Say you were your standard superman-lite superhero. Strong, resilient, able to fly and used it all to fight crime; how far would you take the law into your own hands?

Are you the Aristotelian morally excellent Guardian that can make the life and death choices to make a better world?

Many of the X-men are quite happy to slaughter generic mooks, Wolverine's tally in X-men 2 was certainly quite high. Is it right to kill people attacking you?

Iron Man is basically a one man lethal war against terrorists.

Batman won't kill because he doesn't believe he has the right.

Superman won't kill because its wrong.

EDIT: Or the mentalist Frank Castle/The Punisher approach. Although most other heroes won't work with him/can't stand him. If Captain America & The Batman hate the guy, you know he's a dick.

Where do you stand? (And maybe back it up!)

I personally would side with Batman, as soon as you take a life you become 'judge, jury and executioner', that is not a position I could morally hold without corruption. On the other hand, someone probably ought to put down The Joker, why not you?

What about "Yes, even petty criminals"?

What about, "Yes, indiscriminately?"

I would kill criminals just like Frank Castle.

Khell_Sennet:
What about "Yes, even petty criminals"?

Done. Sodding absolutist anti-heroes.

Dude, if I was a superhero I would BE a criminal.

You forget to include the punisher, he basicly kills murderers rapists and the mob, we could use him in mexico against the drug cartels

Khell_Sennet:
What about "Yes, even petty criminals"?

curlycrouton:
What about, "Yes, indiscriminately?"

Rajin Cajun:
I would kill criminals just like Frank Castle.

Jesus Christ this board is filled with psychos. What gives you the right? Who elected you? And how do you possible justify murdering a robber?

I'd kill rapists murderers and the like. Don't even have to think about it, then again I'm not quite the social and forgiving type of person.

rossatdi:
Jesus Christ this board is filled with psychos.

I don't think Jesus will answer you, he's dead.
But yes, yes we are all psychotics.

mattttherman3:
You forget to include the punisher, he basicly kills murderers rapists and the mob, we could use him in mexico against the drug cartels

I didn't forget him I just don't really classify him as a 'superhero' because he's not a hero. He's a murdering fuck. But that's my opinion, so I put it in.

Only to save an innocent life. Kind of like the police.

If I was an unstopable Superman-lite, flying killing machine then no I wouldnt kill criminals. Not for any moral reason but because I'd be too busy robbing and destroying.

ah yes well there are places where the punisher is necessary, like in mexico right now, the drug cartels are killing millions(counting all those that are addicted), includes kidnapping and murdering children and the innocent

I'd rather be a supervillian than a superhero, but if I did have to be a hero, then I'd probably go with the no killing thing, except for in extreme cases. A bit like Batman I suppose, but I'd probably kill the Joker. I mean, we all know letting criminals like that live simply means they're going to escape and go on yet another murderous rampage;if I had the power to stop them permanently, I'd use it.

rossatdi:

Khell_Sennet:
What about "Yes, even petty criminals"?

curlycrouton:
What about, "Yes, indiscriminately?"

Rajin Cajun:
I would kill criminals just like Frank Castle.

Jesus Christ this board is filled with psychos. What gives you the right? Who elected you? And how do you possible justify murdering a robber?

I will take that as a compliment and thank you. Oh yes I was being a 100% serious if I thought I could get by with it legally I would be Frank Castle.

Rajin Cajun:

I will take that as a compliment and thank you. Oh yes I was being a 100% serious if I thought I could get by with it legally I would be Frank Castle.

Well we'd have a good fight if we were both superheroes. Mentally the way I grade it is the first two options are 'wrong' or 'evil', a vigilante does not have that right, and the last three are 'right' or 'good'.

I'd go with No - Never as a creed but suspect I would to save an innocent life. Unfortunately the nice guys are losing heavily at the moment.

Here's the sad truth about the world...

The justice system fails more often than it succeeds, for a number of reasons which definitely include corruption and the mistaken belief that we should give rights to criminals. So vigilante justice is a preferable alternative when the courts can't be trusted. The hardest part is making sure vigilante justice doesn't become mob justice, which is always a failure.

I remember the JLA/Avengers crossover where Batman beat the crap out of the Punisher to save a bunch of drug dealers. A brillaint contrast between the two, written by the fantastic Kurt Busiek of course.

Personally in comics I don't really like "heroes who kill" since the people who seem to be writing them lately make them super lame. The only guys who I would trust on products like this are JMS, Kurt Busiek or Mark Waid, because they "get it".

rossatdi:

I personally would side with Batman, as soon as you take a life you become 'judge, jury and executioner', that is not a position I could morally hold without corruption. On the other hand, someone probably ought to put down The Joker, why not you?

Which Batman? Dancing Batman, Nipple Batman, Realistic Batman, crazy 80s comic batman or Silver age batman who carried a gun and shot people.

http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/batman-and-guns.html

Well i would'nt kill for stealing a handbag but if your a murderer yourself then turn-around is fair game. I think i'd rather go for a Anti-Hero rather then a hero......fudementally good but willing to bend or break rules to get it done....or as its known in D&D Chaotic Good :P

Khell_Sennet:
Here's the sad truth about the world...

The justice system fails more often than it succeeds, for a number of reasons which definitely include corruption and the mistaken belief that we should give rights to criminals. So vigilante justice is a preferable alternative when the courts can't be trusted. The hardest part is making sure vigilante justice doesn't become mob justice, which is always a failure.

Exactly, which was always the irony with Frank Castle he started out being a vigilante for the right reasons but eventually just came to love the kill even though he was still whacking scumbags he no longer really cared for Justice.

No, I'm to squeamish though.
Edit: Wow, It seems that I'm the only pure of heart so far.

Khell_Sennet:
Here's the sad truth about the world...

The justice system fails more often than it succeeds, for a number of reasons which definitely include corruption and the mistaken belief that we should give rights to criminals. So vigilante justice is a preferable alternative when the courts can't be trusted. The hardest part is making sure vigilante justice doesn't become mob justice, which is always a failure.

But a superhero is supposed to be a paragon of virtue, a symbol of all that is good and noble. They can't kill, it undermines them.

I know it sounds inefficient but The Batman must continually recapture a homicidal maniac because the moment he crosses that line it shows he doesn't trust the system, even a bit. And if he doesn't, why should we?

shatnershaman:

rossatdi:

I personally would side with Batman, as soon as you take a life you become 'judge, jury and executioner', that is not a position I could morally hold without corruption. On the other hand, someone probably ought to put down The Joker, why not you?

Which Batman? Dancing Batman, Nipple Batman, Realistic Batman, crazy 80s comic batman or Silver age batman who carried a gun and shot people.

http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/batman-and-guns.html

Or the "Goddamn Batman"? How could you forget the "goddamn batman."

Have I mentioned how much I hate the Frank Millar take on Batman? I much prefer him as a hero, not a macho douchebag. That's what we have The Punisher for... and you're not exactly supposed to "like" The Punisher, you're just supposed to understand why he does what he does.

shatnershaman:

rossatdi:

I personally would side with Batman, as soon as you take a life you become 'judge, jury and executioner', that is not a position I could morally hold without corruption. On the other hand, someone probably ought to put down The Joker, why not you?

Which Batman? Dancing Batman, Nipple Batman, Realistic Batman, crazy 80s comic batman or Silver age batman who carried a gun and shot people.

http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/batman-and-guns.html

That Batman didn't last very long. The Batman that I consider The Batman is The Batman of Batman: The Animated Series. BATMAN! No killing, more or less everything up until is fine. But you also have to ssave a criminal's life if humanly possible.

rossatdi:

shatnershaman:

rossatdi:

I personally would side with Batman, as soon as you take a life you become 'judge, jury and executioner', that is not a position I could morally hold without corruption. On the other hand, someone probably ought to put down The Joker, why not you?

Which Batman? Dancing Batman, Nipple Batman, Realistic Batman, crazy 80s comic batman or Silver age batman who carried a gun and shot people.

http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/batman-and-guns.html

That Batman didn't last very long. The Batman that I consider The Batman is The Batman of Batman: The Animated Series. BATMAN! No killing, more or less everything up until is fine. But you also have to ssave a criminal's life if humanly possible.

If you "must" have a killing Batman, there is really only one that's worth reading.

That's "JSA: The Liberty Files" where Bruce Wayne as "The Bat" is a badass Soldier and Secret Agent, hence willing to kill because he's a Soldier.

Khell_Sennet:
Here's the sad truth about the world...

The justice system fails more often than it succeeds, for a number of reasons which definitely include corruption and the mistaken belief that we should give rights to criminals. So vigilante justice is a preferable alternative when the courts can't be trusted. The hardest part is making sure vigilante justice doesn't become mob justice, which is always a failure.

Your against criminal rights? So we should be able to torture pickpockets? Or how about someone is just kept in jail indefinitely to avoid a trial?

rossatdi:

I know it sounds inefficient but The Batman must continually recapture a homicidal maniac because the moment he crosses that line it shows he doesn't trust the system, even a bit. And if he doesn't, why should we?

But surely the fact that he even feels the need to be a vigilante in the first place shows his mistrust for the system?

Im pretty sure Batman doesn't kill is because that is the only thing seperating him from the people he's after. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Kiefer13:

rossatdi:

I know it sounds inefficient but The Batman must continually recapture a homicidal maniac because the moment he crosses that line it shows he doesn't trust the system, even a bit. And if he doesn't, why should we?

But surely the fact that he even feels the need to be a vigilante in the first place shows his mistrust for the system?

No, merely that the system needs help and it's people hope. If he didn't trust the system he wouldn't be friends with Jim Gordon and he wouldn't hand criminals over to the police. Obviously he probably mistrusts the system to an extent, but fundamentally he believes in 'Law' as an institution.

If I were the only super hero on the planet (ie No accountability) I would redefign the word "criminal" to any one who disagrees with me. Then I would start killing criminals left and right. Of course that would make me a super villian, but hey I would be having more fun anyway.

If there were acountability I would probably have to cut down on my homicidal antics, but I still would kill any one who "deserved" it.

PedroSteckecilo:

shatnershaman:

rossatdi:

I personally would side with Batman, as soon as you take a life you become 'judge, jury and executioner', that is not a position I could morally hold without corruption. On the other hand, someone probably ought to put down The Joker, why not you?

Which Batman? Dancing Batman, Nipple Batman, Realistic Batman, crazy 80s comic batman or Silver age batman who carried a gun and shot people.

http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/batman-and-guns.html

Or the "Goddamn Batman"? How could you forget the "goddamn batman."

Have I mentioned how much I hate the Frank Millar take on Batman? I much prefer him as a hero, not a macho douchebag. That's what we have The Punisher for... and you're not exactly supposed to "like" The Punisher, you're just supposed to understand why he does what he does.

Well they failed at that because I completely sympathize with The Punisher and think he is an utter badass as do a lot of Former Marines I know. Oh well.

I might kill someone to save another person if there was no other choice, but thats it. I would probably maim and cripple quite a bit, only violent rapist murderer types though. Non violent drug dealers would be ignored. Petty criminals would get a spanked bottom.