For the purposes of this essay, I'm referring to the depiction of violence in the media. In our media the good guys typically use a lot of violence, but tend to avoid lethal violence. This is a reflection upon that choice in TV, comics, movies , books, video games etc. Like Andor, Daredevil and Batman, this is not meant to be allegorical in the real world.
I'm well aware of the arguments that killing someone robs them of the chance to grow, to repent their evil ways, to do good later. That destroying the possibility of a life to be the infinite source of love, support, inspiration is a terrible thing. Please read the rest of this with that understanding in mind. To kill is to destroy the infinite possibilities of life, and we all agree this is bad.
And I'm also aware that in media and online spaces saying anything that might be considered a threat or advocating for people's deaths has legal and Terms of Service implications. Not that harm or property damage are significantly less actionable in those spaces if they choose to take offense at what you said or typed. Rule 7 (“...Any violence suggested even ironically, sarcastically, or in a joking manner is not accepted.”) applies, but doesn't it also apply to harm?
Is causing lifelong trauma better than killing? If your character shoots out kneecaps, assuming your target doesn't die from blood loss they have a high likelihood of losing the leg below the knee. Even in the best scenario they'll live with debilitating pain for the rest of their lives. For comic book examples, Daredevil's or Batman's martial arts will cause permanent injury with lifelong repercussions. "Knocking someone out" is by definition causing Traumatic Brain Injury, again known to cause suffering for the rest of a person's life.
That's a recipe to reinforce and build on the wrong that the people were doing when they were injured by the hero. Leaving behind a trail of disabled enemies would seem to build resentment for their ongoing pain. Their loss of wages and opportunities. Batman could have an entire enemy group with enhanced prosthetic limbs populated by low level henchmen that he injured to the point of combat ineffectiveness.
Causing trauma is less likely to cause someone to see the error of their ways as to make them double down. Especially without the significant support, medical care, and such that a person with a debilitating injury needs. Who's going to help them? Criminal friends and cohorts. Beating someone until they stop doing something is abuse, and it's not reasonable to expect people with long term injuries to change their lives while they heal.
If your character is justified in engaging with violence, assuming their opposition is using lethal force, and discounting mind controlled opponents and other victims as enemies; your character has a pretty serious ethical dilemma between killing and causing lifelong suffering and harm. Generally non-lethal violence is considered always ethically superior to killing, but I don't think it's that simple.
Blinding lasers are a war crime. Gas that doesn't kill, but does cause permanent damage to the respiratory system, leaving the target short of breath forever is a war crime. Landmines that are designed to disable rather then kill are roundly considered cruel and evil. If a "hero" captured villains and tortured them into not being villains, would they still be heroes? Is it truly more heroic to disable, to cause permanent pain then to kill? Or is it condemning your opponent to a lifetime of chronic pain, disability and suffering worse than simply killing them?
If lethal force is justified by the events of the story, it would seem to me that most "less lethal" force is torture that stays with the villain, opponent or victim forever. Neither are "good" and I think it's debatable which is "better". If you're going to have characters that engage in the use of force, consider that there's more to it than "the good guys don't kill people.”
Site Navigation