There needs to be some sort of equaliser. But then how would we make sure that this equaliser does not become corrupt?

It depends heavily on the offender. I doubt I'd let a serial killer live if I knew I could stop him from taking anymore lives and I certainly wouldn't have any qualms about killing someone if I knew they were trying and had the ability to do the same to me. I wouldn't kill anyone executioner style or anything of that nature though, even I wouldn't have the stomach for it.

Just for the record, the Punisher and Batman are probably my favorite heroes, from each of the comic universes (excluding independent), Marvel and DC respectively.

I'd use superpowers to augment my Chaotic Neutral mentality. Inevitably this would cause me to be viewed as a supervillain because radical individualism combined with using my powers of whatever strictly for personal gain no matter the moral consequences would mean I wasn't evil per se (I wouldn't "kick the dog" just for the hell of it, I'd just steal, extort, and coerce because it's easier than earning an honest living, and if I were bulletproof or otherwise able to outgun or outwit the police the consequences would no longer figure into it.)

People seem very quick to brand anyone who would dare even suggest killing as "beasts" and "monsters", as if their "divine" self was some how above an instinctual rage in the face of a deadly threat. I find it a rather pompous attitude, as we are just animals... and what do animals do best?

I...I just couldn't be a hero. I would end up being some sort of supervillain. But for the purposes of the poll, I would pretty much kill all criminals.

yes, because the risk of death or extream pain would be a sever deterant. i would bloody my hands and sacrifice my own consience for others.

Anonymouse:
If you have the power to stop violent criminals such as rapists and murderers, yet you do nothing. Every person they kill, every little girl they rape, every single action they take after the moment you decide to let them go becomes your responsibility.

I think a lot of people including philosophers would disagree with you on that one. The final responsibility for an action rests on the person committing the offence and no one else. Plus you're not doing nothing, you're just not killing them.

If anything this survey has proved that in the event of say 0.0001% of the population getting superpowers they'll be plenty of supervillains for the heroes to fight.

rossatdi:
If anything this survey has proved that in the event of say 0.0001% of the population getting superpowers they'll be plenty of supervillains for the heroes to fight.

Given that the survey doesn't say anything about supervillainy, and you don't know how many people in the thread are just acting all badass on the internet, it doesn't actually say anything.

Your morals aren't everything. You don't have to kill to be a villain, and killing doesn't necessarily villains make. Judging from how you sound you'd be pretty likely to become a villain yourself. You have the holier-than-thou attitude going, you'd impose your morals on others and if someone disagrees they're a villain. Fiction, and real life, is full of this kind of villain, they are often the most interesting, but also often the worst.

I would slaughter every criminal... and declare myself ruler of the city.

I change my answer I would not kill them, as a christian I know that its just wrong to kill even if it seems like a good idea to me I have chosen to follow Jesus' example and live like him I would do my best to capture the killers and the rapists and the drug dealers but I wouldn't kill them.

P.S. Thanks to the person who made this thread it helped me remember something important.

Silver:

rossatdi:
If anything this survey has proved that in the event of say 0.0001% of the population getting superpowers they'll be plenty of supervillains for the heroes to fight.

Given that the survey doesn't say anything about supervillainy, and you don't know how many people in the thread are just acting all badass on the internet, it doesn't actually say anything.

Your morals aren't everything. You don't have to kill to be a villain, and killing doesn't necessarily villains make. Judging from how you sound you'd be pretty likely to become a villain yourself. You have the holier-than-thou attitude going, you'd impose your morals on others and if someone disagrees they're a villain. Fiction, and real life, is full of this kind of villain, they are often the most interesting, but also often the worst.

Ah, and become a Knights Templar? There are plenty of superheroes that maintain righteousness without falling foul of it (Batman, Superman, The Flash). Sure it's hard and it causes them pain but that's part of the package deal.

I wouldn't enforce my morals on others, I would do my best to uphold the law. If there was a masked vigilante running around tearing off muggers' heads then that's going to be a top priority; after all murder trumps mugging.

RyantheLion:
I change my answer I would not kill them, as a christian I know that its just wrong to kill even if it seems like a good idea to me I have chosen to follow Jesus' example and live like him I would do my best to capture the killers and the rapists and the drug dealers but I wouldn't kill them.

P.S. Thanks to the person who made this thread it helped me remember something important.

Er, no worries. I guess sometimes you have to disagree with your allies but as long as he stays on the right side, seems fine. I'd be scared shitless if he ever lost his faith but that's a discussion for another board!

rossatdi:

Silver:

rossatdi:
If anything this survey has proved that in the event of say 0.0001% of the population getting superpowers they'll be plenty of supervillains for the heroes to fight.

Given that the survey doesn't say anything about supervillainy, and you don't know how many people in the thread are just acting all badass on the internet, it doesn't actually say anything.

Your morals aren't everything. You don't have to kill to be a villain, and killing doesn't necessarily villains make. Judging from how you sound you'd be pretty likely to become a villain yourself. You have the holier-than-thou attitude going, you'd impose your morals on others and if someone disagrees they're a villain. Fiction, and real life, is full of this kind of villain, they are often the most interesting, but also often the worst.

Ah, and become a Knights Templar? There are plenty of superheroes that maintain righteousness without falling foul of it (Batman, Superman, The Flash). Sure it's hard and it causes them pain but that's part of the package deal.

I wouldn't enforce my morals on others, I would do my best to uphold the law. If there was a masked vigilante running around tearing off muggers' heads then that's going to be a top priority; after all murder trumps mugging.

Where would you draw the line between obeying the law and being above it, since vigilanteism is in itself against the law. A criminal commits a crime, is sent to prison, serves their time, is released and commits another crime; how many times will you let the commit crimes before growing tired of it? Even superheroes use the excuse where the villain manages to off themselves.

hypothetical fact:

rossatdi:

Silver:

rossatdi:
If anything this survey has proved that in the event of say 0.0001% of the population getting superpowers they'll be plenty of supervillains for the heroes to fight.

Given that the survey doesn't say anything about supervillainy, and you don't know how many people in the thread are just acting all badass on the internet, it doesn't actually say anything.

Your morals aren't everything. You don't have to kill to be a villain, and killing doesn't necessarily villains make. Judging from how you sound you'd be pretty likely to become a villain yourself. You have the holier-than-thou attitude going, you'd impose your morals on others and if someone disagrees they're a villain. Fiction, and real life, is full of this kind of villain, they are often the most interesting, but also often the worst.

Ah, and become a Knights Templar? There are plenty of superheroes that maintain righteousness without falling foul of it (Batman, Superman, The Flash). Sure it's hard and it causes them pain but that's part of the package deal.

I wouldn't enforce my morals on others, I would do my best to uphold the law. If there was a masked vigilante running around tearing off muggers' heads then that's going to be a top priority; after all murder trumps mugging.

Where would you draw the line between obeying the law and being above it, since vigilanteism is in itself against the law. A criminal commits a crime, is sent to prison, serves their time, is released and commits another crime; how many times will you let the commit crimes before growing tired of it? Even superheroes use the excuse where the villain manages to off themselves.

Most of the 'good' superheroes turn villains over the to police. By not being overly violent they might technically be acting in an illegal manner but the police like having them around for when some serious shit kicks off.

Also, yes. It's the justice system responsbility to try and convict, and rehabilitate people. But since there's a strong curve into non-criminality in later life not the biggest of deals.

Booze Zombie:
People seem very quick to brand anyone who would dare even suggest killing as "beasts" and "monsters", as if their "divine" self was some how above an instinctual rage in the face of a deadly threat. I find it a rather pompous attitude, as we are just animals... and what do animals do best?

Well we're animals in a biological sense but I wouldn't say we're just animals. Most animals have little free will about whether they kill something; if they are full or tired they won't, if they are hungry they will. Humans beings have both free will and a discourse on morality going back for several millenia.So if we kill we better have a bloody good reason for it rather than just saying, "It's in our natures".

I don't believe the job of any superhero or law enforcer is to be morally fair. I think it to be an impossible task, so I wouldn't impose it on anyone. I would expect them to use their best judgment as they decide whether or not an action they take is in the best interest of the people or not.

People like the Joker in the Dark Knight, for example, Batman should kill, because he'd be saving the people of Gotham a lot of trouble. If his job is to be morally correct, then he should already take back the punches he'd thrown Joker's way, because he'd been harming him all that time. Killing is merely another level of harm. If you think someone's doing something wrong, then it is already too late to be objective and act like you're in the right. We all bring something to the table. We all judge.

If a rich person was robbed, would you hunt down the robber? Would you use violence to subdue him? What if someone else forced him to do it? ? What if he was starving and needed the money to feed himself? What if he had a starving child to feed? Where do you draw he line between mercy and righteousness? We either live by the rules or we don't. Rules aren't upheld because they're the rules. They are upheld because they have a purpose. Is it better to return money to the rich person and let a poor man and child starve, if our interest was the good of the people? Is it better to feed and clothe the needy and forgo the lawful rights of do-good'ers?

I say we all give up being pretentious pricks, admit that we are all ignorant of what's absolutely right and wrong, and rid our consideration of morality from formal business. There is no such thing as redemption. It is not our business to be right. It is similarly not the law enforcement's business to be right. It is their business to act in the interest of the people. There is much room to be left in the realm of discretion, and a wise decision will reveal itself to be one in the future. Don't be a judge; be a hero. Don't be God; be Jesus.

I said yes to the second one, killing murders, and rapists, not so much drug dealers though because while and ignorant person would say that all drug dealers are murders, I am not inclined to think so.

I would't how ever spare murders, I think for the most part they are beyond redemption as with rapists. I will sasy this though murdering the murders would make me much better any better than them, so I to would be beyond redemption. And it would be a very fine line to walk, for any false step and suddenly you aren't only killing murders but also the "inoccent". If thinking that killing murders and rapists makes me 'bad' then so be it.

rossatdi:
If anything this survey has proved that in the event of say 0.0001% of the population getting superpowers they'll be plenty of supervillains for the heroes to fight.

Personally I think it proves that if you ask a fantasy question on a gaming forum you get a lot of fantasy answers.

scumofsociety:

rossatdi:
If anything this survey has proved that in the event of say 0.0001% of the population getting superpowers they'll be plenty of supervillains for the heroes to fight.

Personally I think it proves that if you ask a fantasy question on a gaming forum you get a lot of fantasy answers.

Concerns me that people's fantasies involve so much murder.

Probably not. I'm also taking the Batman approach; killing is pretty much the only thing that crosses the line from Vigilante to criminal. Though if it came down to someone who just wouldn't go away, and is protected by the legal system on certain grounds (Eg The Joker always avoids trial using the insanity defense), I'd probably have to end their life to save others.

darthsmily:
There needs to be some sort of equaliser. But then how would we make sure that this equaliser does not become corrupt?

Elementary, my dear Watson. For every criminal killed there must be an innocent killed, for every man killed there must be a woman killed. Ultimate equality is just to everyone.

I'd definitely be an anti-hero for the simple fact that a criminal would kill if they thought that they'd have to deal with the Flash, but wouldn't kill anyone if they thought Wolverine would come and shank their throat with his fist. Do you think Mr. Freeze or Lex Luthor would dare do crimes if they knew that Superman would willingly fire his laser vision into their brains? Hell no.

I would horribly cripple mostly,I'd much rather a criminal have to deal with not being able to do anything their whole life, than just instantly die. Rapists and murderers aren't exactly effective without arms are they?

There more complicated issues, like gang violence, which can't be solved by singular murders or counseling. Their problem is that they're always on edge because they're afraid of the other gang shooting at them first. I would just let them know that the next gang member that kills someone gets their own entire gang murdered... by me. After this they'd be too afraid to even fight in fear that they may accidentally kill someone and after a while, they'll just learn to live with one another.

Also my power would be Teleportation, no one would commit a crime if they thought I'd instantly be there to break off their arms

I would kill anyone who broke the law, when you decide to break the law you have lost your rights as a human and are breaking the very threads that hold this socieity together. I will be the person that keeps the world from breaking into chaos

Nah the perry criminals I'd just give a hard beating so they wouldn't wake up the next day. Serious criminals I'd stab 8-20 times and leave their lives to fate.

it depends on my powers.

I have an idea for a power in which I 'judge' someone on karma. if they have negative karma, I give them an ultimatum. do x good deed(s) in y time, or face the consequences. if they don't, I'd bring them to justice.

I don't think I would ever kill, no matter what my power. I would let the judicial system determine a criminal's fate.

I'd Strictly kill Drug dealers, Rapists, and Hillbillies.

and would anyone consider Jackie Estacado a Superhero?

i'd like to think that i have the audacity to kill but i just dont!

why kill when you can maim?

Powerhelix:
I would kill anyone who broke the law, when you decide to break the law you have lost your rights as a human and are breaking the very threads that hold this socieity together. I will be the person that keeps the world from breaking into chaos

But then of course, you'd have been a law breaker.

I would be a criminal....

I'd be likely to kill in extreme cases. Like say some guy plans to blow up a bus full of children, that guy is gonna find himself shaking hands with Satan soon. otherwise I would just hand them over to the police.
Now that I think about it, why don't heroes ever join the police? It would probably be easier for them to capture criminals and such if they actually worked for the police and had back-up and such.

After a good thourough scaring or beating I would give them the opertunity to turn their lives around, if they cn't face a "normal life" or what ever then they join me, but once they go back to crime thenb its death.

of course i would kill before taking any stupid risks in a combat situation