should (fictional) heroes kill/be violent?

And that's why I find action movies enjoyable mostly if seen with some friends and with a generous helping of snarky commentary. I mean, is there anybody who takes Die Hard seriously? Can there be?

This said, when I watch action movies, what I like is not the punching, it's the explosions. Explosions are pretty

edited 12th Jun '12 5:47:18 AM by Carciofus

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

Violence in fictional media is not the same as violence in reality. Violence in a fictional context is inherently planned and organised - any fight scene you have ever seen, read or played, be it the most no-holds-barred brutal and bloody of fights or the most chivalrous duel imaginable, was scripted and practiced by everyone so many times that it's more like a dance than a real fight. In a fictional context, violence often represents something else; it is part of a wider plot. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader fighting with lightsabres are representing the concepts of good and evil and the struggle between them. Even if it doesn't directly represent a concept that way, it moves the story onward in a methodical way, Die Hard being an excellent example of that.

Real violence, on the other hand, is inherently chaotic. Between kids in a playground, well-trained martial artists or anyone in between those two, an actual fight can always go one way or the other, even if the odds are against or for either fighter. Actual fights are rough struggles where chance plays a major role, no matter how the fight happens or who's doing it. A lot of people like fictional violence because it's action, and the vast majority of humans like action - pretend-swordfighting with a friend, playing on swings, running, kicking a balloon in the air so it doesn't touch the ground, and, of course, actual sports - but we mostly don't like real violence, because real violence brings pain and sometimes even the threat of death.

Should/can heroes be violent? Yes, provided the audience understands that real violence is not the same as fictional violence. A lot of people do understand the difference between the two, but enough don't that it's a problem, one that we need to solve. Should/can heroes kill? As other people have said in this thread, if there's no other reasonable and effective option of stopping villains, then yes, they should and can.

To go back to the "Batman should kill the Joker" argument, I think the problem with the whole situation is that both Batman and the Joker are stuck in terms of character development. The Joker can be summed up in two words: "He's crazy". What can you have the Joker do as a character with those two words as inspiration? Anything. And when a character might do anything, they're really not that strongly characterised, are they? The Joker is such a Complete Monster there's no possibility of him growing as a person, which makes him incredibly static. Batman, on the other hand, is so fixated on the "I must never kill" thing that it's hampered his development as well: for a guy with one of the greatest minds on Earth, you'd think he'd have figured out by now that he should just kill dangerous villains to get a few months' reprieve before they get resurrected for whatever reason DC gives. Death is the best prison in comic books; why shouldn't Batman be Genre Savvy and incarcerate foes sometimes?

The fact that the Joker has no humanity left in him means he won't grow up, so he doesn't deserve yet another chance given the terrible things he's done over and over. Batman won't kill him to save other lives, even if the Joker inevitably only stays down for a while, because Batman's fixated on not killing, even though his pacifism in this one instance costs many more people their lives. Both of them have hit a narrative wall in this regard.

Correction: That's Comic-Book Limbo. Too bad Joker can never go there.

You have a point, though. I wish stories would take one step into having heroes figure out when deadly force is necessary and when it isn't, rather than a blanket statement of "never" because of a Slippery Slope Fallacy.

edited 12th Jun '12 6:49:01 AM by KingZeal

But here's the thing with the Joker, he's awesome! Because he is so crazy, writers can have as much fun with him as they want.

It is always interesting to listen to actors who play a villian because most of the time, they say how fun it is to play them, even if they are just horrible people.

If Batman killed his villians, it would be harder to find as entertaining and engaging a plot device. Eventually, he would have just killed them all and would have to hang up his cowl, because if Batman can kill the Joker-who will really want to try and start a crime life in Gothom?

The thing about Batman is he needs that constant struggle. He can't just be Bruce Wayne. So he doesn't kill. He always gets to be Batman.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

We know the meta reason that Joker can't die (he's popular, and he's easy for any half-assed writer to tell a decent story with because he is KRRRAAAAZZZZAAAYY!™).

The problem is that it doesn't translate in-universe very well and looks stupid after, like, the third time it happens.

edited 12th Jun '12 7:32:13 AM by KingZeal

Exactly. This is a problem that, to my knowledge, is unique to Anglosphere superhero comic books: their stories don't end. You have rare examples like Watchmen or The Sandman, but apart from those, the tale of Batman continues eternally. Eventually, people run out of interesting things to do with him, and sure, you can replace those people, but even so things get stale. I think one reason that manga are selling so well overseas while Anglosphere-made super-comics aren't is that manga stories tend to only go for ten or at most twenty years. American comic books? Up to eighty years old. Having a set time to explore a world and its characters, give them good arcs and then leave them be is a very, very good idea.

You're right, writers can do anything with the Joker. I don't consider that a good thing, because it makes his characterisation all over the place. With no set rules to guide how he acts, the Joker loses all possibility of character growth, because he doesn't really have a character to grow.

Well, there's actually a solution to the "stories don't end" problem, but the problem is that the creators are reluctant to try it, and fans will be against it simply because it'd invoke too much change.

The best solution to the "stories don't end" problem is limited series instead of ongoings. I know Marvel and DC both tried doing something like this before, and that it didn't really work. However, the best way to solve the problem is to market comics as stories, not as the continuing adventures of a particular character. Each story becomes its own "take", but you still allow Broad Strokes for writers who want to do a "continuation" or "sequel" to previous works. For example, if you like Negative Continuity, All Star Superman was the "sequel" to Silver Age Superman, given the Mythology Gags. If you like Continuity Porn, Planet Hulk was the "sequel" to the Microverse arc, given the amount of Call Backs. If you want a completely new story, Watchmen was the "sequel" to the Charleston comics given the Captain Ersatzes that appear.

edited 12th Jun '12 8:07:22 AM by KingZeal

The Joker isn't a character, he's an ideal. :P

He can to grow, it just depends in what direction. He has his own back histories and different origin stories. That is the one thing about American Comic books, there most often is a various "age" that is given a reboot to rework beloved characters to suit the needs of that particular audience.

Just compare the characterization of Golden Age Superman to Silver Age Superman.

Some see this as a downside because it's breaking continuity, but when you have a character that is over 80 years old, fuck continuity. You can't be the same entity or your audience will bail on you.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

But that's the exact problem. No actual person can be an ideal. Characters which embody a single trait ("Chaos" or "Insanity" or whatever) eventually cease to be actual characters in that they lose a range of humanity for the sake of becoming an embodiment. The Joker being an ideal means that anyone who has a different semantical interpretation can write him any way they feel like. Write him as a calculating schemer ala The Dark Knight? That's legit, because he's an agent of chaos. Write him as a cackling psychopath with little restraint? Sure, because his mind is chaotic. Write him as able to turn off his psychosis at will and lead a completely normal life for a time? Sure, because he's just SO crazy, he can even stop being crazy!

Like I said, it's easy for any mediocre-to-decent writer to exploit this.

edited 12th Jun '12 8:47:13 AM by KingZeal

I'm with his majesty Zeal here. Limited series are the way to go, in my opinion. An overly continuity-heavy nature is bad for comics.

In fact, I think everyone could learn from fanfiction in this regard. Good fanfiction (the rarest of things) is like the original source material, but it has its own flavour. Marvel's gone in a good direction with their Marvel Adventures line, which is basically a Lighter And Softier version of their "real" universe, and is that much better for it.

Why shouldn't all comics do the same? Say we have three Batman series at once, entirely not in continuity with one another. One that's grim-and-gritty Batman where he deals entirely with street-level thugs and has no stuff that's much higher-tech than is possible in the real world now, one that's slightly more futuristic Batman where he might interact with other superpowered people more, and one that's out and out Silver-Age esque wackiness.

You buy the series you enjoy without having to worry about everything fitting together, because trying to legitimately fit everything in a wide-ranging universe together usually ends up in major continuity headaches.

But I fear we may be getting off-topic.

They tried to do that with the original multiverse, but the whole thing was "too confusing" for new readers (according to an old issue of Wizard Magazine). I've heard rumors that this was just an excuse for another behind-the-scenes reason, though.

One thing I've always admired about Marvel is that it's remained (relatively) reboot-free (small reboots like One More Day notwithstanding) and has always embraced its multiverse. DC likes to treat a multiverse like a red-headed stepchild by comparison.

Personally, continuity was what got me into comics in the first place, so I don't see why everyone thinks it's so hard. But then, I'm a dork. And the goal is to make comics cater less to dorks.

I think using the word exploit is a little off base. Joker isn't the only character that is an ideal. Most comic characters are ideals such as Captain America. It happens to real life characters as well like Queen Elizabeth I, Marquise de Sade, and most military figures.

I don't see this as a problem. If you've ever read some of the fan fiction about the Joker, as well as other figures in the same sort of feel, then one can't say any writer can work them because most of it is absolute shit. Especially a lot of the attempts to describe his beginning. Hannibal Lecter is another character that I would consider an ideal. (Some would say Darth Vader as well, but I am not of that opinion.)

Even the heroes are ideals. It's just what people do. If we love someone enough, we give them supernatural credit. Look at our sports heroes and celebrity beauties.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

The problem I always had with protagonists that absolutely refuse to kill, comes from the fact that writers who write those stories write them as if they themselves don't actually believe in that philosophy. You constantly have the authors warping the universe or using a less moral character to do the dirty job, all for the sake of keeping the main character pure and clean, but also getting rid of the villain. This sort of stuff is not just dishonest, it's also extremely lazy.

Out of all stories I watched/read, the only one which never bailed the main character out, and always played out the consequences of his reluctance to kill, in a realistic manner, was Monster.

edited 12th Jun '12 9:44:50 AM by fanty

I'm in the middle of watching the anime right now. It's brilliant. You're right, I haven't thought about that one!

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Depends. If the mooks are like, drug ring mobsters, sure. But I'd feel almost as sorry for regular enlisted dudes killed because they were caught up on the wrong side of an empire as for the good guys.

Well, of course characters are ideals. But, the Joker is basically a walking plot device. Whenever you need something interesting to happen, have the Joker do it. Need to kill off a character? Sure, Joker can do it. Need to have a Man Behind the Man plot twist at the end? Say Joker was pulling the strings. Need a hero to be "rescued"? Have the Joker do it out of some bizarre sense of nobility or entitlement. And why would he do any of this? Who care?! He's the Joker!

Further, the fact that bad Joker stories/fanfiction exists doesn't mean he's not a crutch character. It just means crutches weren't able to help the failures.

This is usually acknowledged when it's the case. The heroes usually go "Remember, these guys aren't evil. They're Just Following Orders."

Otherwise, we're supposed to assume it doesn't apply.

edited 12th Jun '12 2:19:19 PM by KingZeal

Regardless of if they had it coming or not isn't the part I object to, it's the hypocrisy.

The Hero has just finished wiping out an entire tower full of mooks, killing anything in his path to confront the villain at the top of the tower. Suddenly, he wants to pull out all the stops to try and convince the villain to surrender, that jumping off the tower or fighting the hero just isn't the answer, or how he doesn't want to kill the villain, but will if he has to!

So you can wipe out hundreds of soldiers who might have had families that depended on them and lives all their own, without a blink of remorse. But when you get to the asshole in charge, who is responsible for far worse things, you hesitate at the trigger? What the fuck Hero?

Oh certainly.

What about video games? I don't buy the "playing violent video games turns kids into criminals" idea, obviously, and I occasionally play a violent game myself; but still I cannot help but wonder if that's entirely healthy.

I mean, when I am playing Skyrim, I am essentially fantasizing about taking a fictional warhammer to the heads of fictional people (or dragons, but eh.) Now, quite obviously, I would never ever ever do anything like that in Real Life, and these fictional people are fictional bad guys; but still, there is something that I am not sure is completely wholesome about me amusing myself by imagining to kill bandits.

edited 12th Jun '12 8:56:13 PM by Carciofus

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

Yeah - I remember that being a staple of video games like the Final Fantasy series where characters display humanity towards defeated villains in cutscenes after dispassionately killing thousands of nameless guards in order to grind enough experience to take them on first. It's kinda enforced by the game mechanics - Level Grinding while allowing the villain to join your team so you can try out his neat powers and advance the storyline. Protagonist-Centered Morality explores this well - "Hooray! The people whose names I know are saved!" :)

edited 12th Jun '12 9:00:51 PM by betaalpha

Yeah games don't exactly make them killers, but IT DOES tell them that violence/killing is a viable solution to problems. Maybe they won't will and become killers but they may join the army or support laws that do take less pacifist routes than usual.

In fact Usa's army uses games to try to convince people to join them.

edited 12th Jun '12 8:41:03 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 had some early moral dilemmas about killing when I first played Morrowind. I actually remember feeling very apprehensive for a Mages Guild quest where I'd be instructed to kill a town healer for being a necromancer. No leeway. Up to then, I'd always taken the peaceful options during quests, and only killed other NP Cs in self-defense (ie, bandits), so that moment in the game really put my situation under perspective for me. And when I finally did decide to murder the target, I actually rationalized to myself about it being the right thing to do, and sort of convinced myself that the victim probably was a necromancer, etc...

And an unsettling development from that point on, was that after that quest, I found it much easier on my psyche to murder NP Cs whenever my guild handed me a quest to kill someone. Heck, I even ended up joining the Morag Tong...

Although I don't think any other video game, not even within the ES, has really made me think as much about killing and violence. Especially not Skyrim, which has frigging kill-cams, for crying out loud...

They never travel alone.

Yeah Morrowind kind of bugged me in that pretty much every major questline and faction went into assassinating seemingly random dudes because the local mafias had their claws in frigging everything. At some point I just went "fuck this, I'm cleaning house" and went Batman on their asses.

edited 12th Jun '12 10:11:00 PM by Pykrete

I usually just try the non-violent solution if possible for games like that. If there isn't one, I don't rationalise my actions, I just figure, oh well it's a game.

I tend to play sneaky characters in games like Skyrim, though I won't say I'm necessarily merciful, depending on what it is I'm doing, how fast I want to be done, and what sort of opposition I'm looking at, I'll often spend 10 times the time a warrior would take to clear out a dungeon or situation so that I can stealthily kill every single enemy without starting an alert.

But sometimes I'll try to just sneak on through without causing any alert at all. Like the last quest of the Dark Brotherhood, which has you murder an extremely important figure on a secure boat in the middle of a bay. I felt proud of myself when I swam onto the boat via the anchor chain, ducked my way past every one of the guards, and then picked the final lock for the cabin of my target.

It did sort of dull the entire experience that he was standing there waiting for me though, he wasn't surprised or shocked that I was there and just let me take him out without a struggle. But at least I did a really complex job and then proceeded to exfil the boat via his balcony without being seen. I'd hate to have been one of the guards on that job.