When The Hero Can't Kill But The Villain Has To Die

Hello Future Me drops a video on Immortality the same day Savage drops this video on death? Are the writing YouTubers okay?

I hate the hypocrisy of "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you." It turns the "I won't kill" into a blatant joke. I also always hated the "I killed all the minions but "I don't kill" the bad guy. That's just "I'm ok killing the poor, but the rich bad guy deserves a fair trial." ...I mean I guess that's realisitc.

Super heroes have taught me that the no-killing rule doesn’t apply to demons, aliens, or Nazis.

My favorite form of Man vs Nature is Dungeon Meshi. They have to kill monsters in order to eat and survive as they navigate the dungeon. But you can feel Ryoko Kui's compassionate, scientific mind. They're enthusiastic and curious the monsters' biology, ecosystem, they use every part they can; they're respectful and reverent in the same way indigenous hunters are. Sometimes it feels less like a comedic DnD adventure, and more like a field guide written by a professor in love with nature!

Going off on a tangent here I also believe that the "redemption" of the villain, when they see the "error of their ways" or end up on the side of the "good guys" in a last hurrah and going out in a blaze of glory not only redeems them in the eyes of the viewer but also emphasises which side of the conflict are the good guys. Which can be easy at times when the Good vs. Bad plot is very black and white at times, but I think it plays an even bigger part in narratives where it might be a little more grey.

My brother is a bigger nerd than me and I brought up the "Should Batman Kill?" argument up with him. His personal opinion? Yes, Batman should kill some of his villains... but NOT their henchmen. He doesn't believe in the trope of the hero killing armies of henchmen and goons and letting the villain get a fair trial. It's understandable that most Henchmen are just people with a job, even if that job is harmful (that is unless there's a reason why they're all unnecessarily evil) I even brought up other Batman villains who are more sympathetic, specifically Poison Ivy and Two-Face. Yes while some versions of the characters are very sympathetic and are very possibly redeemable, their is a line that has to be drawn if Poison Ivy starts killing innocent people to use as fertilizer for man-eating, invasive plants. Even Two-Face, who is a very tragic character, if he decides to never change would have no choice but to be put down like a rabid dog. The rabid dog comparison makes sense because no matter how smart or loving a dog used to be, if they get Rabies it's all but over. There is nothing left of whatever it used to be, and ending that suffering is undoubtedly a mercy. Plus he brought up the real question of why doesn't Gotham have a Death Penalty or better prisons? The answer is obviously they don't unfortunately. Gotham is a corrupt city with no executioner and a vigilante who refuses to take a life. And despite rhe fact that I still defend certain villains and know (DEPENDING ON THE WRITER) that they have a chance at redemption and rehabilitation... There was absolutely no argument for Joker. The Joker has been UNIVERSALLY written to be more and more and more of a menace and it's just not fun anymore. He's so psychotically evil that I don't want to even really see him anymore, I legit just want the writers to make him die. Worst of all is the asinine edgelord nonsense logic of "If Batman kills Joker, Joker Wins!" It's just so dumb... I've heard too a really good reason why the No Kill Rule has been so argued about. The heroes of DC Marvel specifically have been portrayed in a way that their ideals are pretty much the same as they were decades ago. Meanwhile the villains have been paradoxically made MORE vile as time has gone on. It's like seeing the Lone Ranger or Zorro fight f**cking Ted Bundy or the Zodiac Killer. Sorry for the rant, but this argument has been a draining topic for a while.

The only story I know of that does a compelling version of the "If I kill I'm no better than the villain" argument is Monster. The story follows a surgeon who unknowingly saved the life of a serial killer, and has resolved to track down and kill his former patient before he can claim any more lives. Every experience the hero has on his quest is an argument against murder. (spoilers) He meets terrorists who sought a understandable cause, but accidentally killed innocent people in the crossfire. He befriends the kind elderly parents of a convicted killer, and witnesses their love for their son despite their acknowledgement of the horrible thing he did. A man who seeks revenge for the family he lost gets killed on his mission and causes his newfound family to grieve the same loss he sought revenge for. A detective's life is ruined when he shoots an unarmed criminal. A man who came from the same horrible background as the villain is an incredibly kind man who rose above the circumstances that made him. An assassin who loves sweet coffee gives up his trade when he lines up the crosshairs of his sniper rifle with his target, and sees the target adding sugar to his coffee. An old man who killed during the war lives the rest of his life repenting for it. Everything the protagonist experiences reinforces the idea that violence only perpetuates suffering and that empathy and kindness are the only way to improve the world. Everything, except for the actions committed by the antagonist, who regularly kills innocent people for no apparent reason; who regularly ruins the lives of those who have nothing to do with him; who's continued existence has only caused harm and bred more violence. Surely someone who's developed the appreciation for life that our hero fosters would come to the conclusion that the villain is only destroying those invaluable lives. Monster is the only work of fiction to stump me on the whole Do We Kill The Villain dilemma. If life is too valuable to end, and life is too valuable to let others end, what's to be done with irredeemable killers?

One thing that I learned from George RR Martin is that killing to many characters, without at least exploring their ideology, backstory and function in the plot is a huge mistake, Martin made that mistake, kill to many characters, and replace them with characters that we known nothing about or he did the opposite exploit a fan theory only to promote his show to oblivion, no actually caring about continuity, characters alliances or development, only for marketing, when that character was already dead in the books, now he changed the strategy for one similar to Stephanie Meyer Twilight, putting a team against another, when his story can be basically resume as Shakespeare Hamlet. Anyone remember how nearly all the characters ended in that play?

I find that the hero who chooses not to kill because of the vast power difference between them and their charges and/or adversaries, like Superman or Invincible, are the most compelling version of the choice not to kill. Otherwise, I feel like on even ground, we let the Lord decide who lives lol

44:00 this reminds me of a Midrash (Jewish tale that reinterprets a biblical story*) about the Hebrews fleeing Egypt and how the sea parted for them but then closed around the Egyptian army chasing them, leading the majority of the army to drown. The Midrash goes like this: the angels watch the escape, the parting of the sea, and the drowning of the Egyptians, and celebrate - this is it, the Hebrews are free and safe from slavery! - but God weeps. One of the angels asks, "why are you crying? This is a joyous occasion!" and God replies: "you forget, the Egyptians were my children too." *yes, fanfiction is an integral part of Jewish culture

One thing I disagree with. Viewing a work of fiction as a writer’s means of communicating their personal beliefs is a dangerous fallacy. Even if they are intentionally doing so, there can be a disconnect between the author’s intention and the reader’s interpretation. As a writer myself who is working on a book with a villain protagonist, I find this as very important to point out. That’s like saying that since Walt is the protagonist of breaking bad, his morals, or even just the actions he gets away with, are justified by means of his success and fortunes. In the same vein, I could say that his initial dissatisfaction with his life was cosmic punishment for being mediocre or settling for mediocrity and assume that the writers are telling us to do whatever it takes, even immoral actions, to achieve our goals.

7:34 "Obviously, not all characters die after being totally complete. In fact, I would say it's quite a rarity" Attack on Titan: "hold my beer" kills all their characters one after the other when their personal arcs are complete across the entirety of its runtime

37:22 The reason Batman can’t kill changes a lot from writer to writer. Personally I’ve never liked the “Then I’ll just start killing everyone” angle. I prefer the idea that Batman simply values life that much. He knows the pain and loss caused by death, and Batman is his way of kinda conquering death itself. Batman values life. And there is some opportunity for nuance there. Such as Batman having to deal with someone who kills because they value life and see his villains as a threat to life. But that’s just my perspective.

"Thou shalt not kill" is actually a mistranslation. The actual words in the historical language are "Thou shalt not murder", which in context of the times is "killing outside of tribal group". And make no mistake, the crime of murder was a crime in biblical times, but it wasn't a blanket statement to never kill at all.

To me the best no kill rules is when it's brought up as a potential flaw like batmam vs redhood film from 2009 the discussion that batman and jayson is so good and the film never says whose right

Between this and the video by Hello Future Me, now I feel like I need to write a story based on chosen immortality vs the consequences of the deaths left in the wake of that choice.

I used to not think too much about death in fiction, but lately I have been more and more disturbed by it. Not really in fantasy or sci fi where different societal rules apply, but more so in stories with grounded and realistic settings (Uncharted in particular unnerves me). And moreso by watching others reactions to it. Some crave the deaths of the antagonist and are annoyed that the protagonist does not want to kill. Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if they’d actually be comfortable with killing if not for the fourth wall protecting them. A little unfair of me considering the point of fiction IS to experience these things we can’t in a safe way, but I still feel it’s a valid point to raise. One day I want to write a story that really plays with how death is treated in fiction and how we feel about it… And not be preachy about it.

"Don't want kids to a corpse lying on the ground." Immediately plays Tarzan clip that shows the shadow of a body being hung. As if thats better! Lol

I have always believed that killing a villain is not in the heroes best interests because in someway that will fundamentally ruin their idealism. But sadly a truly unrepentant villain will not stop until they are put down, but I believe the hero should always kill in self defense or be forced instead of killing in cold blood or rage.

So I don't have an unhealthy obsession with characters that the writer had probably intended to be less than human, I'm apparently just ✨ahead of my time✨!