When to kill!?

[Chime85]

This isn’t so much as a call for help as it is more of a poser to get the ethical juices flowing. The question of the hour is at what would cause your characters to kill, and do you consider your own moral code in this?

For example, one of my characters NEVER kills. She sees life as a precious gift that she has no right to take away from anybody. That said, she does command troops to defend a town under siege. Something she dislikes doing, but she sees as the lesser of evils. She has killed in the past, but since then she would never kill anyone by her own hand.

Another kills someone out of anger and spite. Something she regrets doing later, but she does kill in battle as well. There are also characters who prefer to kill when the odds are on their side, such as stabbing someone when they sleep.

What do you take into consideration when deciding when a character reaches a breaking point enough to kill another? Personally, I keep my view on killing in mind, even if just so I can hold the opposite view from time to time (it’s nice to argue with myself!)
Do you consider the laws of the land they are in, or perhaps religious/ritualistic murder? Do you prefer your characters to relish the act of killing, be it cold murder or war? Do your characters struggle internally with these very questions when presented with the choice to kill someone else?

 

[BWFoster78]

It depends on the character and his background.

Each person has a unique, personal view on the subject that arises from their experiences. Someone raised on the concept that life is sacred is going to react much differently than someone who believes that their cause trumps all other concerns.

Part of the issue is cultural. For example, I think it's pretty ingrained in the American psyche that you don't hit first. If someone tries to kill you, it's okay to kill them. Otherwise it isn't. A person raised in a different culture may feel completely different.

I want my characters to have realistic reactions unique to them as individuals. My personal ethos doesn't really come into play.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

My characters tend tend live in harsh, brutal worlds where the choice to kill or not is often taken away as they are thrust into kill or be killed scenarios. Often, in the case of the initially innocent, these acts are first done on pure instinct alone.

There are seasoned killers among them as well. Some kill through a sense of duty (soldiers, protectors, etc.), some kill for pure bloodlust. There are characters that do not kill, where this is a conscious choice they force upon themselves (and suffer greatly for). There are those that kill with words but never bloody their own hands. The types are many.

Violence in struggle, however, is central to the storyline in my current work. Some are trying to escape the violence, some are trying to harness it, a few relish in its use. It all depends on their setting, the backstory that made them into who they are at the story's inception, and the character arc as they are placed in difficult situations.

I agree with BWF though. My personal view on killing doesn't come into play.

 

[Ireth]

My characters have varying stances on killing. Most kill only when it is absolutely necessary to save their own life, or the life of another, such as my various human and non-human soldiers and warriors. Others kill not only for necessity but for enjoyment (such as certain vampires, who not only feed on humans, but turn some of them into vampires to keep them as lovers or adopted children). And some, even among my vampires, are resolved never to take a human life or taste human blood; most often they are coerced into doing so by the more bloodthirsty (no pun intended) vampires, much to their regret.

 

[Feo Takahari]

My only project with a lot of killing is Gracie, in which most of the protagonists are soldiers. They largely kill for king and country, or at least to protect the rest of the squad. (Gracie herself has a very tribal mindset, so she kills entirely in defense of her friends--which causes problems when she has to fight someone she recognizes.)

Eternal also has quite a few killers, although they're rarely shown at work. Most of these are people who've been recently released from a rather nasty geas after several years of being forced to kill on command, and who've consequently lost most of their inhibitions against not messily slaughtering anyone who could be a potential threat (especially anyone who might geas them again.) That said, there's also an ordinary salesman who, under the influence of panic and stress, stabs an angry demon to death with a kitchen knife.

 

[GregorsMentor]

In my current project all the main characters have killed at one point or another except for one, and while the others can for some extent toss off death, it's important for me that when that one does indeed have to kill someone it is psychologically damaging, not just for him, but for his friends as well. It seems important that even in a world where death is common, the loss of innocence associated with it is still seen as a loss for the larger group.

 

[Shockley]

I write characters - they kill if the situation requires it, and if their backgrounds makes them capable of doing it. That said, most of my characters grew up in a feudal society, with war and raids as constant companions - they don't have the leisure of considering whether murder/killing are ethical.

As for me, I'm an essential pacifist (excepting defensive war), and I don't think I could ever kill someone. But my characters are not me, and furthermore, I would not survive long in their world.

 

[Leif Notae]

Eh, there is killing and then there is destroying. Killing is an annoyance in fantasy, something that someone can rub some dirt and spit into it, say some magical prayer, and poof... Death be gone. Destroying is the utter decimation of the soul or spirit, severing the bond so it will never return.

With that in mind, killing is okay in my book when it comes to fantasy. I treat it the same way screenwriters treat death offscreen. If you don't see a body, they probably aren't dead (or they've had some magical aspect placed upon them).

 

[Anders Ämting]

Varies a bit depending to story, but most of my characters are warriors who don't get too worked up about killing as long as it is done properly and for a righteous cause.

Specifically, my heroes may not exactly like killing and try to avoid it when they can, but if they kill an enemy in honest combat, it's not something they beat themselves up over in a My-God-What-Have-I-Done sort of way. Most would probably just feel relieved they survived, plus possibly hold a fair bit of respect for their fallen foe assuming it was a good battle. For most of them, it's a "no hard feelings" kind of thing, assuming there is no animosity or drama between them for other reasons. I like to keep my warriors professional, and professionals have standards.*

The reasoning goes if you attack someone with a lethal weapon or skill, you declare the intent to kill and also accept the possibility that you may be killed in return. (Because naturally you can't expect your opponent to hold back while defending his life.) You may show mercy, and you may ask for mercy or surrender, but ultimately a battle is an agreement between warriors that they will fight until one dies. If you don't find that acceptable, you have no business on a battlefield or carrying a weapon in the first place.

*Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

 

[Jess A]

Hmm. My novel is set in a world similar to early modern Europe. It's not the kindest of worlds.

My characters are also quite varied in their ethics. As for my moral code, I cannot stomach the thought of taking a life. But I like to think I would do anything to defend those I love. One can't know until placed in the situation (and I hope never to be).

However, my characters are not me and they have different backgrounds. One grew up in a war-like place where being a warrior is everything, whether male or female. He is less likely to hesitate to kill, but he wouldn't do it unless he thought it was necessary, and he doesn't thirst to kill. However, he is aggressive. Other characters are likewise trained to kill for their King or whatever. One of my female characters hates the thought of killing. She rarely eats meat (she isn't human; she can exist on a pretty plant-like diet) but she does if she needs to. Usually diet or morals on killing relates to some religious or cultural background on my world. As it does in our world. People don't have such an abundance of food so they can ill afford to be selective. And when war hits, they need to defend themselves and their family. So in a world where violence isn't just on TV or in a distant country, I think the reasons for being pushed to kill are more prevalent. And one can get away with it, too. Similarly, I might have strong views on slavery, but some of my characters think it's completely normal as that is how they were raised. They may not like it, though, but they accept it.

 

[Feo Takahari]

The reasoning goes if you attack someone with a lethal weapon or skill, you declare the intent to kill and also accept the possibility that you may be killed in return. (Because naturally you can't expect your opponent to hold back while defending his life.) You may show mercy, and you may ask for mercy or surrender, but ultimately a battle is an agreement between warriors that they will fight until one dies. If you don't find that acceptable, you have no business on a battlefield or carrying a weapon in the first place.

What if your characters HAVE no business being on a battlefield in the first place? I write a lot more drummers, salesmen and confused teenagers than warriors (and even my actual warriors are often panicky conscripts who don't really believe in their own cause.)

 

[Anders Ämting]

What if your characters HAVE no business being on a battlefield in the first place? I write a lot more drummers, salesmen and confused teenagers than warriors (and even my actual warriors are often panicky conscripts who don't really believe in their own cause.)

They still have to chose between surrendering themselves to the enemy forces or fighting to protect themselves. And if they decide to fight, they can't be blamed for killing their opponents, nor should they blame themselves.

And while a conscript may not believe in the cause he fights for, can he really afford to contemplate things like "is this right or wrong"? In such a situation I think it's okay to focuse on self-preservation.

Point is that you are either forced to kill in order to protect your own life, or you willingly gamble your life in combat with people who do the same, for a cause you believe in. Either way, it's not blameworthy. Killing only becomes a truly terrible thing when you start doing stuff like stabbing innocent civilians.

That said, of course a scared and confused teenager migth feel horrifed about having killed someone. That's just being realistic. Then again, some might not. It depends a lot on cultural and individual attitudes towards violence. Some might even find that they are naturals at it - my current MC is a pretty normal teenage girl, but she does enjoy fighting on some level and when she does kill another person (who to be fair was all sorts of evil) she doesn't feel especially conflicted about it. Other characters actually point out that she's slightly twisted that way, but in a combat scenario, being slightly twisted can actually be a useful trait.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'm trying to make this about behavior, not philosophy. This thread isn't the right place to argue whether what you're saying is right or wrong. But as recently as the American Civil War, even soldiers on the battlefield who were actively being shot at couldn't always muster up the guts to return fire. You can't just put people into a war situation where they need to kill or be killed and expect all of them not to choose "be killed". (And I have a fondness for writing the characters who choose "be killed" and then survive anyway.)

* To be fair, I don't know what percentage of, say, the Vikings were okay with killing their foes. It may be that some cultures foster a killing instinct more easily than others.

P.S. I'll be honest and say that I'm getting some of this from On Killing. Yes, I know it's a seriously flawed work--that's why I'm not making some of the claims that book makes--but it does raise a few valid points.

 

[071095se]

Well in my current work I don't really have a problem with that at the moment, as I have removed the need to kill by making the main foes my main characters encounter in the world undead. However when I do reach the point when someone who isn't already dead needs to be killed, I will put my own moral code into practice, except for a single character, who is so fanatical in his devotion to his people, he is willing to do anything if he thinks it will help them. My main character however will heavily follow my own idealistic views on killing

 

[Struddles]

Surprisingly enough Trigun actually deals with what your talking about. It's a decent anime and manga I definitely recommend reading and watching it. The main character Vash has a history that was quite destructive but he now leads a life where he tries to help where he can and he does his best to never kill anyone. You can definitely see some of the struggles he goes through especially since he's put in situations where people outright try to kill him and in turn you never really can tell if what he's doing is worth it. Not killing someone is asking for trouble and a lot of times when watching movies/tv/anime or reading you almost see that everyone does their best to not kills someone if they can. If they are the "good guy"

It's the sheer innocence of the character that makes them so appealing and at the seem time causes them the most struggle. If you want a few ideas as to the moral choices that someone goes through when not trying to kill definitely watch or read Trigun it's a great example of what your looking for.

Another good one is Rurouni Kenshin same basic premise yet it's set in the samurai era.

 

[Ghost]

The question of the hour is at what would cause your characters to kill, and do you consider your own moral code in this?

My own moral code doesn't matter. Even characters who resemble the most me aren't me. They won't have the same morality or the same worldview.

My characters kill for different reasons. They might become disconnected from reality and lose empathy. They might become angry or vengeful. They might see killing as a solution to a problem. They might do it accidentally. They might kill in self-defense. It depends.

I don't write serious stories from the POV of someone who relishes killing. I'd have to sink into that mindset, which would be depressing as hell. I need a buffer between me and that sort of character.

 

[wordwalker]

On the other hand, most characters in a somewhat medieval world are likely to have a very different attitude about killing than any modern-day people.

Consider what they've grown up with: A few children in most families dead by age five or less, and frequently the mother dead in childbirth as well. Bandits killing, and executed when caught. A war sometimes every generation like a law of nature. And then you add the monsters, Magical Accidents, or other things we really try to hook the reader with--

Okay, not every Earth era's fully like that, and some social segments are more sheltered and some worlds more peaceable. But if the world's closer to those times than to ours, most people would grow up much more accepting of the idea that killing is frequently necessary in a crisis; the usual questions are more how careful they are to look for other options and how frightened or shocked they are about coming up against the reality of it.

Not an absolute rule, again, and it's only about backstory and not someone's whole attitude. But it's worth stretching our minds to see just how medievalist our characters would be raised as.

 

[thedarknessrising]

My characters are two teenage elves. They spend a lot of time hunting in the woods so that they and their families might have a supper. They know how to kill. They've slaughtered hundreds of deer. They could essentially do it to another elf, or human, or orc. One of my main characters has a severe moral opposition to murdering another elf or human, and he shows it after a specific scene. Even though he killed in self defense, it doesn't stop him from hating himself and treating himself like some sort of monster.

Then there's my main character. He understands that death is a natural part of his quest. He has to kill in order to succeed. He can't show any kindness, because the orcs and dragons won't show him any.

In the end, during the huge battle sequence, there will be death. There will be bloodshed. Their reactions to both will differ.