Hero doesn't like to kill and avoids it when possible, but will kill if there is no choice

I never understood no killing rules. Sure, lots of people aren't entirely evil and can be redeemed, but there's some people that won't ever learn or redeem themselves and just keep being the way they are, doing the same shit and maybe even worse things. Is it worth feeling like a good person for having no blood on your hands if someone you refused to shed blood from just sheds even more blood, or causes even more suffering in general?
It feels more like you want to look good than actually improve things, if you spare actually evil people that've done horrible things and see nothing wrong with it. So why do it?

Attached: 1586189768597.png (982x628, 321.04K)

Popular villains are too popular to be killed. It's not exactly rocket surgery.

maybe said hero doesn't like killing
maybe said hero acts like a girl having sex for the first time: don't know until they try it.

some said heroes can handle it, and some can't
all i know is that they can't make a good story based on the killing rule because said hero has done it multiple times or back when comics were literal child shit

so instead of making it about "to kill or not to kill", make it about teaching us why they do/don't kill
sounds better than the usual repeated story far worse than a new version of the origin story

also batman getting emotional about why he doesn't kill sounds like a great story idea, really gives a better perspective and delves into the character
not only exploring his ideology, but relating to those that fear killing others

Attached: 1565760939880.jpg (640x659, 81.65K)

Well, yeah, it makes sense for making fat stacks of money in movies and comics. I mean in-universe, it makes no sense at all for it to repeat over and over again, especially if people don't just get held hostage and actually die. Letting villains go for them to kill over and over again.

>Superior

Attached: superior.jpg (750x1139, 1016.7K)

>hero rapes the evil out of the villain

more based

>>Hero has a "no killing" rule and there are no exceptions. He will never kill the villain no matter the circumstances
establishing it as a rule can lead to some interesting things when the hero is inevitably in a situation where they have little to no choice but to kill
whether you morally agree with it or not, its a matter of storytelling. if it can be used to tell an interesting story, so be it. if its only ever done to establish the hero as a 'good guy', and especially if the writers end up writing themselves into a corner because the stories they wanna tell dont mesh with that pointless rule they came up with without thinking of its consequences, then its gonna end up shit regardless

Mass murdering and serial killing criminals should be killed regardless of their circumstances. Same could probably be said about serial rapists.

>Hero marries the villain and raises a happy family
So based it almost never happens

been like a decade since i watched kenshiro
did he actually spare some random mook or something occasionally because he was truly sorry?
the few instances i remember the mook immediately tried to stab him in the back

You're mulling over what's ultimately just an excuse. It doesn't matter what in universe reason they use, it's not the real reason. Just brush it off as the character having different moral views from yours, I'm sure even your autistic ass has experienced that.

Not Zig Forums but it happened in Grimm

Iirc, he spared a guy who was just bring a bully. He basically did a move that stripped the bully of his super strength, so he has to work hard like everybody else.

Well, yeah. But at that point, it's clear the justice system is simply not reliable, so as a superhero with special powers/skills, isn't it your responsability to take care of the problem at its root when even the system won't?

if you had to murder someone, it would be quicker to murder the guy in charge of prison security/whoever didn't give proper funding

you murder 1 murderer and you stop 1 guy
you murder 1 prison official and you put 100 murderers behind bars permanently

You guys do realize it's illegal to kill people, right?

He spared criminals sometimes but crippled them first so that they could never hurt people again

not Zig Forums but it also happened in Scum's Wish

I have no problem with a character having a code against killing if it's done well. It almost never is, though, and I think that has a lot to do with the fact that, by far, it most often shows up in cape comics, where it couldn't be more obvious that the only reason the rule exists for most characters is because the writers don't want to kill off their marketable villains. And the frustrating thing is that it's paraded around like a grand ethical principle that these characters all happen to hold, when there obviously isn't any sort of well thought-out philosophical backing to it.

Rurouni Kenshin is probably the best example I can think of off the top of my head of this trope done well. The protagonist doesn't demand that anyone else refrain from killing: He just swore off it himself as a means of atonement for what he views as heinous crimes that he committed. It's a personal code, and by no means something that he takes any sort of high ground over. I generally think that Batman's "no killing" rule should be handled similarly.

A couple of notes, though: First, I don't have a problem with a vigilante hero turning a villain over to the justice system once apprehended (at least until the villain has escaped three or four or two hundred times), but these characters always refuse to kill even in the heat of battle or to save someone else in danger. Second, I could absolutely understand if a writer wanted to paint a character as being extremely *squeamish* about killing, because it really is much psychologically tougher than it's given credit for. However, I almost never see it portrayed this way.

The rules are unclear.

>It's a crime WHEN I say so.
bad

Attached: fire-lord-ozai-154188-normal.jpg (355x500, 46.61K)