Superhero mercy

[Del Murder]

Why do superheros show so much mercy to the villains? I can see not killing them outright, at least not at first, due to some hero's code or something, but often they even go out of their way to save the villain from being killed by some other force or feel bad when the villain is harmed in some way.

In the end of Arkham City, Batman (SPOILER)says to a dying Joker, 'You know what the real funny thing is? If there was a cure, I would have given it to you.'. After everything that Joker has done, everyone he has killed, everyone he would kill if given the chance, Batman still wants to save him. Doesn't the countless lives saved by killing Joker outweigh the moral high ground of leaving him alive?

I was watching Spider-man the Animated Series the other day and during one fight Kingpin got hurt. An ambulance came to take him away and Spidey said something like 'it's ok Fisk, they'll take care of you, you'll be alright.' Wilson Fisk, the Kingpin, leader of all crime in New York and the man who has tried to kill Spider-man over and over, is actually comforted by Spidey after a scrape (which began with Kingpin trying to kill Spider-man with his six warriors)?

These aren't the only examples. So what is up with this?

[Sephex]

I think in the Spiderman example you listed was that the show was essentially marketed towards children. Chalk it up to the writers of the show wanting to teach kids a lesson about being the better person, even if someone is a jerk. That and if the "good guy" did do something truly awful to a bad guy, parents would complain.

Otherwise, it's a basic way to show the difference between good and evil. It's cliche, but it usually boils down to a similar reason like that. However, I have noticed that as time marches on there are more "darker" heroes.

I haven't read it but I know in one of the Batman alternate time lines (SPOILER)Bruce Wayne is the one who gets shot and killed. Thomas becomes Batman as a result...but he actually has no problem killing people. I actually think that's cool because it would make sense that an adult in that situation would react that way, where a child would be so traumatized by it that he would grow up not willing to cross that line.

[krissy]

in the amazing spider man run by straczynski,

(SPOILER) peter beats the crap out of kingpin for sending an assasin after aunt may. he does it with his mask off to make a statement that while spider man can't kill, peter parker is ready to do it.

i thought it was pretty interesting. super hero's aren't so much a deus ex machina for whatever city they protect; they're a symbol. there's no way one guy can fix crime. but they can be symbols and change how people view the world. that's why they can't allow themselves to budge on the topic of killing or certain other virtues.

and then you have deadpool

[Quindiana Jones]

I suppose that's what happens when people who don't understand genuine humanity and empathy try to write something sympathetic. Superheroes are (typically) supposed to be these bastions of virtue, whereas humans are kind of trout. xD

[Slothy]

In a lot of Superhero backgrounds, them not being willing to kill something which frequently stems from their not wanting to be judge jury and executioner. Many of them certainly have the power to, and could probably even get away with it. Hell, many people would probably cheer for Batman if he killed Joker. But because they often have so much power, they're unwilling to go there unless absolutely necessary because then where do they draw the line? If killing the Joker is fine, what about killing Two-Face or Penguin? Or maybe even just some street level rapist? They typically realize that they're fallible and that when they cross that line once they may be tempted to do it again. The fact that so many are driven by the deaths of loved ones also plays into it sometimes. Or in the case of someone like Superman, they're so powerful, and killing in a fit of rage would be so easy that they keep themselves on a tight leash. Not to mention, like krissy said, superheroes are meant to be symbols, and indiscriminately killing without due process conflicts with that quite a bit.

The real question I think is how the justice system they try to work within as much as they can so frequently fails them. I'm not one to advocate the death penalty, but in the case of fictional super powered mass murderers it makes some degree of sense to execute them. Even the crazy ones like Joker who are clearly beyond the ability of current medical science to help. Not that I think the heroes should be the executioners of course.

[charliepanayi]

Because killing is wrong?

[Raistlin]

I think mostly that it boils down to that superheros are supposed to be typical archtypes of good, though Sephex makes a good point that they're all targeted towards children. The standard message is that heroes aren't supposed to let anyone die. It's certainly extremely over-simplified and sappy, but, really, these are fantasy superheroes wearing colorful tights and masks. And people generally just don't die in many comics, going make to the issue of children. Hell, in Spider-Man: the Animated Series, they weren't even allowed to have real guns or see anyone too injured.

Though there are more mature superhero stories where the hero does not always act so strictly virtuous and insistent on saving everyone. Just look at the ending to Batman Begins, for a well-known example.

[Del Murder]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I get that superheros don't kill and I get why. That wasn't what I wanted to focus on. My main point was why do superheros sometimes go out of their way to save the villain? If Joker is running from Batman and trips and falls off a building, Batman doesn't have to catch him. No court, moral or otherwise, would say that Batman killed Joker in that case. Society would be spared from Joker forever and Batman's conscience would be clear. Win win.

Yet in The Dark Knight, I'm pretty sure Batman catches Joker from falling at some point. This just does not make sense to me. Why waste your time saving someone who does not deserve it?

[Raistlin]

Yet in The Dark Knight, I'm pretty sure Batman catches Joker from falling at some point. This just does not make sense to me. Why waste your time saving someone who does not deserve it?

Didn't Batman throw Joker off the building in the first place? If he let Joker fall then, Batman actually would have killed him. That makes it sorta-kinda-maybe-not-really distinguishable from Batman Begins, where apparently blowing up the train tracks and letting the person in the train crash and die doesn't involve actually killing him. I guess it wasn't so direct, at least.

To add to my last post, I think that's just what a lot of people think superheroes are supposed to do: save everyone. I disagree with such an oversimplified philosophy as well, but comics are well known for their black-and-white portrayal of issues.

[Peegee]

To be honest you'll have to ask the writers of the storylines, Del - we can't look into their individual justifications.

I will attempt to suggest something Batman has stated many times - he does not kill because it would be too easy. And actually I think it was Wesley here who said that it was uncharacteristic of Batman to let Ra's Al Ghul die in Batman Begins - Batman tries to stop criminals but if the criminals are going to die, he needs to save them - because that is the right thing to do.

It's very interesting to note that the Non-aggression Principle also advocates this sort of action (that if somebody attacks you and stops, you stop defending yourself, and if the person then is in risk of danger you are obligated to help if possible). Perhaps superheroes follow the NAP?

[milliegoesbeep]

Well, simply, showing mercy to villains sets the heroes and the villains apart. Actions speak louder than words after all

[Mercen-X]

The two major reasons heroes show mercy to villains is 1) it's aimed at kids and 2) killing off villains would require coming up with new ones all the time and there's really only so much one can do. All villains would begin to blend into categories defining them as being more or less similar to previous instances so why not just stick with the original and never kill him off?

As for saving villains from death or expressing sympathy at their problems, that's actually just more of a chivalrous way of being smug. What Batman says to Joker and what Spiderman says to Fisk are just things they know the villain doesn't want to hear. Batman knows Joker thinks he's an idealistic fool and Spiderman knows Fisk thinks he's a complete idiot. This is their way of telling them that they don't care what they think and it's also a way of telling them, "you're not as powerful as you think. See? I'm even letting you go. 'Cause there's nothing you can do that I can't stop."

Of course, yes, there should be a limit to this. If the villain has already killed people, they shouldn't be shown mercy or saved.

[G13]

In almost every case it boils down to justice. If Begins is anything to go by, Bruce was dead set on revenge being the ultimate form of justice, and it took him seeing the true underbelly of Gotham and his journeys thereafter to see a new way of thinking. If Batman killed his enemies he would be no better than them, and that's the point of the Batman, he's a beacon of hope for Gotham and a symbol of fear for criminals, not an executioner.

Ra's' death in Begins was pretty out of character for Batman, but it makes sense if you look at it from a certain point of view. The League of Shadows has been around for a very long time, Ra's Al Ghul is very powerful and is very driven. If he weren't killed he wouldn't have stopped. The Joker, on the other hand, is just insane. He was wild, if you gave him a weapon he'd try to kill the first person he saw without putting any kind of thought behind it. Someone like the Joker is more easily incarcerated than someone like Ra's Al Ghul, who could buy his way out or have his friends put in a good word for him.

... I forgot where I was going with all of this. :/ Maybe I'll remember later and add on to this.

[Raistlin]

Someone like the Joker is more easily incarcerated than someone like Ra's Al Ghul, who could buy his way out or have his friends put in a good word for him.

Yeah, the Joker is easily incarcerated in, for example, a police department's cell surrounded by armed guards. He would never be able to hatch an elaborate plan to escape involving hiding a bomb in a fat guy's stomach that could be triggered with a phone call.

The Joker fed Harvey some bulltrout about not being a "schemer," but he concocted some very convoluted plans to terrify Gotham and bring out Batman. I don't buy that Ra's needed to be killed but the Joker didn't. Though as I said earlier, I could at least accept the argument that Batman didn't want to directly kill the Joker, but was fine with letting Ra's crash.

[Mercen-X]

I still think it all boils down to DC characters making braindead decisions.