A weird scenario for killing a Villain(or trying to at least)

That title doesn't quite capture what I want to ask, but I got this idea in my head and I wanted to see what you guys thought of it:

A borderline hero / Anti-Hero (as in he can be either depending on the situation and his mode, but usually tries to be a hero) has the villain at his mercy.

Said villain has committed many atrocities, like torture, Genocide and the like. The hero is very displeased. Being the slightly anti heroic guy he is, he wants to make said villain suffer for what he's done, and admits that causing the latter the same pain he's caused others would please him.

The Villain mocks him that he should do it; give in to his darker urges and start inflicting torture....

But the hero just stabs him in the heart instead....

Only for the villain to survive anyway. Turns out he's immortal and near instantly regenerates any damage inflicted on him.

He says that the hero would have to constantly attack him without pause, possibly for hours (even he doesn't know how much punishment he can take before his body gives out) before he would die. He laughs, pointed out that the latter will have to torture him like a villain anyway and become as bad as him.

The Hero does just that, because the threat said villain represents has to be ended, and taking him hostage just gives him a chance to escape (his immortality and healing means he can employ many unorthodox methods to get away).

And just like he knew he would, Said Hero does take some joy in doing so, even though he's just trying to end things permanently.

So, do this count as a Moral Event Horizon for the hero, or is the fact that he ends up torturing the villain not due to any desire to be malicious, but the fact that it's the only way to kill the bastard permanently absolve him?

This idea isn't fully formed, and there may be some things that I'm missing, but I wanted to put it out there to you guys anyway.

Something that always infuriates me about the If You Kill Him, You Will Be Just Like Him! trope is that it's a blatant false equivalency. No, a hero (or Anti-Hero) killing a villain, and maybe even enjoying it, does not make him just as bad as that villain. Especially if that villain has spent the entire story killing innocent people by the dozens. The two crimes are not the same. One is killing innocent person after innocent person, and the other is killing a mass-murderer. There's a big difference.

Or you could have the hero take a more pragmatic stance and say, "No, I'm not just like you. There's one key difference between us. At the end of this, I'll still be alive."

Just by showing he's that hard to kill the villain justifies the effort to do so, because it makes a cast-iron pain in the rear to contain. Can't move him under guard if he does that.

So you do what you have to do. Maybe you take satisfaction in a job well-done, maybe you're liking it for less savory reasons, but until you go out and do villainy yourself, what does it matter?

edited 20th Jan '14 11:30:32 AM by Night

I'd say killing is more about what it does to the hero than about the morals of killing itself. For example, torturing a villain with a Healing Factor is what needs to be done, but it's probably gonna mess you up psychologically to torture somebody like that.

I would highly recommend not having a whole "Killing you makes me become you" think if said protagonist has killed the villain's lackeys or any other obstacle in his way the entire story up to this point. That would be annoying.

Based on what you've said, no, I wouldn't consider it crossing the horizon at all. Seems like the villain has been asking for it, and while its not the most admirable of traits, its not alienating at all for a hero to feel some satisfaction in seeing an adversary get their comeuppance (well, not for me at least. Especially when said adversary seems so gosh darned durable).

I guess for me the more unrealistically diabolical and powerful the villain, the more moral leeway I'm willing to lend the hero. I mean, I'm probably not going to view them as a role model when everything is all said and done, but if I'm expected to find some sympathy for an immortal genocidal tyrant then it seems a bit hypocritical not to be able to conjure up at the very least an equal amount of sympathy for a person who is pushed to their limits and sees no other way to solve the problem than violence.