mighty Roman]

To my knowledge, Peter has only ever killed 2 people-Gwen Stacy and Charlemagne. And on both of these occasions, he didn't do it intentionally-with Gwen, he killed her accidentally, and with Charlemagne, he was tricked into accidentally killing her.

Peter tries not to kill, because so many people have died because of him-not directly, but because of his actions. He tries to use his powers responsibly-to preserve and protect lives, and fulfill the promise he made to Uncle Ben.

[Heasensy32]

Some villians peter spared have killed as much as he's saved. So isn't really using responsibility really well isn't he?

[cyberhubbs]

There's a list online somewhere. Aha, found it: http://www.spiderfan.org/faq/killed.html

He also stood by while spiders devoured Shathra, which I suppose she "deserved". Still harsh.

[Agent Z]

Realistically speaking, alot of the crap Peter's major villains have pulled in the past should have made him see the pros of killing his enemies as a last resort. I mean before the "Superior" mess, Octavius tried to barbecue the entire planet out of spite. And there's everything Norman Osborn has done. In Maximum Carnage, we had everyone except Peter arguing to kill Carnage and being mostly right, but Peter remained adamant in his stance.

[Damnyellow]

I'm pretty sure there was a story where Peter pretty much was set on the idea of killing Norman.

[Vortex85]

I'm pretty sure there was a story where Peter pretty much was set on the idea of killing Norman.

Well, according to the list:

Peter Parker: Spider-Man #75 Tried to kill Norman Osborn, over the murder of Ben Reilly and his daughter, Norman survived.

[Webhead]

Power and responsibility. Peter doesn't believe he has the power to directly decide who deserves to die. Therefore he doesn't take that responsibility. You could make a case that it gets blurry when he revived Eddie Brock by forcing the symbiote to re-bond with him (but then again he wasn't completely dead yet) or when he killed Digger (but he was essentially a zombie and falling apart anyway).
Blaming the hero for the people who are killed by the villains is as usual logically unsound. Those are the bad guy's choices, not Peter's. If the serial nature of the stories makes this sense of mercy look dumb or ineffective, it's not that mercy is wrong, it's more an issue of putting meta-commentary above the real story.

[Heasensy32]

Power and responsibility. Peter doesn't believe he has the power to directly decide who deserves to die. Therefore he doesn't take that responsibility. You could make a case that it gets blurry when he revived Eddie Brock by forcing the symbiote to re-bond with him (but then again he wasn't completely dead yet) or when he killed Digger (but he was essentially a zombie and falling apart anyway).
Blaming the hero for the people who are killed by the villains is as usual logically unsound. Those are the bad guy's choices, not Peter's. If the serial nature of the stories makes this sense of mercy look dumb or ineffective, it's not that mercy is wrong, it's more an issue of putting meta-commentary above the real story.

But he does have the power, a power to effect the outcome of saving lives based on a certain level of taking the situation on a logical boundary.

And he is responsible for protecting the peace caused by those deaths and casualties, not trying to own up to every life he fails to protect makes him a incompetent martyr of justice. Sometimes mercy is needed but their should be exceptions and logic based on that exception that some villians are too dangerous to live or be incapacitated.

[Songbird/Diamondback]

If someone threaten to harm Aunt May probably.

[SuperiorIronman]

Peter killing certain enemies would've made sense.
What would make him actually consider killing? I'm sure Osborn has had him consider it at many points. Killing his daughter,Brother,putting Gwen in that position (in more ways than one), and Dark reign. I really wouldn't be surprised if Peter one day just snaps Osborns neck.

Peter however would consider it a last resort. He doesn't want anyone to die and as such will try to save as many as he can. Peter even believed Massacare could be redeemed. However I do think it is a bit silly few of these villains have gotten the Death penalty yet. Peter might not want to kill intentionally but he needs to at some point look at his rogues and realize that a ton of them count as terrorists and that no one if anyone would question it if say Chameleon or Green Goblin had been killed in battle.

[cyberhubbs]

And to be fair, as someone pointed out in another thread, you can't kill all your best villains. They'll be back eventually, under a different writer, and allbyou really end up with is a hero willing to snap a few necks. Nice to have a few heroes like that, but variety is the spice of life.

[Agent Z]

And to be fair, as someone pointed out in another thread, you can't kill all your best villains. They'll be back eventually, under a different writer, and allbyou really end up with is a hero willing to snap a few necks. Nice to have a few heroes like that, but variety is the spice of life.

Shouldn't writers put more effort into creating new villains and developing them. I mean Osborn didn't shoot up to A-list status in his first appearance.

[cyberhubbs]

Shouldn't writers put more effort into creating new villains and developing them. I mean Osborn didn't shoot up to A-list status in his first appearance.

Yes and no.

I loved Mr. Negative and Paper Doll from the BND era. Glad Slott is willing to create new villains. Unfortunately, in this day and age where IPs are sacred, not every creator is willing to give Marvel a hero or villain that might make the company millions and them not so much. Writers have an infinite supply of ideas, but a finite supply of -good- ones.