The Hero is a character that has to face evil and with that they must make the ultimate choice.

Should they take a villain's life/hurt villains?

The issue

Now I am not talking about Real Life morals becuase the matter is entirely different and fiction allows fictional character's to face circumstances and dangers, people in real life would never face.Not to mention that Real Life dilemas are mostly already solved by morality and the law.( Ex What if Killing x villain would save the entire multverse?)

Fictional heroes are role models and how they solve their problems do have an implication on real life.

1. Some heroe's like Batman and superman have a Thou Shalt Not Kill rule and therefore would never kill, but would use (non lethal) violence to stop their enemies

2. Some heroe's never (or hardly ever) even hurt in any way their enemies, and would rather die themselves than kill their enemies.

3. Some heroes wouldn't hesitate to kill their enemies if nessesary, but would rather not (mostly as last ressort)

4. Other heroes like Masterchief from Halo would never hesitate to kill anyone that opposes them, but they never lose the "moral high ground" for whatever reason. Specially in settings where the law is uneffective.

5. Some are even more lucky as violence is not nesesary at all. For example curing a diease if you are a doctor, making good case if you are a lawyer or avoid humilation from an Alpha Bitch at school don't require any kind of violence and much less killing.

The theme on fiction

Pro violence

Tv shows have touched this issue recently.

For example Ant man from Avengers Earths Mightiest Heroes tried to be a pacifist hero that tried not to hurt the villais but rehabilitate them and his pacifism was heavily deconstructed.

Pacifism really wasn't viable in a World of Badass. His methods in a world were prisions are made of carboard simply don't work. In fact he became insane and decided that his pacifist persona was "dead" and becoming much more agresive.

Adventure Time took a similar route of action with jake the dog, learning that full pacifism doesn't work and "it's ok to hit the bad guys"

Pro pacifism

On the other hand we have shows like Avatar The Last Airbender.Even thought his past lifes tried to coonvince him that taking the life of a bad person was ok, he opted for removing the big bad's powers.

While some argue that this was a Deus ex Machina, undeniably pacifism was presented as the best alternative.

The doctor from Doctor Who while not always loyal to his pacifism (he comited genocide to his own race), has declared to prefer being a coward than a killer. The doctor's favorite "weapon" is something that doesn't kill,wound or hurt.

However one of the main hightlight sof the show is the triumph of idealism and inteligence over cynicism and brawn. The solution where Everybody Lives (This show being the Trope Namer) is always the prefered option and violence almost always just brings disaster.

Conclusion

While in Real Life we have the police, laws(self defense+fundamental rights) and tribunals that analyze this matters on realistic situations.Fantasy does give challenges that Real Life never would. Unvariably when the situation is fantastical the moral dilema shifts.

Considering that fictional heroes do influence our perception of real life, specially on children and therefore what choice we prefer for real life issues.

In your opinion should fictional heroes use violence/kill to solve their problems or should pacifism and non violence have more prominence on fiction?.

My opinion

I am still undecided as I believe both extremes have good arguments.However the solution may rely on the circumstances rather than on the hero.

Probably in ww2 hitler wouldn't have been defeated if Ghandi had led the allies to pacifism.

But Martin Luther king would have never had so much impact if he had used violence to further his noble goals.

edited 10th Jun '12 11:56:04 PM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

I think fantasy is a good place to ask these kinds of questions. Trying to restrict it to always/mostly favour pacifism would only limit such questions as "Why didn't he just shoot Evil Mc Badguy"? And that way just leads to ignorance of _why_ pacifism is so important, when it sometimes doesn't work and when it should therefore be changed or even abandoned.

Also, if only the bad guys are allowed to use violence, expect Misaimed Fandom to skyrocket in their favour. And of course violence sells.

It forces shows to be unrealistic. You couldn't have The Wire if pacifism was the only good guy's weapon.

Regarding Ant Man, the poor slob mustn't have realised he's in a comic book universe where _nothing_ stops the bad guys or anyone else who can sell shows for long - it doesn't matter if you're a pacifist, a killer or an eater of souls with total entropic Completely Final 'you're dead for ever' powers - no-one is capable of denting the status quo. It's one of the most bleakly pointless realities I can imagine. May as well go drink and have fun like Wonderella :)

edited 11th Jun '12 5:37:37 AM by betaalpha

Depends on the hero.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Pure pacifism is terrible strategy. As George Orwell said: "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist."

edited 11th Jun '12 6:31:48 AM by TenTailsBeast

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

I'll say this : as a person who always pictures herself to be a hero of her own story, there are times that being a violent fighter or even a lifetaker is the appropriate method. BUT, pacifism / ways that appeal to the best side of the law / leading to the best approach to publicity should be available at times, and should be considered and attempted, before rolling back to violence

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

If a problem could be solved in a non-injurious way or without resorting to extremes, then these non-injurious, non-extreme ways should always be made the priority. If they don't work, that's when I'd say it's best to try your other options.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Perhaps coming across as joking, but here's a thing

No kill run
No alert run
No guns run
Chicken run / Zero boss fights run
No kill + total KO run
No detection run

These are usually the terms one would use to specify certain challenges in stealth games. I am using these terms to specify means of pacifism. For me, I'd opt for all of them alternatively. Never all at once, but at least twice at once or sparringly

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

I would prefer less violent. Not exactly pacifist, but avoiding killing if they can, while not avoiding it when they can't. The "killing as the only option is never questioned" annoys me in many movies. Enemies surrendering? How unrealistic...

Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/

Gandhi himself rejected pure pacifism, which is not synonymous with nonviolent resistance. More stories could stand to outline the distinction between giving in and resisting nonviolently.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

This depends entirely on the opinions of the person writing the work and what it is they are writing. I personally don't think my heroes should or should not kill. Killing may be useful for a particular work while it may not work in another. There is the issue of works influencing people and in particular children, but I don't believe that that capability should result in a restriction on what is written. Perhaps on what is purchased and consumed by particular families, but not on what is written.

I myself am largely pacifistic (lethal force is sadly needed at times and letting people die because you refused to use it or indeed do anything is just as bad if not worse) and Buddhist. As a result my morals and thought patterns affect how I write. This doesn't necessarily result in pacifistic heroes in my case though. My one original work that involves death is a mythology and culture based on real Mesoamerican cultures. I wish for it to fit and feel authentic in terms of theme and style. So people are dying. A lot. We also have horrendous punishments and things so metal as rain being the blood of a cursed people. The culture itself is rather fine with this whole killing people thing. It's needed to keep the world going they believe and if people fuck up and the gods kill or hurt them then that is their own fault. Death is significant and respected just not in the fashion that we ourselves are used to.

I wish to write other things as well such as a series of short stories in a cyberpunk setting whose universe runs on Buddhist cosmology. The killing vs. not killing issue would come into play but it would vary depending on the situation. What fits the particular character and tale I wish to tell.

When it comes to fiction I am consuming personally I would like to see more instances of pacifism being shown. Avatar: The Last Airbender's ending was one that I rather liked to have seen and I would like to see further such things. Indeed the shows struggle with the issue of killing and its depictions of death and the aftermath of it in general was something I liked. Especially since at the end our Kung fu action Jesus stuck with his morals and still ended up saving shit.

I don't mind depictions of death however. I would just like to see more depictions of pacifism as an answer and options that are based more on mercy than justice.

edited 11th Jun '12 10:10:14 AM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

If I were a fictional hero, I wouldn't be looking for the moral highground, I'd be looking to be a problem solver.

How many times has The Joker came back and hurt tons of people with his schemes because Batman didn't realize that Arkham was incapable of holding him, and that the Joker needed to die?(Then again, they would make far less money for lack of future content involving the joker, which is the real reason he doesn't die)

I guess it puts me in anti-hero territory, but the way I look at it, if someone has committed atrocities and harmed many, and don't look to have even an ounce of regret, then they should die. Because if they get killed, they aren't around to cause any more problems. It's tying up a loose end.

Hell, a hero who kills his villains could probably retire in about a decade when he off'd all of the major criminals in the city. I don't see anything morally wrong with killing people who victimize others, throwing them in jail and letting them live is just one extra loose end dangling that they don't deserve. Not to mention it costs money, and very dangerous criminals often control their organizations from prison.

Mercy is for people who turn themselves in and show genuine regret and a desire to repent for their actions. If a criminal only feels regret and sorrow after he's been caught, screw him, take him out.

I'm talking about supervillains here, not purse snatchers or muggers necessarily.

edited 11th Jun '12 10:21:35 AM by Barkey

The problems with summary execution are:

• Offers no chance at rehabilitation/usefulness to society.
• Gives no incentive for surrender/cooperation.
• Humane execution is often more expensive than life imprisonment.

Not to mention that I find no problem with Batman having a rule against lethal force. I blame the state for not building a prison that can actually hold the criminals he catches. But then, if even death can't hold villains for long in comics, what do you expect to do? What needs to happen is for Reed Richards (metaphorically) to stop being useless. The Joker becomes less scary, for example, if somebody improves the Lazarus Pit to bring back murder victims en masse.

edited 11th Jun '12 10:28:30 AM by KingZeal

Might as well be.

FICTIONAL heroes have the option to go to EXTREME lengths in terms of violent displays without much consequences in real life.

Fiction (these days) is (hopefully) mostly for entertainment anyway.

Who would want to suffer through the story of a Hero who writes strongly worded letters and/or forms a comitte to brainstorm a solution to a problem that could fill several novels worth of court room drama and brilliant wrangling when it could have been solved by shooting someone between the eyes at the very start?

Then there's the appeal of violence. Its the second thing in the "Sex and Violence" combo that sells so well.

Extreme non-violence is kind of hard to show....sit calmly and discuss the issue while someone rapes you wife, sets your children on fire and demolish your home and dreams?

edited 11th Jun '12 10:32:34 AM by Natasel

Me?

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Barkey: I know a series you'd like.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

There should be (as there are) all kinds of fictional heroes, from entirely pacifistic to ultra-violent.

The problem with this kind of "think of the children" argument, I think, is that exposing children to an intellectual monoculture is a terrible idea, and one which will possibly hamper their intellectual development. Much better to allow them to become familiar with both pacifist and anti-pacifist rhetoric, so that they may be able to recognize it more easily in the future; and then, to tell them what one considers the correct position on the issue.

edited 11th Jun '12 11:20:14 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Nods.

Extreme Violence and Extreme Peace are....extremes (damn sleepy) that have their own appeal and lessons.

Now if only I can think of a way to show Extreme Peace.....

I am not promoting/bashing monoculture, my only point was that there is an undeniable influence of morals to children.As much as people love to hate moral gurdians becuase they do have a point.

However I diasgree as two opposites can't be equally right on the same issue.

edited 11th Jun '12 11:29:32 AM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

I don't have a problem with a hero having a general rule against killing. In other words, if they can defeat a given threat without resorting to lethal force within reason, that's fine. It's when the "within reason" part gets removed that the stupid tends to pile up.

Refusing to kill a Dalek, for example, is frankly ridiculous. The Doctor knows that they cannot be bargained or reasoned with, and yet he still tries Talking the Monster to Death. That's not high-minded idealism, that's plain idiocy. In the end, he's either forced to destroy them anyway or has a Deus ex Machina take care of them for him.

edited 11th Jun '12 11:33:59 AM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

I am not saying that the two positions are equally right: personally, I lean heavily towards pacifism, although not absolutely so. But this does not mean that I wouldn't want other positions to be represented in the narrative. I want kids to read about Conan the Barbarian, and then to understand that behaving like him in Real Life would be a Very Stupid Idea.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

That's something I agree

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

Pretty much.

My opinion or the author's shouldn't define a characters morality, but things like setting and plot should. It would not make sense for the hardened marshall in a gritty western to be pacifistic, or, from Aondeug, to have Maya/aztec civilizations without the sacrifices that formed an integral part of their culture.

If there is a pacifist hero, or a violent, explore what his behavior would cause, and be consequent and realistic: no Deus ex Machina because the logical conclusion isn't something that goes against your own viewpoint.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

The doctor is a odd case, he is a Non-Action Guy / Trickster Archetype. He may not punch or shoot his way out of danger but he has wiped out entire species when he saw the need too.

edited 11th Jun '12 3:46:04 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Well I tend not to like to restrict media to a specific ideology. That just tends to become censorship/moral guardian land.

However, I do prefer pacifist ideologies because I find them so darn rare in western literature. Like, our concept of "pacifism" involves beating people up -not- to the point of death. Ooooo Oo. That's not pacifism, that's just non-lethal police action.

The Last Airbender was probably one of the few shows that did pacifism well. He went around, saw problems, solved them but one of the problems involved the super evil fire overlord. But he tried to resolve it without killing (mind you this is NOT pacifism). So he was already acting in a non-pacifist manner.

But on the note of pacifism, the concept isn't "Well pacifists wouldn't have fought Hitler". The idea is that if Germans passively resisted Hitler's violent ideology, we wouldn't have had WW 2 in the first place. That is how pacifism works. You can argue that "well it they didn't so now what?" but that's for a different topic.