Do Superheroes' "No-Kill Rule" Hold Them Back?

Post Reply New Topic

It seems like "no-kill rules" only exist so that the heroes could have the supposed moral high-ground. They don't have much use practically speaking. For example, Batman not killing the Joker could be seen as him not sinking to his level of depravity, but he's still fully aware that the Joker will kill dozens more in no time.

If this was in the so-called "real world" I would think it's better to kill the dangerous villains or chose not to save them than to let them go; I could name some bad guys & instantiates in real life where it was justified but I don't want this thread to turn into a political debate. However in the superhero universe, the heroes tend to be portrayed as being much better than normal people. Sure they do have some various weaknesses & flaws but they almost always try to do the rite thing & like you said have the moral high-ground. People want to be able to look up to the heroes. Plus not killing the villains makes things more interesting & easier to write. If the heroes killed the villains, the writers would have to create new villains to take their place. People tend to like some predictability as well so reusing the same characters makes sense.

Its an issue I lie awake at night worrying about!

Comic book superheroes failing to advance in the world!

Who cares if real life folks on the autism spectrum advance?

We cant worry about that as long as there is a single fictional superhero in the world being held back!