A Survey: What would your Super Heroic Moral Code be?

Yes if they are murderers, rapists, or child molesters . . . Hmmm . . . Especially if they are child molesters.

She does that deliberately.

I always assumed she didn't do it deliberately though I am not sure which way is worse.

Exactly. I'd also like to point out that super villains depending on their power cannot be disarmed. (Yes robots can be dismantled but they aren't alive as we recognize the term and thus killing isn't an appropriate term) They are inherently armed and thus dangerous so cannot be handled with the same restraint that the average criminal is.

If she believes what she posts she'd evolve into the worst kind of evil. A fanatic. It's only a matter of time before she'd start imposing her personal ideal of morality on everyone.

Sounds a lot like Emperor Cole when you think about it.

Sorry, this is why.

This, thread seems nice enough

That assumes the hero in question has foreknowledge of what the villain he is facing is capable of dishing out. There's also the where, when, and how the encounter. The hero may not be in any danger but can the same be said for any civilians in the nearby vicinity? The machine gun ricochets that are careening off of the superheroes chest could easily kill several innocent by accident.

This is one of the purposes that cleavage is used for - to safely catch bullets that might normally bounce off your chest and harm someone.

I would hope the hero would play it safe. Defending the populace is very important, and just because you can dodge bullets or they bounce off your chest, does not mean the people around you are safe.

Over all Forbin, I agree with what you said. It adds nicely to what I said. Even still, I am not sure that a hero should be going for the kill against someone that is unknown unless there is no other choice. It reminds me of Spider-man vs Wolverine, and how Peter launched a back hand that killed Charlie because he thought it was Wolverine and was reacting on instinct. When a hero faces a new villain, it's not wise to go all out on the offensive until you have an idea as to what they can take.

...Correct.

...Also important would be what the offense IS.


Assume that heroes have all the rights we have today- both for self-defense and transferrable self defense.

If we're assaulted with "non-lethal force" we can usually defend ourselves with non-lethal force... and that right's transferable to others-- they can defend us with non-lethal force on our behalf. Similar "transfer" includes in incidents that usually permit defenses using lethal force (varies by state, but usually includes crimes that risk death, kidnapping, sexual assault, and serious bodily harm).

Even without superpowers, this gets messy. The AGGRESSOR doesn't have a right to self-defense, so... for example, you come across a domestic abuse situation and intervene... attacking the guy... only to discover that the woman wasn't a passive victim- she was a participant and she started it. You didn't just "defend" someone, because that woman didn't have the right to self defense (she was the aggressor). You just committed assault.

Another example- a security guard, using his flashlight in a dark warehouse, stumbles across a burglar. Burglar jumps at him with bare knuckles. no sign of weapon. The guard has a right to defend using non-lethal force (in most states)-- no question there. Unfortunately, the guard panics, flails his flashlight around and strikes the burglar squarely on the temple, knocking him out. The guard's in a world of trouble-- the maglight, with the size and heft of a billy club, striking a human being "above the shoulders" is considered LETHAL FORCE in most states (unlike what we see in TV and video games, attacks like that have a high likelihood of causing life-threatening injury). By escalating to violent force where it wasn't appropriate, the officer's going to have serious legal issues. (this is also why most riot control police in the US equipped with stick-and-shield are now trained to strike UNDER the shield at peoples' legs & abdomen. A blunt force lever (club) to those areas isn't considered lethal force)

There's still a potential legal defense (again, varies by state)-- if he can argue that he felt his life WAS threatened-- and a "reasonable person" would have also if in that situation (determined by a jury) he may have a defense. The classic example I read about was a crippled bartender shooting an unarmed drunk attacker that was twice his size-- because of HIS condition, he feared for his life.

Note that this affects the person claiming self defense. The only times I've ever heard of an assailant succeeding with a defense of "I thought he could take it." involves ill-informed teens doing "extreme wrestling" attacks in their backyard... and then, only in juvie court. In the adult world, that wouldn't fly- if the attack would be considered potentially, it's lethal force... regardless of the condition of the victim.



Transfer that to superhero-dom and we see several conditions:
1) A hero may have "natural" attacks that are potent enough to be considered lethal. He would probably be held legally (if not morally) responsible if he EVER used these in situations that did not merit lethal force. Incinerating a purse-snatcher: not good. Incinerating someone spraying bullets all over the busy street: different story.

2) A foe may have defenses that make the "normal" considerations of lethality rather moot. This is iffy. If he's doing something that would justify lethal force, then have at it-- no issue. If he's doing a crime that normally wouldn't allow lethal force to be applied (NOT risking death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, sex assault, etc), you're in a dicy situation. Sure, bullets bounce off of him, but if ONE bullet hit his weak spot, you still just applied lethal force.

Imagine the human torch encountering a super-foe doing a crime that doesn't justify lethal force. He puts fire ring around a foe- a non-lethal immobilization to hold him in place till he can be arrested. The foe shrugs it off and walks right through it. Torch uses "rain of fire" to corral the foe, blocking his escape. (trying to stay nonlethal)... the foe appears immune. Torch blasts a light warning shot at foes feet. Foe shrugs it off. Torch blasts more directly and then harder, etc.

While the courts could easily decide differently (hard to find any kind of real-world equivalent) there's a chance that in such a supers-world, a responsible "escalation process" that eventually graduated to "normally lethal" attacks may be considered more reasonable. The hero restrained himself and only escalated when it appeared the foe wouldn't have a deadly reaction. If the next step DID kill the foe, and there still wasn't justifiable reason for the deadly act, then the hero's metered response would still mitigate his responsibility.

I think it's unlikely that the courts would rule this way, but it makes for a better superhero story than a "never EVER use any lethal force where lethal force isn't legally justifiable" as that would sideline many of our superpowered heroes... at least until an encounter really turned deadly.


---

Sidenote: I've tried to actually make a character that played by those rules. My "dual pistols / devices" natural blaster wouldn't lead off with her pistol against foes that didn't justify lethal force. I took the fighting pool early on & switch to guns once the foes are dumb enough to pull out weapons against her (or superpowered-foe equivalent). Lemme tell ya, it makes fighting the gangs A LOT more challenging.

I am pretty sure I arrived at that conclusion about 2 seconds after I got onto the GR beta boards.

Pffft, no it'd be more like that alternate world in the Simpsons where Ned Flanders is the total and unquestioning Ruler of the entire world.

Report for reNeducation, citizen.

I wonder if part of that would involve shaving the heads of bad people or having them grow flowing locks?

The reason I brought up the unknown factor is because I'm not assuming that the hero is nigh invulnerable. It would be foolish for the hero to assume that the unknown weapon/power the villain has won't hurt him or anyone in the vicinity. It is better to err on the side of caution.

It's odd that we are having this discussion today of all days because I was just listening to the 5 o'clock news locally and they reported that a man was shot by police today after he attempted to rob a bank at knife point.

He didn't get any money because he was stupid (The most dangerous type of criminal). The important part is that when he left the bank the cops almost immediately had him surrounded and ended up shooting him twice when he refused to drop the knife and surrender. The thief wasn't killed.

This all happened on one of the cities busiest streets and the reporter said it was during the busiest time of day.

Ha!

No, no, no... The primary purpose of cleavage is to store your ammo for quick reloading, as this video compilation clearly shows.

If it has awareness, it's 'alive' under an operative definition of the term, whether or not it's organic, so 'killing' would still be appropriate.

Not at the end of the mission, but at the point where the Federation achieved its goal of an ordered society. At that point, there would be no more need for people like him, and they would be eliminated. Sort of a pro-active version of Moses getting to see but not enter the Promised Land.

Plus sunglasses, money, pens and pencils, tissues, notes, lipstick, photos, small cameras, cell phones, iPods, nail polish, hairpins, hairbands, erasers, nail files, small mirrors, secret mesasges and so on - but not all at once, as that'd look kinda weird