Should Superhero Writers Simply Stop Bringing Up The 'No Kill' Rule?

[lancerman]

For me, killing the villain is taking the easy way out. And it gets tedious after a while. The Batman movies, the Flash TV show...oh look. The bad guy got killed. Again. *zzzzZZZzzzz*

In yet in the comics we are okay with these villains living to kill countless more people. But the idea that the hero might stop that and kill the villain who is always portrayed as the greater act of tragedy. In the real world the government would have sent a sniper to take out the Joker by now. No jury would convict Batman.

[Spike-X]

In the real world...

Yeah, I'm gonna stop you there.

[tombo]

I've never agreed with the idea that Batman killing would push him over the edge and turn him into Punisher. I think its completely plausible that he could kill once after making a painful moral choice, then spend the rest of his career never killing again.

[lancerman]

Yeah, I'm gonna stop you there.

This is the problem. 70 years ago when Batman was a children's character in light fluff stories it wasn't as issue. In the 50's when he was sucked in the silver age, it wasn't an issue. But when comics entered the modern age, decided to tackle adult issues, and simultaneously brought the no kill rules to the forefront in a serious debate, they lost "it a comic book excuse". When you are obliging to serious topics and real logic you can't just pick and choose.

They never should have ever engaged that feature of comics. They did, and it's embarrassing how bad they are at that.

[BeastieRunner]

I've never agreed with the idea that Batman killing would push him over the edge and turn him into Punisher. I think its completely plausible that he could kill once after making a painful moral choice, then spend the rest of his career never killing again.

That makes more sense for Superman than Batman, IMHO.

Batman was formed as the result of a violent crime. Why would he want to contribute to that trend? I'd personally like to see Bruce lock up someone like Joker in the Batcave or something like that. It would give us some nice banter and a sweet breakout problem for Batman is solve.

[lancerman]

That makes more sense for Superman than Batman, IMHO.

Batman was formed as the result of a violent crime. Why would he want to contribute to that trend? I'd personally like to see Bruce lock up someone like Joker in the Batcave or something like that. It would give us some nice banter and a sweet breakout problem for Batman is solve.

Precisely because the Joker is the biggest example of how that rule makes no sense.

[ed2962]

There's some heroes who don't kill and some who will as a last resort and a few who kill cuz that's just what they do. The "no kill" rule is really only a problem when it comes to Batman and the Joker. And that's mostly cuz DC kinda wrote themselves into a corner with Joker. He's not a layered character like maybe Lex Luthor or Dr Doom. He mainly just kills people and then dares Batman to stop him from killing more. There's not many other types of stories they do with him, but he's popular so he keeps getting used. Thing is you can't even do the type of story where the villain dies of his own hand ( like original Green Goblin) cuz everyone knows he just come back.

And as someone mentioned you keep getting these stories where either Batman wants to kill Joker and someone talks him down or someone else wants to kill Joker and Batman stops them. It gets absurd.

Course, the bigger question is why doesn't the state put the Joker to death? I mean, I think New York doesn't have the death penalty anymore, but I think the feds could get involved.


Maybe DC should dial the character back a notch or two so that he doesn't kill twenty people every time he gets loose.

[Marvel_Is]

The "No kill" rule is awesome. Why would you want a guy like Spider-Man going around killing folks on purpose?

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

The "No kill" rule is awesome. Why would you want a guy like Spider-Man going around killing folks on purpose?

There are extremes on both end. If you take killing too far, you get Garth Ennis' Punisher, who is nothing but a glorified serial killer. If you take not killing too far, you get the worst version of Batman as a pounds-his-fists-against-the-wall, emo control freak. Really, the best version was Bruce Timm's. He didn't go out of his way to kill anyone, but he never tore himself up if some idiot blew himself to hell while trying something insane.

[Marvel_Is]

Personally I'd like it if the villains were bad without killing people. I don't like stories where random background civilians only exist to be part of the death count that shows how awesome the baddie is.

This comment fits your avatar perfectly.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

Personally I'd like it if the villains were bad without killing people. I don't like stories where random background civilians only exist to be part of the death count that shows how awesome the baddie is.

I really like characters like Batroc the Leaper and Catman. Y'know, Characters who are villainous but choose to be so in order to challenge themselves and have a sporting attitude. I also like unconventional baddies like Taskmaster who is capable of leaving a high body count, but is joyfully blinded by his mercenary mercantilism.

[Spike-X]

Course, the bigger question is why doesn't the state put the Joker to death?

Because then there would be no more Joker stories.

Maybe DC should dial the character back a notch or two so that he doesn't kill twenty people every time he gets loose.

Because killing lots of people is how we show that the guy who dresses up like a clown to fight the guy who dresses up like a bat is dark and edgy and totally not for kids.

[Marvel_Is]

Also, in defense of the "No kill" rule, while there are capes that don't kill, there are plenty of others that do. Especially in the MU. I don't know how it works for other comic book universes.

Whoever Spidey isn't willing to kill, should that murderous villain run afoul of the likes of Moon Knight or Punisher - or both at the same time (which could happen) - that villains likeyhood of survival becomes slimmer.

It's really about who runs across whom at any given time. But, for the sake of comics, it's about maintaining classic status quo. Because there are definitely heroes out there who don't have an internal "No kill" rule. There's more than a few of Marvel's Big 7 that would kill their enemies. Wolverine (when he was alive) ring a bell? lol

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

Because then there would be no more Joker stories.

The Joker's a victim of his own success as a character. We've reached a point of critical mass, where it's become absolutely unbelievable that the police haven't got a K.O.S. issued whenever he shows up. There really needs to be a "last Joker story" with a ten year moratorium (or longer) issued.

[Spike-X]

There was a last Joker story. It was called The Dark Knight Returns. Unfortunately, DC decided to use that as a starting point, rather than a finishing point.