That is true. And I can see where you're coming from. But still, killing wouldn't be the answer. They would probably just let them be killed by there own mistakes. Like how Krekka and Nihdiki are sucked in by teridax in Bionicle 2.


~ItDS~

There is one more point I'd like to add to my previously unread comment.

Defense, and offense. There are plenty of examples of this, even the one you gave.

Offense - Hakann kills Matoran because they are not working hard or fast enough to get the Mask of Life.

Defense - Jaller kills Hakann because he sees Hakann killing the Matoran, therefore Jaller must protect the Matoran from any further harm by killing Hakann. Locking him up is an option, and so is negotiating with him. But, he took another Matoran's life. Jaller would hold that as a valid reason for avengement. And so would I, if I am to be completely honest here.

Defense and offense are two necessary values that you must understand before judging anything that anyone does. It is the basis of good and evil.

Then why have prisoners in our world serve life sentences? Even BIONICLE characters die eventually.


What was that rated? PG-13? And we're not talking about so-and-so villain is holding so-and-so hero captive, we're saying that if the Toa win they're not going to just turn around and kill the evil guys. As I've said before, that would be in cold blood. But I imagine it'd be okay if some villain was going all-out against some Toa, and the Toa managed to kill the guy.

@Bfahome: Woah. I'm not saying "Win, and THEN kill them." I'm saying, there've been many situations where Toa had an opening to kill a destructive enemy, rather than continuing the fight with hopes of capturing him, and they didn't. That's what I'm objecting.

@Nameless: You mean their universe isn't already as bad as ours? I'd take robbers with guns over Dark Hunters with acid and gravity and explosive glances and all manner of much more deadly things.

What if the murdurer didn't mean it? What if someone else used a Komau, and controlled his mind to kill someone? Not everyone is guilty. Some peopl might be misguided; sometimes it might be an accident.

What if a Toa was in Ta-Metru. A Ta-Matoran was hanging over the side of a catwalk, over molten protodermis. The Toa runs to save him, but in his haste accidently pushes another Matoran into the lava. Should the Toa be killed?

Killing someone ain't always a solution.

I don't agree at all. Your making a common mistake: overlooking the aspect of life, even in fiction. Don't just think that they kill someone, think of it as this: They are personally permanently forbidding them from existence. They will never return, the good that they can do, even villains, will be no more, and you're causing them the most painful, erm, pain they'll ever feel. If the Toa kill , they are doing all of these and more. Doesn't that make them less than good?

He's not saying the Toa should become murderers, but to use deadly force if necessary.

Things like these are one of the instances where killing can save lives. Don't they have a duty to protect the Matoran? What if killing is the only way? Are they just supposed to sit there and watch? Doesn't sound very heroic to me. Besides, I don't think the Matoran would berate the Toa for killing. I mean, cops sometimes need to kill others to save others, right? And they're not looked down upon as murderers, but heroes.

because this is for younglings! They believe heroes never kill. Did superman ever kill anyone? Maybe beat the stuffing out of them, but not kill..

...I'm gonna go ahead and be neutral...

On one hand, if the Toa did kill their enemies, regardless of the enemies being prisoners or what, the Toa STILL wouldn't be better. Murder is murder. A serial killer is on the loose in your neighborhood. You catch him and kill him. I doubt that will make you any better.

You say that their universe is on the same level of 'messed-up-ness' as ours. I agree. It's pretty screwed up, but then, imagine what would happen if the Toa ran around killing offenders. It would be the same as the Police killing someone before a trial even took place. Wouldn't be fair, would it now?

Also, another way to look at is that Bionicle is aimed at kids, and a small group of Teenagers. Obviously, they would want to please the majority, who are kids around 8 to 12 years old, maybe? And now, introducing senseless violence, like Jaller killing Hakaan, just wouldn't help sales. Parents would probably go 'No, no, no! Too violent!' and sales will drop and...Sploosh. No more Bionicle.

But, I somewhat agree with you that the Toa should have killed their enemies when they had the chance, on rare occasions. The Piraka are a good example. The Inika should have just killed them, or at least imprison them or something, and then get the mask of life. Granted, there wasn't enough time, but...

Also, I think that rule of theirs is a bit...Wobbly. All it takes is for one to not think of himself as a Toa, and he is exempted from it. Like, Lesovikk. All he did was go. "Oh...I'm not a Toa." And he gets to go on killing sprees, while everyone else has to make do with capturing and stuff like that.

Just my thoughts.

~K-TA

Here's an example I gave to somebody in an IMing convo of when killing would've helped a whole lot:
There's a point in BL03 where Avak has Kongu imprisoned in a vacuum zamor sphere. Kongu sucks the air around Avak's head out, and he falls unconscious from lack of air. If Kongu had kept the vacuum on just a bit longer, Avak would be dead, and many Voyatoran lives, pain, and suffering would be averted. But instead Kongu cuts it off and lets Avak live, not even trying to contain him anywhere.
Avak had just tried to kill Kongu, in addition to the Voyatoran lives he'd taken. Kongu would've been perfectly justified in killing him, even if self-defense was the only reason.

Oh, and I'm not trying to get things changed (e.g. Greg changing Toa's attitude), I'm talking about the Bionicle-characters-having-free-will world.

Picture this scenario: you find a murderer backing someone up into a corner. The police are to far away to come quickly. You have something that can stop him, however you don't use it. An innocent life lost,while the murderer gets away, and you could be considered an accomplice to the him, since you did nothing to try to stop him, but if you were to kill him, you'd be protecting an innocent life.



I don't think many of the younger fans read the books. Besides, they probably make them "kill" eachother when they play, anyways.

There's a bit of a difference between killing someone and doing nothing to stop them.

If I had a metal pipe I probably wouldn't hesitate to swing it and knock him out cold, but I wouldn't continue bashing his head in until it's a pile of mush.

Even if I just had a gun I'd shoot him in the leg or something. He won't be doing much getting away then.

I'm not disagreeing with your point here, but I'll just say that Kongu used his Mask of Telepathy to free himself by screaming in Avak's mind, throwing off his concentration, not a vaccum.

I'd say that I agree with the moral code, but sometimes Toa take it too far. They won't kill no matter what (except for Visorak, something I find odd considering the intelligence and strategic know-how they've shown), even when it's the best option.

One thing I'd find interesting is to see a Toa go over the ege and actually kill his enemy (from provcation, not in a justified manner). I'd like to see how that'd go...

But if the absolute only choice is to kill in a situation like that, one shouldn't hesitate to do so.

Exactly. But what if the murdurer wasn't guilty? What if everyone thought he was, but he wasn't?

A Toa caught a murduer and then decided to kill him. But later, he learned that the person he killed wasn't the killer.

And i thought it was why Toa don't kill to those that "Deserve" it. If a Toa's solution to everything is to kill someone, then they aren't really heroes anymore; not when they might kill a innocent.


What if it was impossible to save a innocent and spare the murduers life? Isn't that what Toa do? To do the impossible?

Right there. Right there.
Do the ends justify the means? Is an evil act justified if done for a good purpose?
Now, this has been debated for a very long time, but the answer, ultimately, is no.
No matter how good the purpose, you are still committing an evil act. Even if you're saving the world, you are putting your purity in jeopardy, and setting the balance of your soul a bit towards darkness.
Toa do not kill because to intentionally take another being's life, no matter what the cause or reason, is at heart, evil. And to commit evil is against their code, for it leadsdown the path of darkness.
And we all know what Yoda said about the path of darkness.

~Zhalath

Your error is pretty simple -- it's not that they don't kill at all. It's that they seek to avoid it if at all possible. For example, stunning an enemy or some such thing is preferred.

When they say "Toa don't kill" they mean it in the sense of "The volcano-studying scientist always obeys the speed limit." Obviously, if such a scientist needed to escape something like a Mt. St. Helens pyroclastic flow, he'd sure as Karzahni violate the speed limit. It means, "unless they literally have no other choice."

This is mainly because if the Toa went around killing as easily as the Order does, the Matoran would likely not trust them as much. The Order can get away with anything, because they are secret. The Toa don't have that luxury. Other reasons abound, but that's the biggest one.


This is true, but it doesn't prove that killing Hakann was the best choice. Might depend on the situation (like if Hakann was clearly about to kill a buncha more people).

You used a 2006 example, but you apparently missed that this was addressed in 2006 -- the Toa Inika "killed" what appeared to be villains at one point on the Stairs. They gave into the desire to kill.

But those images changed, to appear to be the now-dead Toa Nuva. The Inika were faced with the horrible news that they had killed the Toa Nuva, because they were so eager to kill, they didn't notice the clues that the images weren't really the villains they appeared to be.

Of course, the Nuva too were illusions, but the Great Beings set up that challenge to make that point. Someone who gives into the temptation to kill before trying other approaches is sliding down a slippery slope.

A person like this would likely kill, for example, a Matoran wearing an infected Kanohi. When in fact they should simply remove the infected Kanohi.



True, and sometimes that is why killing IS necessary, and Toa do that. However, if you HAVE the option to lock them up, you try that first. Because in the heat of battle, you cannot accurately judge whether in the unforeseen future they might escape, or whether you might need them alive in this unforeseen future. You can't know either way, but if you just plain kill them, it's too late to change your mind.


This is Bionicle, not Iron Man.

Bionicle has many more powers that make stunning or other similar options easier for the heroes. Compare to cops nowadays getting tazers. Before, they had no choice but to use a gun in many situations where now, the tazer is preferred.

Think about it this way -- if a villain has info you absolutely need, you'd be very grateful to have a tazer handy. Otherwise you'd be powerless against them.

That's just one example.

The point is, killing CANNOT (usually ) be reversed. So the Toa's stance on that is, "We just aren't going to risk it, unless we literally have no choice (see Morbuzahk), in case it turns out we need that villain alive."

Hope this helps (and BTW, this is a very old and beaten-to-death subject ).

Eh, it has something to do with Honor. Watch as I prove what could happen:

Suppose the Toa killed someone who was absolutely evil.
If the Toa killed, they might do it again.
Eventually, the line between irredeemably evil and not so much could blur. That's what the Toa are trying to stay away from.

But it's actually because Bionicle is a kid's toy line, not an actual novel or the like. Normally, the heroes are either smart enough or desperate enough to kill the main villain, so he doesn't come back to p0wn them later.

Other responses and stuffishness, pardon if I missed a name-label or two:

Kafei Vachu:

The problem with that, Kafei, is what happens after it, and what happens when there are mistaken perceptions of attack? What happens when some on the "side" that "attacked" perceive your attack as the first one? Innocent can be hurt that way too.

Of course, in a sense, this IS what the Toa do. They battle evil.

But when you take that to the extreme of attacking literally in the same way the enemy does (to kill), sometimes that CAN be just as harmful.




Toa Velox:

Yes -- does anyone think Takanuva didn't intend to kill Makuta in MOL? How about the Toa in MNOG? Both times, the Toa believed they were killing him. And in fact, had he not gotten the Piraka involved, he WOULD have died after Takanuva's battle -- his antidermis would have dissipated eventually.

And in 2001, the Turaga made it clear that the Toa would "destroy" Makuta.

The key is knowing for sure that it's your only option. Makuta had been trapped before (Toa Metru) to no avail, so the best approach the Toa knew of was to kill him. It was only due to their not understanding the nature of a Makuta that he survived.



Schismplush:

This is not quite true, because you forget that a murderer does forfeit his own life when he takes that of another. But it depends on the situation. Would keeping that murderer alive possibly save more innocent lives if they had vital info, or build more trust among the Matoran, etc.? Generally, yes.

But there is such a thing as an execution, that is not necessarily murder, if it is justified because the person being executed forfeited his/her life by murdering an innocent.


Also, let's not forget that the whole Hakann analogy has a huge flaw -- the Inika and Piraka were evenly matched. I know I'm the first to remind everybody that battle isn't merely a matter of power level, but it IS a huge factor. I'm not sure Jaller could kill Hakann without risking his own death in the process.

If Jaller died, as one of the six Toa destined to save Mata Nui's life, that destiny could never come true. The whole universe would fall. So in a way, Jaller couldn't risk it.

Compare it to swordfighting. (Real, not fencing.) Many times both opponents spend most of their time blocking each others' attacks until one makes a stupid mistake -- you don't foolishly just stab away at your opponent, because that opens you up to his blade. Unless you're suicidal...




Rayg:

Hate to bloglink ya, man, but, see here: Good and Evil: Points of View?.

That's not the problem with it. Frankly, you don't even need to define evil to make the call that sometimes to protect many, you might need to kill one. That's just logistics and strategy. The problem with it is if you jump to killing before considering alternatives, you might indeed be causing harm to innocents that you haven't thought of.



Again, that depends -- if you know that the Skakdi is going to kill innocents if you let him live, and you have no other approaches available, you do have to make that call, for the sake of the innocent.

This is rare, but it happens. Cops deal with situations like this all the time. Toa fictionally have more ways to deal with it, but it's comparable to a tazer. Sometime, the tazer is no longer an option (like if one cop faces two attackers, etc.). In those cases, Toa DO kill, or try to. See Makuta 2001/2003, and Morbuzahk.

Those clarifications aside, your Tuyet example is right on the money.




Again, your point is important, but don't forget that when you know doing so will save more innocent lives, it is something to be proud of. Soldiers on the ground face these decisions everyday, you know. Soldiers (at least, the good guys) don't want to kill. But if by doing so they prevent innocent deaths, there is nothing to feel guilty about.

So it all comes down to whether killing the bad guys will in that situation bring about more bad than good. And many times in the heat of battle, you simply cannot make that decision, so it's better to stun or imprison, just in case.



Kafei Vachu:

I hate to nitpick, but technically "defense" would be only if Jaller tried to block Hakann's attack on the Matoran, without killing him. Jaller killing Hakann would fall more under the category of the old saying, "The best defense is a good offense." Thus it would be offense.

But nitpicking aside, I agree that in that situation, killing Hakann would be necessary IF Jaller had no alternatives. Negotiating is totally out the window -- that was never an option with the Piraka. Locking him up would be difficult and more Matoran would probably die in the process. So in that sort of situation, yes, killing him might be the best response.

If so, a Toa would kill.


OT: Why did you say "unread"? You mean not responded to, right? Anyways, I've both read and responded to both posts, so hopefully that helps...

Vaka-Nui:

This is a vital point. In real life, for example, someone might be blackmailed to murder someone. This is a gray area. Possibly, if you dealt with the blackmail, they would no longer want to murder. Other examples could abound.

In Bionicle, there are things like infected masks, antidermis, krana, etc. etc. that can force a being to do something against his will. Imagine if Onua had killed Infected Lewa in 2001! Mata Nui could never be awakened.



And Bionicle has always allowed that -- thus the topic starter is attacking a Straw Man (as the saying goes). The Toa DO kill if literally necessary. But usually, killing isn't necessary. Point.

But I think you misunderstood the topic starter -- he's not just saying if necessary -- he's saying kill even when NOT necessary. See topic starter quote two down from here.



Schismplush:

Killing a murderer in capital punishment or warfare also does not count as murder. Murder is unjust killing. Intentional killing of innocents.

Again, nitpicking perhaps, but I just wanna make sure it's clear.



Ferhago:

Kongu could not know that ahead of time, nor know whether they might need Avak alive later. This is the whole slippery-slope bloodthirsty approach that's already been brought up in this topic. You're saying Kongu shouldn't just kill as a last resort, but he should skip a fully effective stun option and go right to killing.

Where does it stop? It doesn't -- heroes turn into Tuyet if you go down that road. Baaaaad idea, man.

But instead Kongu cuts it off and lets Avak live, not even trying to contain him anywhere.
I don't recall this scene specifically, but frankly I don't believe you. Are you telling me nothing interfered with his ability to trap Avak? Absolutely nothing? If something else required his attention, he wouldn't be able to try.

It would help if you would point to chapter/page number.



Bored:

Yes, but since Bfahome pointed out a weakness in your example, lemme modify it. The murderer is pulling out a gun on the innocent person, you know for a fact that the murderer is a murderer, and you have a gun trained on him.

In that case, your only choice is to kill. Otherwise, you knowingly allow the murderer to kill, thus, as you say, Bored, become almost as guilty as the murderer.

Greg has himself pointed this out. So let's all stop pretending Greg has said Toa never kill.

I remember when he pointed this out in one topic, he was debating someone who literally thought the Toa should NEVER kill, yet Greg had to go into another topic and argue against someone like this topic's starter who said they should almost always kill, lol.

In reality, both are extremes, and Greg has been crystal clear about this.

Oh, sorry 'bout that, Ladon, Kongu uses his air power to put pressure around Avak's head AFTER he's free. It's the same principle, tho.
I'll correct that.

Something I'd like to say, tho, is that Ladon's gotten my point better than most. I'm not saying that Toa should hunt down and kill random bad guys, I'm saying that when a bad guy has done terrible things, and the Toa is attacked by him/her, and they have a chance to kill, they would be justified in doing so. I'm not saying that Toa should become bounty hunters or anything.

EDIT: Didn't see Bones's post >.< I'll reply to that..

@Bones: In the Kongu situation, he frees himself from the prison, THEN uses his air powers to increase the air pressure around Avak's head until he passes out. This whole incident is during a Toa-vs-Piraka showdown, on pages 76-78 of BL03.

And you're right about the Tuyet thing, bones. It would be hard for a Toa to be the way I'm talking about without tipping too much toward the darker side. But if a Toa could know all the terrible things a being had done, and rightly decide if he deserved to die, and do it, the Bionicle universe would be a much better place. Kongu could be a prime example of this, or any Toa with a mask of Telepathy, since they would know what the being had done.


In a way. I'm not saying Kongu (or any Toa) should ever do something like: "Hey, look, an Avak. I think I'll kill it." Avak had tried to kill Kongu at least once, and had compromised the lives of countless Voyatoran (which Kongu knew, since the Inika were told of the Piraka's actions by the Voyatoran resistance). Would the universe NOT be better off without a being like that?

A big point in your first post you got wrong, though, Bones, was this:

The Inika did not kill them intentionally. In Jaller's case, it says that the lightning refused to stay intertwined with the flames, instead leaping towards the Rahkshi and frying the Kraata inside. In Kongu's case, it says (paraphrased)

It was clear that the Inika didn't intentionally kill their opponents here.
With your infected Kanohi example, I'm not condoning that, when there's a way that the evil could be stopped efficiently without death. In Avak's case, there's nothing else Kongu could do that would completely defeat him. Even imprisonment couldn't hold him long with his abilities.

It's a kids line and having the good guys kill dun fit their "Hero" stature...

However, chaos must be created in order for peace to come about. What that means is that let's say Metru-Nui is being held by Teridax who is a tyranical ruler, there is peace enough to the point where nly the occassional Matoran gets killed, of course when the Toa come in more die which makes chaos and such for the better of the island. (I dun care if you dun care <<)

Soldiers kill their targets in real life, Toa don't kill their targets because Greg can always either pop the villain back in (if said villain was famous) or could just ignore the existence, and for villains that keep causing problems they are brought to the Pit rather than killed. A Toa is a peace keeper and killing things dun help with that stature either, and they don't have to because of the Pit's existence.

*Has not read the rest of topic*

There are alternatives to fighting.
I know he's dead but... isn't this what the OoMN and Botar are for?

i agree with you. toa should be able to kill as their enemies will continue to do evil as long as they live.

Lemme do this a little out of order, Ferhago:


You clearly missed the point, then -- the point was the whole slippery slope thing. If you give into the temptation to lose control, you can cause horrible harm. Was it intentional? Of course not -- the challenge was designed to make it much easier to lose control. But the challenge had a point.

The point the Great Beings were driving home is, if you give into that temptation, it can take you over, and you lose control of it. And results can be bad. So don't.

In other words, the Great Beings wanted to show the Toa what could happen if they did as you are arguing in this topic. Think about it -- your logic would have supported them killing the villains represented by those illusions, no? That challenge illustrated fully the problem with your reasoning. You just have to think it through.

Make sense?



Again, do not miss the point the Great Beings were teaching the Inika. Your arguments are missing that point. You can't brush that aside simply because of a technicality in how the GBs' challenge accomplished making that point. WHY did they kill them unintentionally?

Because the Great Beings wanted to illustrate to them the folly of the kind of thinking that is behind your argument. No offense -- but it's true, and it's important to realize.



And I'm glad you have realized that. But your post makes it clear you still aren't quite getting it, so I hope this post will help.

Please keep the Tuyet point Rayg made in mind as you read my response to your Kongu/Avak discussion below, because after reading it, that is definately the temptation Kongu would have faced had he done as you say.




Alright, then let's look at what Ladon said:

This is totally false. Ladon is misinformed on that point. If killing IS the best option, the Toa do it. As I pointed out, Greg has defended this on here before. It's just that some of you are mistaken in thinking that the kill option is best way more often than it really is. Hopefully I've helped shed some light on why.

(And please realize that all of this has already been discussed to death, in-depth at least four seperate times (probably more). Nothing new is being said here -- all your points have already been brought up to Greg and have already been debunked. The discussion in here is merely serving to help you see what you have missed. )




Alright, read it. I fail to see how Kongu didn't attempt to capture Avak? It looks like he -did-. But I'll read on just to make sure... Just re-read that section and tell me if you don't think Kongu was having somewhat of an emotional reaction there -- frankly, if he had gone all the way and killed Avak there, it would have been out of sheer revenge and emotions, not reason. It isn't clear at all that killing him would have been the best response.

Alright, having read on, it's clear that this takes place immediately before (and in the area near where) Hakann and Thok do the whole delusions of grandeur special Zamor Brutaka-attaack powerup -- i.e. From the comic we know all six Toa were present for that -- as soon as Kongu dealt with Avak, he had to hurry to help his friends in the battle.

Kongu was indeed distracted by something.



Well, the obvious counter would be there's no way to do a telepathic life-story downloading in the middle of battle. So what you're talking about here would be an after-the-fact execution.

In the Kongu vs. Avak situation, that wasn't even an option. Immediately Kongu's help was needed elsewhere.

Even if it had been, do you really think he could totally rule out whether Avak might be needed alive later? Such reasons aren't necessarily contained currently in Avak's mind, or close to the front of it. Avak could have a destiny similar to Carapar or others in the FoF crew -- how could Kongu rule that out at the time?

Again it boils down to this -- Kongu had a stun option there, so the best thing to do was stun, not jump to the kill option.



But why not? Follow your above argument to its logical conclusion, and you have a justification for it, since he knows Avak has murdered Toa and Matoran. (Which I would disagree with, but you do need to face that your reasoning leads to some things you are currently saying would be off-limits. This is logically inconsistent, and it shows that at least on some level, you do have a sense that your reasoning is flawed, but probably just haven't fully thought it through yet. )



Again, who knows? How could Kongu make that call, given that he had a stun option?

If I may bring up a logicianey point, technically it is impossible to prove a negative. Kongu could scan Avak's mind fully, come to the conclusion that as far as Avak knows, the universe does NOT need him -- and yet the universe could need him very, very much.

The point is, because you can't rule it out, a hero should try for stun options first.


Think about it like the whole Gollum thing -- when Frodo wanted to kill him. By your logic, that would indeed have been justified. But Gandalf said something along the lines of how easy it is to take life -- but how impossible it is to give it. And hinted that Gollum might indeed have some part to play before the end. And he did -- if not for Gollum, ironically, the ring never could have been destroyed. And in fact it was Gollum who actually (unintentionally) caused it to be destroyed even though Frodo gave into it at the end.

Certainly, if any telepath had scanned Gollum's mind back when Frodo wanted to kill him, they could never have foreseen that.

Yes. But if it was for Revenge, that'd be wrong.
I agree with you.

I believe a Toa should be able to kill, but only for a valid reason, or if it's the only way to protect the Matoran.

Hm...my personal belief is that killing should be done ONLY for survival. If it is absolutely necessary for your survival, like say if someone were attacking you with the intent to kill you, then I would say that it is fine, because otherwise you would have died. But, killing for sport or for fun, as you described Hakkan doing, I do not condone. Same thing goes for animal hunting.

Or, as the person right before me stated, if it was done to protect the Matoran, then yes, a Toa would be within their rights to kill. But, only if it were a real threat and the only way to get rid of it was to kill it.

And from what I've seen of Toa, thankfully, they usually prefer to avoid killing unless there's no other alternative.

Moving to Storyline & Theories...

As I have said like a zillion times before --

Batman does not kill (although he has been sorely tempted by The Joker) ...

Superman doesn't kill

Wonder Woman DID kill, and became a pariah for a long time because of it.

Spider-Man doesn't kill.

Captain America doesn't kill.

As someone pointed out, Iron Man did kill (at least once that I know of, by accident, during Armor Wars) and became an international criminal as a result and had to fake his own death to get out of that.

Heroes in comics, more often than not, have a moral code that they do not kill their enemies. It is an inconvenient, sometimes even dangerous code, at times, but it is part of what makes them heroes. I strongly suggest those people who advocate the Toa killing read Alex Ross' graphic novel Kingdom Come -- and see the results in a world where heroes make a habit of trying to kill those they battle.

Greg

Nah. I like the idea, but nobility isn't about convenience. With nobility, you just don't kill. It's not just, or fair, to decide whether someone else deserves to live or die.

Toa act by following their 'code of Toa'. Of course such a code would not take into consideration about villians who are left unchecked or able to escape imprisonment. However showing mercy for enemy could be fatal. But one thing I am sure: if Jaller can't make up his mind whether to kill or not, he will be doomed in mere second. Undecisiveness is a fatal weakness in battle, not to mention fighting against some Piraka without sense of honour (well I will do like the Piraka do if given a chance). Still, I support Jaller in making such an decision: it has pros and cons just like the option of killing.

By the way, I'm not so sure Jaller could blast Hakann to ashes... not that easy.

True, true. Couldn't have said it better myself.

They do not kill for the same reason policemen don't immediately shoot someone.

Good point. Still think that they don't have the right to decide whether an enemy lives or dies. Look what happened to the toa empire. Wouldn't the matoran lose faith in their heroes?

Well, Toa would kill one to protect six, but wouln'tkill six to protect one, they're good guys they save as manypeople as they can

Airoski

Problems with this example:

1.) Toa killing Rahkshi, Bohrok, or Rahi shouldn't have been that unbelievable. They've done it before.

2.) They did not give in. The Chamber made their opponents die. It wasn't their intention (Kongu's Zamor Launcher fired itself, Muaka died from blow that a normal Muaka could easily take, etc.)

I'm going to have to find that book Greg mentioned, though...

My understanding, though, is that we aren't talking about war. You or I can't just go kill our enemies on a daily basis -- but if we were soldiers, we would be expected to do so. There are arguably different moral codes at work between law enforcement (which is what the Toa are doing most of the time) and war.

Greg

...I see. But isn't the whole universe technically at war right now? And you can arguably call the events on Voya Nui a war as the universe was at stake (I'm not saying they should have killed in that instance, I'm just pointing out).

Still, I'd think it'd be interesting to see a story arc of the repercussions of when a Toa gives in and kills his enemy.

Police offer participate in war, but they do so in way to be on the defensive, while the soldiers are on the offensive.

Anyway, I think Toa should kill Teridax, he's too smart, too powerful to be kept locked up. Anybody who like Teridax, where they committed so many crimes, and it's impossible to keep him alive and to punish him at the same time, should be executed.

I would knock him out, and occasionally rap him with the pipe to make sure he stays out until the authorities arrive.