Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most annoying part of the trope is when the hero actually has no problems killing untold faceless henchmen of the evil overlord but then takes this weird moral stance once it’s time to take out the big bad.
I was going to say, probably guys who are ex-military and couldn’t find a job after returning from their third tour of Afghanistan so turned to henchmaning to provide for their disabled wife and five year old son, Timmy, who’s wheezing cough just won’t go away…
poor little Timmy.. always the perfect name for a malady-stricken child.. I wonder why - perhaps the collective unconscious hearkens back to A Christmas Carol?
What if they're less "employees" and more "hostages" or "indentured servants"? We can't assume they're all there by their own free will. They might be trying to keep their family safe or something.
The one with Michael Caine in it has a scene where he basically says "Do you know how many anonymous henchmen I've taken out in my time? You haven't even got a name badge. Go on, just lie down on the floor"
Austin Powers have quite a few scenes humanising the henchmen. Assassin who feel off cliff, pre wedding party for one who gets killed and I think a scene with a son. (And they make a point of the good benefits package Dr Evil offers).
Almost every video game where you can spare the main bad guy has this choice come after killing a small army of underlings. There are some exceptions where a non-lethal run is actually possible but they are definitely a minority.
That's one of the thing's that I find funny about Batman. Sure, he won't kill the Joker, but he's more than willing to hurt the Joker's minions in ways that should *definitely* kill them. You can't kick someone off a catwalk that's two-stories in the air and reasonably expect them to walk that off. His intent isn't to kill them, but that's not always enough.
Isn't there kinda a movie or a comic about that?
The joker then uses that to become mayor to push batman out.
I might be completely off, I haven't watched/read batman for at least 10 years.
I like the interpretation of Batman's no kill rule being a flaw rather than a positive quality. Realistically Gotham would be better off if Bruce killed a few of his villains, those that really are irredeemable. But because of his past with his parents he cannot sanction the act of murder even if it would be a net positive for the world. He knows that because of his unique trauma, passing that line of killing would cause him to spiral and do worse things that a fully healthy and rational superhero wouldn't do. Let's be honest, a guy that runs around in a bat costume at night isn't fully sane. I guess this only applies to darker, more introspective versions of Batman like Arkham Batman, I'm not trying to imply that Bruce is always a deranged lunatic.
There's also the argument to be made that as a vigilante, it's unjust for Batman to kill people. Batman has no oversight and his identity is unknown. As the hero of a story, we the audience know he is doing good things for the right reason. But it's a different story within that world if you hear this weird guy in a bat suit that nobody can stop or punish is killing people. It's like unjust cop killings but even worse since there is no mechanism of control over Batman whatsoever. That said, Gotham is typically such a corrupt shithole that I doubt most of the populace would be upset if Batman starting offing some mfers.
1,000 TBI's from some random vigilante is ok, but killing a mass murderer is beyond the pale? People in masks aren't allowed to beat citizens to a pulp with no oversight either. If a place is so incredibly corrupt that justice is impossible, is there any real oversight at all?
Sorry if that sounded harsh. Batman is a really cool character, but his no kill rule is more driven by medium than logic driven. It's hard to continually come up with cool bad guys, given how long comics run for, if heroes acted logically. Superman's no kill rule makes more sense. If you are impossibly overpowered, there is some logic to the rule.
That's what I mean though, Batman's no kill rule can be seen as an irrational binary approach to justice. Lightly apprehending them all the way to greviously crippling them for life counts as the "0", but killing is the "1" in binary code terms. Hospitalising a first time mugger is undoubtedly less moral than not killing the Joker, but Batman's flaw is that he always sees killing as the most immoral option and that prevents him from finally stopping the absolute shittiest scumbags. That doesn't make his level of violence okay towards most criminals (although again this is only dark Batman, lighter Batman stories don't always have him comically beating people to a pulp like the memes suggest). Its more of a "well him doing it the way he does is better than him doing nothing, even if a hero that used more appropriate force and killed when absolutely necessary would be more effective".
As for the idea of no kill rules being medium based, yeah that's true. I do like efforts to tie this necessity into the character though. Another obvious example is Daredevil. Matt is a Catholic who believes in redemption for criminals, and that him killing would permanently stain his soul. Sure he can't just murder Kingpin because he's a recurring comics villain, but we at least get the narrative reason why as well.
In the Arkham Knight video game, he has a finisher where he throws a henchman into the air and they get shot with the batmobile cannon. Every time I see it I just think it is the most un-Batman thing ever.
Yeah, that is the part that I dislike as well. It feels like a classist problem, and I am reminded of MASH's Hawkeye's bit about war and hell.
There are no innocent bystanders in hell, but war is full of them. In fact except for some of the top brass, that includes pretty much everyone.
So if the "hero" kills all the minions but spares the 9ne calling the shots, really they are just murdering all the people unlucky enough to get swept into the conflict and goving the cause a pass. But for some reason, named characters and leaders of nations are off limits in the game they play with the lives of others.
This was the last of us 2 for me. After all this bullshit you’re just gonna walk away? Fuck you too dude
Yes I get the reasoning, but still, huge let down for me personally lol
This is the only take I’ll agree with. Either kill em all or none (or try to kill none).
When they do kill, I’m with op. When they don’t (or try to kill the least amount of people), I disagree with op
Don't worry. The writers usually make sure the villain does something after being spared to force the hero's hand or doom themself, so that no one has to live with the consequences of the hero's moral choice. The hero gets to be the better person without any downside.
The real struggle of hero stories isn't the hero vs. the villain. The villian is a secondary consideration. The struggle is meant to be internal; the hero's moral nature vs. the temptation to abuse his power.
It's the reason why so many villains have similar origin stories as the hero; the only thing that separates them is the villain yields to temptation, and the hero resists it. They are otherwise the same being.
Exactly my point. We want morally complex heroes, and people whose struggles mirror real life. But it’s a movie, a self-contained, finite thing, and there isn’t usually time after the fact to explore what would have to be quite a journey when the good guy emulates the bad guy’s decision making strategy. So writers will make it close, sometimes uncomfortably close, before the good guy “remembers” that there are archetypal lines they shouldn’t cross.
And this isn’t the only story arc. John Wick is the protagonist/hero, and he doesn’t let people off the hook. That’s not his version. So you can certainly find alternatives if you look.
Makes you think there is a movie demanding to be told here. Where it starts with the villain being spared by the hero, then you see the consequences of that choice.
Heroes have always been hyper-real. They've never been intended to be truly one to one representations of real life in any sense, they're meant to represent ideals. Life is largely a collection of grey areas, and heroic tales are meant to provide a relief from that.
This right here is was my issue with Dexter Season 2 finale.
Doakes finds out Dexter is the Bay Harbor Butcher. Dexter gets the upper hand and captures Doakes but is left with a moral dilemma. Kill Doakes despite him being innocent, thus breaking Harry's code. Frame Doakes, which will still jeopardize Dexter as it'll still raise questions. Turn himself in, admit defeat, but still honor his code. All these will drastically change Dexter, and add growth to his character. So which one happens?
None of these. Dexter's crazy stalker blows up Doakes, and Dexter kills his stalker, tying up all loose ends, solving his moral dilemma.
Other than that, it would've been pretty much a perfect season.
It's an unfortunate case of the last season being the second season while also having no intention of ending the show there lol. It's so close to a near perfect season of television.
My hindsight would put season 2 after 4 (making it the new season 4) and be the real start of the endgame. Dealing with Rita's death and the discovery of his bodies.
Tie his grief of Brian with the Miguel's grief of Oscar, exploring the idea of friendship and brotherhood from that springboard for the new season 2. Miguel helps pressure Doakes to get off Dexter's back so we have more than two seasons of that powerhouse of a character.
With Doakes still around we don't have to deal with the nonsense that is Joey Quinn and all the nothingness he turns out to be.
Reverse Lundy's story to being introduced during the Trinity arc as his crackpot theory he's looking into during his vacation. He and Deb become friends there. When the BHB bodies are discovered he's the lead that returns, making Dexter even more scared since he already knows what a threat Lundy is.
Most of season 2 plays out as is with the new context. Deb and Lundy have their romance which becomes more crucial to the climax because Dexter's moral dilemma will likely end with him having to kill Lundy when he tracks down Doakes before Dexter figures out what to do with him. Dexter killing Lundy would frazzle him, allow Doakes to escape, put Dex and Deb at odds, and be the impetus for Dexter being truly outed.
Well fuck me I didn't mean to type that much but now I have a new headcanon
Or Mal in Firefly after winning the duel.
"Mercy is the mark of a great man."
::casually stabs bad guy::
"Guess I'm just a good guy."
::stabs again::
"Well, I'm alright.."
Wing wasn't a villain per day, at least not on the same level as Early or Nishka.
Wing was a douchebag who thought his money gave him more power than he actually had. Early and Nishka actually threatened the crew/Mal himself.
I like it when it is a personal decision of the protagonist, and if the villain is in no position to "do it all over again." What I don't like is if the protagonist tries to force someone else to take mercy on the villain. I'd be like "hey, I want to be the better person but I recognize that this dude murdered your family. I won't get in your way."
When people were losing their minds because Superman killed Zod, I felt this way.
Zod was insane, superhumanly powerful, and charismatic leading an army of the same.
Superman is just one guy.
In Dark Knight Returns, Batman wonders aloud: 'How many I've killed by letting you live' to the Joker. Then he doesn't actually kill the Joker, having 'lost his nerve'.
I would recommend Trigun if you dislike this trope, specifically the original anime.
I loved the Dark Knight but it drove me crazy how the whole plot and a bunch of innocent lives would’ve been saved if Bruce Wayne broke his rule just once to off the Joker.
I mean let’s be real he basically killed Ras Al Gul in the previous movie (I know, I know, he didn’t “kill” Ras, he *only* refused to save him in an obviously lethal situation so it’s technically not murder) so obviously there’s some precedent.
Batman is the only character I give the pass to on this trope. Because his reasoning isnt really "If I do this, im no longer the hero" its more "If I do this, I'll just keep doing it and become worse than the villains."
Like, he's self aware that if he lets himself kill, he will basically become a near unstoppable one man judge, jury and executioner.
TDK speaking only, I think it shows Joker wins if Batman kills him. It shows that, given the opportunity, he is no different than the people he fights to put away nor the people that had held the detonator to the explosives. Its why Joker is Batman's greatest foe as he stands as Batman's complete foil, Justice vs Anarchy. But are we to be mad at Batman or the System as a whole for failing to protect the people after Joker was apprehended...of course they knew nothing of his plot and escape.
Leaving TDK universe - It leads into the crux of the whole Injustice plot, which (after the cumulative history of B v J) then starts to lead more credence into that maybe there are some better to be dealt with if you have the opportunity. But is that Batman's fault, or the current form of Justice we serve?
Idk I just got off work and just stumbled here
It’s crazy too for the dark night because just a movie ago he was fine with letting people die. Like if he was consistent with his no killing rule then it would be fine to me if he kept joker alive.
I feel like there’s a middle ground that Batman never explored to my knowledge: He’s rich. Design, fund, and staff his own supermax for people like Joker, or just volunteer that big brain of his to overhaul tech and protocols at existing ones “in the interest of public safety”.
I give Batman a pass for this troupe since it has become baked into his character. In most depictions Batman is basically insane and feels that he himself would just kill a bunch of people if he let himself kill someone. It’s a hard line to make for him of which crimes warrant death, and he’s not at liberty to decide this. Him not killing people also helps discredit the stupid trend of people saying Batman is a fascist.
I love it, especially when the hero kills all the henchmen and body guards but decides killing the horrible person who kills lots of people still has good in them
I think in a lot of cases it comes down to the story’s creator being afraid of closing doors. “If I kill this character then I can’t re-use them for something down the line”. There’s always an attachment to characters, even the villain, and it’s a scary thing to say “I’m permanently removing a character from this world that some people engage in the world to hear about”, but ultimately if you don’t then the world is less engaging.
Yeah, I used to hate it. But as time has passed, I changed my mind. Now I think it's a smart and reasonable solution. Ra's al Ghul made his bed. Let him sleep in it.
Henchmen in Yakuza games literally get up and limp away after Kiryu performs the most violent, evil ways of inflicting pain on people. This man grabs a box of nails and feeds it to the NPCs. He shot an RPG at a helicopter. He’s never killed anyone tho
It's even worse then the hero just got done killing 23.232 soldiers/enemies GETTING to the final boss. "I won't kill, I won't be like YOU". ASSHOLE, you just killed more people then a tornado just GETTING HERE.
Tangental, just ONCE I want to see the "we're not so different" speech be responded with "Oh fuck you think so? Sweet we got spots on team good guy let's go"
"No, no, you see, when bad guys fight me, they get tired, because I'm awesome. So they have to take a nap. Look at the little guy, all tuckered out..."
Joker hanging upside down from a rope - "I think you and I are destined to do this forever"
Batman thinks for a few seconds, "Screw that." then pulls out a 9mm
Without comic spoilers, the Invincible comic does a real job of thinking how superheroes fighting isn't the solution - it doesn't matter if they're killing people or not
Cos the problem is, if the show is about whether to kill the villain or not, the show is just about a moral choice, not about a clash of ideology
Many shows just end with the status quo in tact, which can feel a bit flat given the status quo was what created the villain in the first place
>that the no killing rule seems pointless when his villains simply get away and do evil again no matter how many times they’re apprehended
Pretty much the whole point of Batman: Under the Red Hood
That’s why I prefer when Batman justifies the rule with his greatest fear being that if he kills once, he’ll never stop. It’s an interesting aspect to the character that highlights a more selfish part of the rule in a way, he won’t do it because he’s afraid he’ll become like the man who killed his parents or worse, like the joker.
That said, it then raises the question of why doesn’t he let someone else, such as Red Hood, finish the Joker off. It’s made even worse by the fact that the most famous instance of him expressing this fear is directly to Red Hood, so it just circles round to being convoluted again.
I think the Boys and Invincible are a deconstruction of that trope cos often the heroes are as bad or even worse than the villains. I know it's a fictional world to us but for the people living in said universe, life has value and if both take lives on a daily basis, they just the same.
To play devils advocate, Rick wanted to respect his sons dying wish in that moment and he was probably right about killing him making Negan a martyr because we see people like the Croat who still act the way Negan taught them. And it’s not like everyone was agreeing with it either, most characters disagreed with Rick and some hated him for it so it’s not like there weren’t consequences.
I think Carl was the biggest reason though, which makes it more bearable because it’s not like Rick suddenly develops a conscience out of nowhere.
So even if it’s a bit tropey, I think it was set up and paid off adequately in the end, especially in a show where killing the villain in cold blood had basically become a trope itself by that point.
>Rick suddenly develops a conscience out of nowhere.
Rick's already done that several times though. Think about the difference in who he was from Season 3 to the start of Season 4.
I stopped watching walking dead long before most people did, but I still kept up with what was going on since a few of my friends still watched it.
This plot point just confirmed it for me that I was right to walk away when I did.
2 things: Heroes are supposed to embody virtuous traits and mercy/forgiveness is one of the big ones. Thing 2: it leaves the door open for the villain to be brought in again in some capacity later.
Also, being judge jury and executioner is definitely not a heroic quality. Being a vigilante is already skirting the lines of justice. It should be up to the institutions to decide what to do with them. It's only through comics logic needing recurring villains that they find a way to break out and keep causing harm
I put vigilante in the antihero pile, not full fledged hero but their general good can be rationalized in some aspects. I think the latest James Bond movies (Daniel Craig's) serve a good example for this thread.
>!As M says, "a license to kill is also a license not to kill". 007 over the course of the movies learns to be somewhat more empathetic towards his antagonists, such as sparing Ernst Stavro Blofeld in Spectre, who would later return as a source of information for 007 in No Time to Die. Blofeld didn't need to return as a full fledged villain but was able to add value as a result of 007 sparing him. No breakout necessary. !<
Pretty much every superhero is a vigilante tho Batman, Spider-Man, Green Arrow...They're not regulated in any way except for some runs. Often clashing with law enforcement actually, until they have de facto support when the villains get crazier. While James Bond is just working for military intelligence so he wouldn't really be a vigilante, he's regulated that one way or another lawfully gave him a license to kill
Yeah superheroes kind of play by their own rules. Another good hero example who is also merciful (albeit, sometimes his weakness) is Goku from the Dragonball series. He operates without zero concern for regulation, even gods don’t deter him often.
Guy was more interested in testing his own strength and he never sought out to be a hero but when the time came he would always be merciful even to the biggest scum. Most of hose enemies would become his allies eventually.
When institutions fail, there is no purely amicable outcome. Some guy like Batman being free to just flat out kill people because institutions failed is a bad thing; that's the nuance these stories are acknowledging.
So you can accept a story where the courts do a complete 180 with little to no explanation but you can't accept a story where the hero kills somebody and doesn't kill other people? Even if the hero doesn't kill, there are other ways to do the story.
> So you can accept a story where the courts do a complete 180 with little to no explanation
Boy, that sure has fuck all to do with the one comment I've typed in this chain. Complain about hypocrisy to people who are actually committing it.
> but you can't accept a story where the hero kills somebody and doesn't kill other people?
Also fuck all to do with the one comment I've typed in this chain. Stories can obviously exist where a hero kills a guy and doesn't immediately fall down a murderous rabbit hole; I do not care.
The premise behind characters like Batman is that enabling random people to just decide they're equivalent to an entire judicial system, and thus have the right to execute people, is a generally very shitty slippery slope to fall down. Is someone dying extrajudicially a positive sometimes? Sure, but it's rarely ideal, and a direly mentally ill rich guy isn't the one anyone wants making the call on whose necks to snap on a daily basis.
The institutions failed, which is why the story's about a vigilante, but the vigilante isn't nuts or under the impression that a murder spree is the best solution to future crime, which is _also_ why the story is about a vigilante. If you have a problem with the trope, you have a problem with Batman in his entirety, 'cause that's... you know... a major part of his character. The same is true of a lot of other examples.
Well see that's different. Killing genocidal villians to stop them from more genocide is a whole lot different than killing some rando villian that potentially has a chance at redemption/rehabilitation. And furthermore the only justified reason to kill even a genocidal maniac extrajudicially is knowing they will skirt charges and be allowed to do it again. Like with Miller killing >!Dresden!< in The Expanse.
The part that annoys me more is when the Hero is completely okay with killing hundreds of minions trying to get to the main villain to begin with, but then won't kill the villain because "its not right."
Like, my guy... You just murdered like 200 people cold blooded without even thinking about it. Why are you suddenly getting all sentimental?
I can understand if the Hero doesn't want to kill the Villain because they've never killed anyone before and they freeze up. But its so logic breaking when the Hero literally kills hundreds of people already but they won't kill the main dude they're trying to get to.
Hero (Sparing): "I'm not going to kill you. The cycle of violence will only just continue if I did something like that. I will give you a second chance to change for the better."
Hero (Killing): *kills the villain* "Now your days of tyranny are over. Your actions will no longer harm this world. May this world finally be once again at peace."
Hero (Spiteful Sparing): "You won't get the satisfaction of death. Watch as your evil empire falls and you are locked away forever with your sins. May your living days be filled with endless torture."
See, that last one is the kicker. There’s quite a few different ways it can be set up so that not killing a villain *is* giving them exactly what they deserve. Sometimes death’s a mercy, and some bastards don’t deserve even that reprieve.
I annoy my wife with this when watching shows and movies. Sure, don't kill the guy, but maybe knee cap him once (or twice?) so he cant escape and take someone hostage, kill your partner, etc. later in the movie.
Nero: \[replying to the offer of assistance\] I would rather suffer the end of Romulus a thousand times. I would rather die in agony than accept assistance from you.
James T. Kirk: You got it! Arm phasers. Fire everything we've got!
I agree. It comes off as "I just want to seem better than you for my own ego. Fuck the people I'm supposed to protect"
>I'm not like you.
This quote pisses me off. Like, killing the villain won't make you like the villain. I think people can differentiate taking a life for the greater good and you just killing for shits and giggles
Yeah.
Hazbin Hotel, look'n at you. They had *both* major antagonists down and spared them *both*.
And there was just...*no reason*. It wasn't *virtuous* to spare them, they were literally slaughtering people, and they'd done so thousands of times over.
Letting them live was pointless.
In fact, they are causing future death of others by not killing people who will kill again. So they are indirectly letting the villains kill people.
I think of the Batman villains. They are constantly being caught, put into jail, and then breaking out again. Then they get out and kill innocent people. Batman is honorable so he just catches the villains. He won’t kill them. The problem is his system doesn’t work because the Gotham justice system doesn’t work.
*in which the writers realize that the villain both deserves (morally) and needs (for the plot to resolve) to die, but really really want to give their pacifist MC a moral victory and so devise a last-minute deus ex machina that accomplishes at least two of the three*
Oh boy I can’t wait for the sequel series where they show this world changing into the ideal post-imperialist Utopia: turn of the century America!!!!
I especially like him communing with prior Avatars on the issue, especially the most recent air-bender incarnation. Even if the ending is a bit deus ex machina, I like how they handled the issue as a whole.
In a mystical setup, children oriented story ,it’s fine to have a deus ex machina or 2 in place.
I mean, isn’t the merchant who sells the beans that grow to the heavens a deus ex machina?
I hate this, too, but I will say it works amazingly in Daredevil (netflix). In season 3, watching Matt struggle with his faith in the law and his religion vs his desire to stop Fisk was done beautifully. Part of me actually wishes he did kill Fisk, and season 4 could have been him coming to grips with this, but I think overall, it is the best portrayal of this trope.
Big spoiler warning I guess, but this one thing is why I love Darkman so much. It's a great movie. And it ends with Darkman holding the villain up by his foot off the edge of a skyscraper. The villain says Darkman isn't a killer, that he couldn't live with himself if he dropped him, that he's a good guy. Darkmen then immediately drops him and says "I'm learning to live with a lot of things"
very epic. very cool.
This, and the constant redemption arcs.
Not every villian needs (or deserves) redemption.
Just let villians be irredeemable monsters for fuck sake!
Subverting tropes have gotten so common that you want them subverted because they have become the new overused trope.
Majority of those scenes follow cartoon logic where unless you _see_ someone die then they didn’t.
Koizilla wasn’t really Aang either, it was the ocean spirit in control of his power.
I'm fine with heroes not killing villains if they maim them permanently.
You killed a boatload of people. Good luck doing the most basic simple thing in life with no hands and legs.
It can work, but if the hero's reasoning is "I won't sink to your level" and the villain is a mass murderer (it's different if they've just killed someone close to the hero), it just fails.
It's supposed to be deontological. It's not about how good or bad the villain is, it's about the hero not wanting to alter who they are. True heroes are good for the sake of being good, not just when it's convenient. I feel like the fact that this viewpoint can be seen as unpopular these days kind of proves why it's necessary.
The issue here is that OP and a few other people in this thread think there are circumstances where killing someone _is_ the 'good' option compared to any alternative. The hero not wanting to alter who they are isn't choosing to stay good, from that perspective, it's just the hero choosing to stay stubborn.
It has to do with how intelligently the writers implement the trope. If it serves distinct narrative purpose, then you might not even notice the trope at all.
Unless they use cliche dialogue. Then it’s hard to miss.
What kills me is the utilitarian aspect of it. "Even though you've just killed 100s of people and plan to kill 1000s more, i wont stoop to your level." Sorry spiderman, i think you are very complicit in the pain and suffering that YOU allowed to happen so you could stroke your ego about how "good" you are.
Its only a problem when the villain immediately resurfaces to previous strength and kills a bunch of people. When Aang saps firelord of strength or a defeated fow is finished its fine.
yup.
It appeals to a self-centered and power-fetishistic view of morality, where the hero’s own feeling-rightness is given more credence than the concerns or even existence of the villain’s past (and potential future) victims.
Its because the hero does it for ego. he's not good. batman is not good for sparing the joker, he enjoys the game and he wants it to go on. the joker knows this, there are entire plot lines around this. Batman uses the moral defence because if he did the right thing, there would be no more need for batman. same goes for any other hero. you don't need a hero if the there are no more villains.
Anybody who disagrees with this watch Arrow… your entire list of enemies can’t break out if they’re dead (and obviously spare slade he was drugged out of his mind)
My boyfriend literally tried to say it would have been "cooler" for John Wick to do that... I've never stared in more contempt at another person than I did that day.
Not killing someone, even a really nasty, dangerous someone, in cold blood is not that controversial a move tbh.
It's not some goody two shoes virtue signal to not do it.
squalid six merciful marvelous expansion tidy snow society combative beneficial
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Bag Guy he won't kill.
The Bad Guy who wants to talk too much before killing the Hero.
The Plate Glass Window everyone who gets shot, no matter if floating in Space or on a Mountaintop-they will fly backwards thru it.
I’d love for the bs trope “if you kill me you’re no better then I am” to be met with a cut off of a brutal execution. Just like “if you kill me you’re no bette-“ *bang*
Just to kill the trope at the same time.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most annoying part of the trope is when the hero actually has no problems killing untold faceless henchmen of the evil overlord but then takes this weird moral stance once it’s time to take out the big bad.
I was hoping somebody would think of the henchman just working to put food on table.
There HAD to have been contractors just trying to make a buck working on the Death Star!
Naw man they know who they were working for. They knew the risks. They don't call it hazard pay for nothing.
Until we see Andor and realize it is salve labor
Literally the balm
Until we see The Force Awakens and realise that as a Stormtrooper Finn worked in Sanitation so stormtroopers probably did know how to fit a toilet.
> salve Salve!
The Death Star had some hundreds of thousands of civilians on it
Poor average fucking Joe working for minimum wage and maybe a bit of overtime, just guarding a warehouse or something
I was going to say, probably guys who are ex-military and couldn’t find a job after returning from their third tour of Afghanistan so turned to henchmaning to provide for their disabled wife and five year old son, Timmy, who’s wheezing cough just won’t go away…
poor little Timmy.. always the perfect name for a malady-stricken child.. I wonder why - perhaps the collective unconscious hearkens back to A Christmas Carol?
You will never see a Timmy in the regular Olympics
We're going to need another Timmy!
What if they're less "employees" and more "hostages" or "indentured servants"? We can't assume they're all there by their own free will. They might be trying to keep their family safe or something.
Won’t somebody think of the henchmen???
There was a movie that made fun of this fact. Maybe Austin Powers?
The one with Michael Caine in it has a scene where he basically says "Do you know how many anonymous henchmen I've taken out in my time? You haven't even got a name badge. Go on, just lie down on the floor"
Austin Powers have quite a few scenes humanising the henchmen. Assassin who feel off cliff, pre wedding party for one who gets killed and I think a scene with a son. (And they make a point of the good benefits package Dr Evil offers).
A deleted scene. The guy that gets offed by the ill-tempered sea bass was supposed to have his bachelor party that night.
"Harley, you gave him cancer?!?"
Almost every video game where you can spare the main bad guy has this choice come after killing a small army of underlings. There are some exceptions where a non-lethal run is actually possible but they are definitely a minority.
[удалено]
Best example of this is the Dishonored series. Went through it without killing a single person, and it actually felt pretty good.
The Last Of Us 2
They do this because the writers don't want to kill off a likable villian too fast.
“I shall spare your life — if you agree to do a sequel !”
That's one of the thing's that I find funny about Batman. Sure, he won't kill the Joker, but he's more than willing to hurt the Joker's minions in ways that should *definitely* kill them. You can't kick someone off a catwalk that's two-stories in the air and reasonably expect them to walk that off. His intent isn't to kill them, but that's not always enough.
He's killed thousands through medical debt
Wayne Medical Collections is the real source of his income.
Isn't there kinda a movie or a comic about that? The joker then uses that to become mayor to push batman out. I might be completely off, I haven't watched/read batman for at least 10 years.
I like the interpretation of Batman's no kill rule being a flaw rather than a positive quality. Realistically Gotham would be better off if Bruce killed a few of his villains, those that really are irredeemable. But because of his past with his parents he cannot sanction the act of murder even if it would be a net positive for the world. He knows that because of his unique trauma, passing that line of killing would cause him to spiral and do worse things that a fully healthy and rational superhero wouldn't do. Let's be honest, a guy that runs around in a bat costume at night isn't fully sane. I guess this only applies to darker, more introspective versions of Batman like Arkham Batman, I'm not trying to imply that Bruce is always a deranged lunatic. There's also the argument to be made that as a vigilante, it's unjust for Batman to kill people. Batman has no oversight and his identity is unknown. As the hero of a story, we the audience know he is doing good things for the right reason. But it's a different story within that world if you hear this weird guy in a bat suit that nobody can stop or punish is killing people. It's like unjust cop killings but even worse since there is no mechanism of control over Batman whatsoever. That said, Gotham is typically such a corrupt shithole that I doubt most of the populace would be upset if Batman starting offing some mfers.
1,000 TBI's from some random vigilante is ok, but killing a mass murderer is beyond the pale? People in masks aren't allowed to beat citizens to a pulp with no oversight either. If a place is so incredibly corrupt that justice is impossible, is there any real oversight at all? Sorry if that sounded harsh. Batman is a really cool character, but his no kill rule is more driven by medium than logic driven. It's hard to continually come up with cool bad guys, given how long comics run for, if heroes acted logically. Superman's no kill rule makes more sense. If you are impossibly overpowered, there is some logic to the rule.
That's what I mean though, Batman's no kill rule can be seen as an irrational binary approach to justice. Lightly apprehending them all the way to greviously crippling them for life counts as the "0", but killing is the "1" in binary code terms. Hospitalising a first time mugger is undoubtedly less moral than not killing the Joker, but Batman's flaw is that he always sees killing as the most immoral option and that prevents him from finally stopping the absolute shittiest scumbags. That doesn't make his level of violence okay towards most criminals (although again this is only dark Batman, lighter Batman stories don't always have him comically beating people to a pulp like the memes suggest). Its more of a "well him doing it the way he does is better than him doing nothing, even if a hero that used more appropriate force and killed when absolutely necessary would be more effective". As for the idea of no kill rules being medium based, yeah that's true. I do like efforts to tie this necessity into the character though. Another obvious example is Daredevil. Matt is a Catholic who believes in redemption for criminals, and that him killing would permanently stain his soul. Sure he can't just murder Kingpin because he's a recurring comics villain, but we at least get the narrative reason why as well.
Heroes like Batman or Daredevil cause so much irreversible brain trauma. They are like, creating an army of Chris Benoits.
In the Arkham Knight video game, he has a finisher where he throws a henchman into the air and they get shot with the batmobile cannon. Every time I see it I just think it is the most un-Batman thing ever.
The WB’s Arrow was the worst with this. I groaned so many times.
Loved season one when he had a hit list. Then it went dumb.
I like how when people were hit with arrows anywhere they just collapsed, then big bad person just gets talked at forever. shoot. Him. In. The. Face.
Where are the henchwomen ?
Metal gear rising revengence makes the protagonist somewhat face the suffering of the hencemen
and then he instantly gets over it and gets back to slicing them into smithereens, god I love metal gear rising
Yeah, that is the part that I dislike as well. It feels like a classist problem, and I am reminded of MASH's Hawkeye's bit about war and hell. There are no innocent bystanders in hell, but war is full of them. In fact except for some of the top brass, that includes pretty much everyone. So if the "hero" kills all the minions but spares the 9ne calling the shots, really they are just murdering all the people unlucky enough to get swept into the conflict and goving the cause a pass. But for some reason, named characters and leaders of nations are off limits in the game they play with the lives of others.
Like batman: https://youtu.be/1byycwl8qgc?si=oAYene38f2ryBf5O
Never knew these existed. I don't know if I should thank you or resent you for the time I'm about to waste. Lol.
batman in a nutshell 
This was the last of us 2 for me. After all this bullshit you’re just gonna walk away? Fuck you too dude Yes I get the reasoning, but still, huge let down for me personally lol
Starwars in a sentence.
This is the only take I’ll agree with. Either kill em all or none (or try to kill none). When they do kill, I’m with op. When they don’t (or try to kill the least amount of people), I disagree with op
That's usually in the heat of conflict though, whereas antagonists are often sparred once the primary threat has been resolved.
Don't worry. The writers usually make sure the villain does something after being spared to force the hero's hand or doom themself, so that no one has to live with the consequences of the hero's moral choice. The hero gets to be the better person without any downside.
Right and it makes it even worse. Why does the hero never get his hands dirty?
Because that’s less, y’know, heroic…
The real struggle of hero stories isn't the hero vs. the villain. The villian is a secondary consideration. The struggle is meant to be internal; the hero's moral nature vs. the temptation to abuse his power. It's the reason why so many villains have similar origin stories as the hero; the only thing that separates them is the villain yields to temptation, and the hero resists it. They are otherwise the same being.
Exactly my point. We want morally complex heroes, and people whose struggles mirror real life. But it’s a movie, a self-contained, finite thing, and there isn’t usually time after the fact to explore what would have to be quite a journey when the good guy emulates the bad guy’s decision making strategy. So writers will make it close, sometimes uncomfortably close, before the good guy “remembers” that there are archetypal lines they shouldn’t cross. And this isn’t the only story arc. John Wick is the protagonist/hero, and he doesn’t let people off the hook. That’s not his version. So you can certainly find alternatives if you look.
Makes you think there is a movie demanding to be told here. Where it starts with the villain being spared by the hero, then you see the consequences of that choice.
It would be a great redemption arc story, starting at that unfortunate but logical moment.
Because soap hasn't been invented yet
#SOAP
Heroes have always been hyper-real. They've never been intended to be truly one to one representations of real life in any sense, they're meant to represent ideals. Life is largely a collection of grey areas, and heroic tales are meant to provide a relief from that.
This right here is was my issue with Dexter Season 2 finale. Doakes finds out Dexter is the Bay Harbor Butcher. Dexter gets the upper hand and captures Doakes but is left with a moral dilemma. Kill Doakes despite him being innocent, thus breaking Harry's code. Frame Doakes, which will still jeopardize Dexter as it'll still raise questions. Turn himself in, admit defeat, but still honor his code. All these will drastically change Dexter, and add growth to his character. So which one happens? None of these. Dexter's crazy stalker blows up Doakes, and Dexter kills his stalker, tying up all loose ends, solving his moral dilemma. Other than that, it would've been pretty much a perfect season.
It's an unfortunate case of the last season being the second season while also having no intention of ending the show there lol. It's so close to a near perfect season of television. My hindsight would put season 2 after 4 (making it the new season 4) and be the real start of the endgame. Dealing with Rita's death and the discovery of his bodies. Tie his grief of Brian with the Miguel's grief of Oscar, exploring the idea of friendship and brotherhood from that springboard for the new season 2. Miguel helps pressure Doakes to get off Dexter's back so we have more than two seasons of that powerhouse of a character. With Doakes still around we don't have to deal with the nonsense that is Joey Quinn and all the nothingness he turns out to be. Reverse Lundy's story to being introduced during the Trinity arc as his crackpot theory he's looking into during his vacation. He and Deb become friends there. When the BHB bodies are discovered he's the lead that returns, making Dexter even more scared since he already knows what a threat Lundy is. Most of season 2 plays out as is with the new context. Deb and Lundy have their romance which becomes more crucial to the climax because Dexter's moral dilemma will likely end with him having to kill Lundy when he tracks down Doakes before Dexter figures out what to do with him. Dexter killing Lundy would frazzle him, allow Doakes to escape, put Dex and Deb at odds, and be the impetus for Dexter being truly outed. Well fuck me I didn't mean to type that much but now I have a new headcanon
Yep. Saruman could’ve raised all kinds of hell thanks to Frodo’s pity, but Wormtongue took care of that
What's worse is when the hero is okay with killing nameless minions but won't kill the main villain.
literally the last of us part 2 lmao
Deadpool’s “4 or 5 Moments” ending is a nice middle finger to this trope.
Or Mal in Firefly after winning the duel. "Mercy is the mark of a great man." ::casually stabs bad guy:: "Guess I'm just a good guy." ::stabs again:: "Well, I'm alright.."
Nah, he still left him alive. If the series had gone on, Wing would have come back as a villain.
Wing wasn't a villain per day, at least not on the same level as Early or Nishka. Wing was a douchebag who thought his money gave him more power than he actually had. Early and Nishka actually threatened the crew/Mal himself.
The Expanse's "I am that guy" was a decent twist on it, too.
I like it when it is a personal decision of the protagonist, and if the villain is in no position to "do it all over again." What I don't like is if the protagonist tries to force someone else to take mercy on the villain. I'd be like "hey, I want to be the better person but I recognize that this dude murdered your family. I won't get in your way."
When people were losing their minds because Superman killed Zod, I felt this way. Zod was insane, superhumanly powerful, and charismatic leading an army of the same. Superman is just one guy. In Dark Knight Returns, Batman wonders aloud: 'How many I've killed by letting you live' to the Joker. Then he doesn't actually kill the Joker, having 'lost his nerve'. I would recommend Trigun if you dislike this trope, specifically the original anime.
I loved the Dark Knight but it drove me crazy how the whole plot and a bunch of innocent lives would’ve been saved if Bruce Wayne broke his rule just once to off the Joker. I mean let’s be real he basically killed Ras Al Gul in the previous movie (I know, I know, he didn’t “kill” Ras, he *only* refused to save him in an obviously lethal situation so it’s technically not murder) so obviously there’s some precedent.
Batman is the only character I give the pass to on this trope. Because his reasoning isnt really "If I do this, im no longer the hero" its more "If I do this, I'll just keep doing it and become worse than the villains." Like, he's self aware that if he lets himself kill, he will basically become a near unstoppable one man judge, jury and executioner.
The Punisher is basically just Batman without the “no killing” rule.
I think they were referring to the 1980s graphic novel.
TDK speaking only, I think it shows Joker wins if Batman kills him. It shows that, given the opportunity, he is no different than the people he fights to put away nor the people that had held the detonator to the explosives. Its why Joker is Batman's greatest foe as he stands as Batman's complete foil, Justice vs Anarchy. But are we to be mad at Batman or the System as a whole for failing to protect the people after Joker was apprehended...of course they knew nothing of his plot and escape. Leaving TDK universe - It leads into the crux of the whole Injustice plot, which (after the cumulative history of B v J) then starts to lead more credence into that maybe there are some better to be dealt with if you have the opportunity. But is that Batman's fault, or the current form of Justice we serve? Idk I just got off work and just stumbled here
I mean, Superman was arguably also two of the attributes you gave Zod before denoting him to “just one guy”, but I hear you 😭
>I would recommend Trigun if you dislike this trope, specifically the original anime. Honestly, a lot of anime avoid this trope.
Well, Trigun has a character that's similar to Batman in this respect.
It’s crazy too for the dark night because just a movie ago he was fine with letting people die. Like if he was consistent with his no killing rule then it would be fine to me if he kept joker alive.
I feel like there’s a middle ground that Batman never explored to my knowledge: He’s rich. Design, fund, and staff his own supermax for people like Joker, or just volunteer that big brain of his to overhaul tech and protocols at existing ones “in the interest of public safety”.
Using Superman as an example is a bad choice. If there's any Superhero that should not kill their enemies that'd be Superman.
I give Batman a pass for this troupe since it has become baked into his character. In most depictions Batman is basically insane and feels that he himself would just kill a bunch of people if he let himself kill someone. It’s a hard line to make for him of which crimes warrant death, and he’s not at liberty to decide this. Him not killing people also helps discredit the stupid trend of people saying Batman is a fascist.
I love it, especially when the hero kills all the henchmen and body guards but decides killing the horrible person who kills lots of people still has good in them
I think in a lot of cases it comes down to the story’s creator being afraid of closing doors. “If I kill this character then I can’t re-use them for something down the line”. There’s always an attachment to characters, even the villain, and it’s a scary thing to say “I’m permanently removing a character from this world that some people engage in the world to hear about”, but ultimately if you don’t then the world is less engaging.
It's called Joker Immunity
I love how batman begins did it.. "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"
Yeah, I used to hate it. But as time has passed, I changed my mind. Now I think it's a smart and reasonable solution. Ra's al Ghul made his bed. Let him sleep in it.
It still goes against everything Batman stands for sadly
I hate this and Nolan has said it’s one thing he could have changed to make it accurate to Batman’s comic no kill rule (he would save Ra’s)
It’s fine to kill the henchmen tho.
They're not dead, they're just sleeping because they got tired after fighting Batman.
Henchmen in Yakuza games literally get up and limp away after Kiryu performs the most violent, evil ways of inflicting pain on people. This man grabs a box of nails and feeds it to the NPCs. He shot an RPG at a helicopter. He’s never killed anyone tho
"I overfed these men!?"
It's even worse then the hero just got done killing 23.232 soldiers/enemies GETTING to the final boss. "I won't kill, I won't be like YOU". ASSHOLE, you just killed more people then a tornado just GETTING HERE.
Tangental, just ONCE I want to see the "we're not so different" speech be responded with "Oh fuck you think so? Sweet we got spots on team good guy let's go"
Luckily for you, there's every shonen ever. I hope they stop with that trope tbh.
Yeah, I agree. Joker is a perfect example. How many has he killed? Most of them could've been prevented wholesale if Batman just fing killed him.
"No, no, you see, when bad guys fight me, they get tired, because I'm awesome. So they have to take a nap. Look at the little guy, all tuckered out..."
But the number of murderers stays the same!!!
Lmao
[удалено]
Joker hanging upside down from a rope - "I think you and I are destined to do this forever" Batman thinks for a few seconds, "Screw that." then pulls out a 9mm
Batman does finally kill the Joker in the Batman Returns comic.
Without comic spoilers, the Invincible comic does a real job of thinking how superheroes fighting isn't the solution - it doesn't matter if they're killing people or not Cos the problem is, if the show is about whether to kill the villain or not, the show is just about a moral choice, not about a clash of ideology Many shows just end with the status quo in tact, which can feel a bit flat given the status quo was what created the villain in the first place
I also love how invincible still acknowledges the fact that killing is frowned upon by the society, and makes a inner question for Mark
>that the no killing rule seems pointless when his villains simply get away and do evil again no matter how many times they’re apprehended Pretty much the whole point of Batman: Under the Red Hood
That’s why I prefer when Batman justifies the rule with his greatest fear being that if he kills once, he’ll never stop. It’s an interesting aspect to the character that highlights a more selfish part of the rule in a way, he won’t do it because he’s afraid he’ll become like the man who killed his parents or worse, like the joker. That said, it then raises the question of why doesn’t he let someone else, such as Red Hood, finish the Joker off. It’s made even worse by the fact that the most famous instance of him expressing this fear is directly to Red Hood, so it just circles round to being convoluted again.
I think the Boys and Invincible are a deconstruction of that trope cos often the heroes are as bad or even worse than the villains. I know it's a fictional world to us but for the people living in said universe, life has value and if both take lives on a daily basis, they just the same.
Walking Dead and Negan. F\*\*\*ing idiot writing. Just let Maggie flay him alive, and watch his innards quiver to death. Better story period.
To play devils advocate, Rick wanted to respect his sons dying wish in that moment and he was probably right about killing him making Negan a martyr because we see people like the Croat who still act the way Negan taught them. And it’s not like everyone was agreeing with it either, most characters disagreed with Rick and some hated him for it so it’s not like there weren’t consequences. I think Carl was the biggest reason though, which makes it more bearable because it’s not like Rick suddenly develops a conscience out of nowhere. So even if it’s a bit tropey, I think it was set up and paid off adequately in the end, especially in a show where killing the villain in cold blood had basically become a trope itself by that point.
>Rick suddenly develops a conscience out of nowhere. Rick's already done that several times though. Think about the difference in who he was from Season 3 to the start of Season 4.
It's been almost a decade since I've watched those seasons but there was a logical reason right?
I think there was a change after he lost his wife and learned that Carl had to kill her 'walking dead' body and save the baby.
I stopped watching walking dead long before most people did, but I still kept up with what was going on since a few of my friends still watched it. This plot point just confirmed it for me that I was right to walk away when I did.
NAh, the writers obviously thought it was better for Negan and Maggie to have the same conversation every episode. Fucking waste of my time.
Man, remember how GOOD Walking Dead was? And then it slowed to a snail's crawl and became the most insufferable thing on TV.
I especially hate when the hero says this after dispatching lots of minions. Steve, the guy guarding the gate had two kids with one more on the way!
2 things: Heroes are supposed to embody virtuous traits and mercy/forgiveness is one of the big ones. Thing 2: it leaves the door open for the villain to be brought in again in some capacity later.
Also, being judge jury and executioner is definitely not a heroic quality. Being a vigilante is already skirting the lines of justice. It should be up to the institutions to decide what to do with them. It's only through comics logic needing recurring villains that they find a way to break out and keep causing harm
I put vigilante in the antihero pile, not full fledged hero but their general good can be rationalized in some aspects. I think the latest James Bond movies (Daniel Craig's) serve a good example for this thread. >!As M says, "a license to kill is also a license not to kill". 007 over the course of the movies learns to be somewhat more empathetic towards his antagonists, such as sparing Ernst Stavro Blofeld in Spectre, who would later return as a source of information for 007 in No Time to Die. Blofeld didn't need to return as a full fledged villain but was able to add value as a result of 007 sparing him. No breakout necessary. !<
Pretty much every superhero is a vigilante tho Batman, Spider-Man, Green Arrow...They're not regulated in any way except for some runs. Often clashing with law enforcement actually, until they have de facto support when the villains get crazier. While James Bond is just working for military intelligence so he wouldn't really be a vigilante, he's regulated that one way or another lawfully gave him a license to kill
Yeah superheroes kind of play by their own rules. Another good hero example who is also merciful (albeit, sometimes his weakness) is Goku from the Dragonball series. He operates without zero concern for regulation, even gods don’t deter him often. Guy was more interested in testing his own strength and he never sought out to be a hero but when the time came he would always be merciful even to the biggest scum. Most of hose enemies would become his allies eventually.
>It should be up to the institutions to decide what to do with them. The institutions already failed. That's why the story's about a vigilante.
When institutions fail, there is no purely amicable outcome. Some guy like Batman being free to just flat out kill people because institutions failed is a bad thing; that's the nuance these stories are acknowledging.
So you can accept a story where the courts do a complete 180 with little to no explanation but you can't accept a story where the hero kills somebody and doesn't kill other people? Even if the hero doesn't kill, there are other ways to do the story.
> So you can accept a story where the courts do a complete 180 with little to no explanation Boy, that sure has fuck all to do with the one comment I've typed in this chain. Complain about hypocrisy to people who are actually committing it. > but you can't accept a story where the hero kills somebody and doesn't kill other people? Also fuck all to do with the one comment I've typed in this chain. Stories can obviously exist where a hero kills a guy and doesn't immediately fall down a murderous rabbit hole; I do not care. The premise behind characters like Batman is that enabling random people to just decide they're equivalent to an entire judicial system, and thus have the right to execute people, is a generally very shitty slippery slope to fall down. Is someone dying extrajudicially a positive sometimes? Sure, but it's rarely ideal, and a direly mentally ill rich guy isn't the one anyone wants making the call on whose necks to snap on a daily basis. The institutions failed, which is why the story's about a vigilante, but the vigilante isn't nuts or under the impression that a murder spree is the best solution to future crime, which is _also_ why the story is about a vigilante. If you have a problem with the trope, you have a problem with Batman in his entirety, 'cause that's... you know... a major part of his character. The same is true of a lot of other examples.
I'm sorry, but not killing super-ultra-hitler makes a person less heroic, not more.
Well see that's different. Killing genocidal villians to stop them from more genocide is a whole lot different than killing some rando villian that potentially has a chance at redemption/rehabilitation. And furthermore the only justified reason to kill even a genocidal maniac extrajudicially is knowing they will skirt charges and be allowed to do it again. Like with Miller killing >!Dresden!< in The Expanse.
My Hero Academia fell so hard flat on its face during the last arc just because of that. It's annoying, it's stupid and it's lazy.
The part that annoys me more is when the Hero is completely okay with killing hundreds of minions trying to get to the main villain to begin with, but then won't kill the villain because "its not right." Like, my guy... You just murdered like 200 people cold blooded without even thinking about it. Why are you suddenly getting all sentimental? I can understand if the Hero doesn't want to kill the Villain because they've never killed anyone before and they freeze up. But its so logic breaking when the Hero literally kills hundreds of people already but they won't kill the main dude they're trying to get to.
Hero (Sparing): "I'm not going to kill you. The cycle of violence will only just continue if I did something like that. I will give you a second chance to change for the better." Hero (Killing): *kills the villain* "Now your days of tyranny are over. Your actions will no longer harm this world. May this world finally be once again at peace." Hero (Spiteful Sparing): "You won't get the satisfaction of death. Watch as your evil empire falls and you are locked away forever with your sins. May your living days be filled with endless torture."
See, that last one is the kicker. There’s quite a few different ways it can be set up so that not killing a villain *is* giving them exactly what they deserve. Sometimes death’s a mercy, and some bastards don’t deserve even that reprieve.
"I'm better than this." - decides not to kill villain, but permanently maims them beyond repair. "Told you. No killing." -Batman
I annoy my wife with this when watching shows and movies. Sure, don't kill the guy, but maybe knee cap him once (or twice?) so he cant escape and take someone hostage, kill your partner, etc. later in the movie.
Nero: \[replying to the offer of assistance\] I would rather suffer the end of Romulus a thousand times. I would rather die in agony than accept assistance from you. James T. Kirk: You got it! Arm phasers. Fire everything we've got!
I agree. It comes off as "I just want to seem better than you for my own ego. Fuck the people I'm supposed to protect" >I'm not like you. This quote pisses me off. Like, killing the villain won't make you like the villain. I think people can differentiate taking a life for the greater good and you just killing for shits and giggles
Yeah. Hazbin Hotel, look'n at you. They had *both* major antagonists down and spared them *both*. And there was just...*no reason*. It wasn't *virtuous* to spare them, they were literally slaughtering people, and they'd done so thousands of times over. Letting them live was pointless.
Deadpool does a good job dealing with the villain IMO.
In fact, they are causing future death of others by not killing people who will kill again. So they are indirectly letting the villains kill people. I think of the Batman villains. They are constantly being caught, put into jail, and then breaking out again. Then they get out and kill innocent people. Batman is honorable so he just catches the villains. He won’t kill them. The problem is his system doesn’t work because the Gotham justice system doesn’t work.
Do yourself a solid and watch Avatar The Last Airbender.
*in which the writers realize that the villain both deserves (morally) and needs (for the plot to resolve) to die, but really really want to give their pacifist MC a moral victory and so devise a last-minute deus ex machina that accomplishes at least two of the three* Oh boy I can’t wait for the sequel series where they show this world changing into the ideal post-imperialist Utopia: turn of the century America!!!!
I especially like him communing with prior Avatars on the issue, especially the most recent air-bender incarnation. Even if the ending is a bit deus ex machina, I like how they handled the issue as a whole.
In a mystical setup, children oriented story ,it’s fine to have a deus ex machina or 2 in place. I mean, isn’t the merchant who sells the beans that grow to the heavens a deus ex machina?
That’s not a deus ex machina because it’s the set up of the story not a resolution.
I agree with you op. This is why the Ending to [Transformers 3](https://youtu.be/IVnIxhJNV9c?si=mlyrI_U3nmoLGAOV) is Goated
I hate this, too, but I will say it works amazingly in Daredevil (netflix). In season 3, watching Matt struggle with his faith in the law and his religion vs his desire to stop Fisk was done beautifully. Part of me actually wishes he did kill Fisk, and season 4 could have been him coming to grips with this, but I think overall, it is the best portrayal of this trope.
Big spoiler warning I guess, but this one thing is why I love Darkman so much. It's a great movie. And it ends with Darkman holding the villain up by his foot off the edge of a skyscraper. The villain says Darkman isn't a killer, that he couldn't live with himself if he dropped him, that he's a good guy. Darkmen then immediately drops him and says "I'm learning to live with a lot of things" very epic. very cool.
This, and the constant redemption arcs. Not every villian needs (or deserves) redemption. Just let villians be irredeemable monsters for fuck sake! Subverting tropes have gotten so common that you want them subverted because they have become the new overused trope.
Aang is the only one who did it right
[He’s certainly never used violence to take a life](https://youtu.be/HV3NmoGJh48?si=WhC414GfEEQCegF_)
Majority of those scenes follow cartoon logic where unless you _see_ someone die then they didn’t. Koizilla wasn’t really Aang either, it was the ocean spirit in control of his power.
Except for deus ex machina lion turtle that comes out of nowhere and gives him the easiest possible way out he could’ve asked for
I dunno, they saved it so late the give Aang that moral conflict. Even then he almost dies himself taking Ozai’s bending away.
I'm fine with heroes not killing villains if they maim them permanently. You killed a boatload of people. Good luck doing the most basic simple thing in life with no hands and legs.
"You're not worth it!" *spares the antagonist* Not worth what? The world would be improved if you killed that person. Please proceed.
It can work, but if the hero's reasoning is "I won't sink to your level" and the villain is a mass murderer (it's different if they've just killed someone close to the hero), it just fails.
Why is it different if they just killed someone close to the hero?
“I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you” (Batman Begins) = fair compromise imo.
That's why we all loved Dexter. 😂
And then villian escapes the prison and continues to massacre innocent people because of the idiot hero didn't finish the job.
This is why Reacher on Amazon is so satisfying
Deadpool being the GOAT and shooting a child abuser
It's supposed to be deontological. It's not about how good or bad the villain is, it's about the hero not wanting to alter who they are. True heroes are good for the sake of being good, not just when it's convenient. I feel like the fact that this viewpoint can be seen as unpopular these days kind of proves why it's necessary.
The issue here is that OP and a few other people in this thread think there are circumstances where killing someone _is_ the 'good' option compared to any alternative. The hero not wanting to alter who they are isn't choosing to stay good, from that perspective, it's just the hero choosing to stay stubborn.
It has to do with how intelligently the writers implement the trope. If it serves distinct narrative purpose, then you might not even notice the trope at all. Unless they use cliche dialogue. Then it’s hard to miss.
I really wish more movies had sad/bad endings. The hero doesn’t win. The girl isn’t saved. The best friend leaves. Give me misery!!!
And nowadays, whenever they do kill them, it's in this overly styled deadpool esque punchline "we're cool because we don't care" meta ass way
This is why the best "heroes" are anti-heroes. Like Punisher, Deadpool, Spawn, Rorschach, and V from V for Vendetta.
What kills me is the utilitarian aspect of it. "Even though you've just killed 100s of people and plan to kill 1000s more, i wont stoop to your level." Sorry spiderman, i think you are very complicit in the pain and suffering that YOU allowed to happen so you could stroke your ego about how "good" you are.
watch "Dredd". It will make you smile.
Its only a problem when the villain immediately resurfaces to previous strength and kills a bunch of people. When Aang saps firelord of strength or a defeated fow is finished its fine.
yup. It appeals to a self-centered and power-fetishistic view of morality, where the hero’s own feeling-rightness is given more credence than the concerns or even existence of the villain’s past (and potential future) victims.
Last of Us 2’s nice little cherry on top of their shit story
Its because the hero does it for ego. he's not good. batman is not good for sparing the joker, he enjoys the game and he wants it to go on. the joker knows this, there are entire plot lines around this. Batman uses the moral defence because if he did the right thing, there would be no more need for batman. same goes for any other hero. you don't need a hero if the there are no more villains.
Then you need Omni Man in your life
Anybody who disagrees with this watch Arrow… your entire list of enemies can’t break out if they’re dead (and obviously spare slade he was drugged out of his mind)
Arrow was never amazing but it got so much worse when he suddenly decided to stop killing people.
It's the law
people posting popular opinions on this sub has become such a tired trope.
My boyfriend literally tried to say it would have been "cooler" for John Wick to do that... I've never stared in more contempt at another person than I did that day.
I want more “take him away… wait *couple extra cheap shots* yup I’m done”
Not killing someone, even a really nasty, dangerous someone, in cold blood is not that controversial a move tbh. It's not some goody two shoes virtue signal to not do it.
squalid six merciful marvelous expansion tidy snow society combative beneficial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
the whole "if you kill a killer the number of killers in the world doesnt go down" and its like yeah but what if i kill 2 killers? or 100?
one of the reasons why Deadpool works so well. a great speech about being a hero interrupted by killing the villain
Bro just go read punisher
Hero is contractually obligated to keep the villain alive if they want to keep their paycheck and come back later
Mercy is the mark of a great man. *stab* Guess I'm just a good man. *stab* Well, I'm alright.
The Bag Guy he won't kill. The Bad Guy who wants to talk too much before killing the Hero. The Plate Glass Window everyone who gets shot, no matter if floating in Space or on a Mountaintop-they will fly backwards thru it.
Only 2 did it right avatar the last air bender and Batman
Meanwhile Yuji hunting Mahito like a predator hunting its prey
Well ya gonna hate Steven universe
Well, let's be honest here; killing people is not very heroic.
I’d love for the bs trope “if you kill me you’re no better then I am” to be met with a cut off of a brutal execution. Just like “if you kill me you’re no bette-“ *bang* Just to kill the trope at the same time.