I don't think you need 'morally righteous' attached to 'innocents'. The point is not that the people being saved are such great people; the point is that they need help.

I think it's moral lard.

"A character with extraordinary abilities using them for the benefit of others and the greater good" says the same thing without making it sound like a cartoon for particularly dim children who need Moral Instruction in Selflessness and Heroicalness. That's a lot closer to the prototypical superhero story.

Yeah, that lays it on a little thick, doesn't it.

Kevin's modification is pretty good, though I think it may still need something to suggest that the others deserve the benefit. I do like the "greater good", though.

The idea that Batman can't kill the Joker or he would be just as bad, or that Spider-Man has to help out Jonah even if he is a jerk are certainly later developments in the Superhero Codex. But I don't think that "morally deserving" was part of the original equation, at least not consciously. All members of society were, de facto, moral and deserving. It was only those that transgressed, that broke societies rules, or "villains" that were no deserving. And even then Batman didn't kill most criminals, he merely had to not save them from the consequences of their own actions.

Which, I guess, might be your point, that Superheroes exist to counter "When Bad things happen to Good people". But again, I don't think that was part of the definition for "Superhero", but rather a pre-condition from those people who defined "greater good". When only Bad people did Bad things, Batman didn't have to save the Joker from himself. When Society accepted (decided) that not everyone who commits a crime is a criminal, Superheroes followed suit and tried to save everyone.

I think that "Greater Good" is at the core of "Superhero", something outside the self. It's just that the definition of "Greater Good" does not have a single, core definition.

I would change "benefit" to "protect".

I don't like this greater good notion, mainly because that's what a lot of villains use to excuse their villainy.

I don't like this greater good notion, mainly because that's what a lot of villains use to excuse their villainy.

I'd say that's a fair point-- the "greater good" definition would cover, e.g., R'as Al Ghul. Unless we focus on defining good-- but in-story, the major reason R'as is bad is because he puts his idea of the greater good ahead of innocent lives, not necessarily because of the idea itself. (Some writers at least agree with his ends of population control, environmental restoration, etc.-- it's the democidal means, along with the smaller-scale criminality, that are the problem.)

That suggests restoring the innocents to center stage (as opposed to the more general "greater good"). Superheroes may not be able to save everyone, but they generally don't have the concept of acceptable losses or cost/benefit analysis built in. Every non-villain (and in some cases, every villain) who dies on their watch is a personal failure. Similarly, no superheroic plan will intentionally involve the sacrifice of anyone other than the hero or heroes making the plan. (Stories in which this isn't the case are always, in my experience at lest, consciously subverting the genre.)

Superheroes are also generally reactive-- to the point that when they start trying preemptive action in a modern story, it's almost always a warning sign. Given that, "protect" is probably closer than "benefit".

These points about the "greater good" are valid ones. If Batman executed the Joker, the greater good would unquestionably be served--the Joker would be unable to murder any more innocents. But how would it tarnish Batman's heroism?

Greg's original formulation allows for a richer world of variants on the 'core' story, though, by negating a single point of the formula. (Take out 'selflessly' and you get Booster Gold. Take out 'heroically' and you get the Punisher, I guess. Take out the morally righteous innocents and you get the X-men (since they're not actually right in hating and fearing and all that.) Take out the extrodinary abilities and you get...well, I don't know for sure. 'Mazing Man?

Superheroes are allowed to protect the innocent because self-defense is an inherent right, and the heroes are acting as their victim's defenders.

Superheroes are not allowed to kill though, at least not in the sense we are talking about. A hero may inadvertently kill a villain (as Captain America has done - the first Baron Zemo in Avengers #15 or the ULTIMATUM terrorist in Captain American #320), but he never intends to kill either. Zemo's death in battle was the result of Zemo's own mistake, and the terrorist's death was a dilemma where either the terrorist had to be immediately stopped or more innocents would die. The deaths of the villains were just a tragic result of combat by villains who pushed to far.

When we talk about Batman killing the Joker however, we are actually talking about Batman usurping the state's monopoly on justice. There are two scenarios. One is Batman and Joker struggling on the rooftops, and the Joker accidentally falling off the ledge and dying. The other is Batman killing Joker to prevent Joker from perpetrating any more crimes. I am assuming we are not talking about the first scenario, but the second.

Batman would not be killing the Joker as an inadvertent result of combat, but executing him. However, it is not up to Batman to decide if the Joker dies or not, but a jury of his peers. (The question why Batman does not kill the Joker is a silly one. The more pertinent one is why the judge and jury do not sentence him to death. If the readers can clearly see that the Joker must be executed, than so would a reasonable jury.)

And this is why I am so concerned about this "greater good" notion. Because of their powers, superheroes have the potential to usurp power that properly belongs to the people and their democratic government. All of a sudden, people and their representatives are no longer allowed to decide these things themselves. Instead, super powered people are making these decisions for them. This is tyranny. This is the entire point of Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme (which is a series that seems more important every year since after its publishing than what it was considered to be at the time.) Once superheroes take that power away from the people - even "for their own good" - then they cease being heroes.

This does not mean heroes cannot oppose an unjust or tyrannical society. But the readers must clearly see that the government is corrupt even if characters within the comic do not. Batman's shadowy status in the DC universe is because many of Gotham's "legitimate" leaders are actually criminals. To them, Batman is a dangerous threat to society. To people outside Gotham who know little about its corruption, Batman seems dangerous. Only the innocent people of Gotham know Batman is really a hero because they know his foes are the people oppressing them, people who have usurped the power through fraud, corruption, and threat. (The X-Men, when portrayed as outlaw heroes, are in a similar position.)

Batman then must not only oppose Gotham's corrupt government, but help cleanse it. He cannot make the situation worse by investing in himself those civic powers because that would be equally illegitimate. Instead, he must work to cleanse Gotham so that the people of Gotham can take back their own power.

All societies are corrupt to a certain extent, and the hero cannot align himself against legitimate authortiy simply because a few things go wrong. There is a process to fix those errors, and the hero must respect society enough for it to function. Only when society becomes so corrupt that it must be challenged, can "outlaw heroes" justify the danger of battling the social order.

There may be situations where the entire society, not just the government, is so corrupt that it is impossible to be reformed. What can heroes do then? Well, we are in a desperate situation here, and the nature of the hero changes radically. There tends to be two types of genre heroes who deal with such situations. The first is the supernatural or horror hero. His power comes from a higher authority above man's law. He is there to basically burn the place down so that the few innocent people can survive. They come, literally, as a judgment. The Spectre and Ghost Rider fall into this category (not all supernatural characters do). The other hero is the war hero. The war hero is the legitimate representative of just country who has come to destroy a cancerous evil threatening people beyond its borders. Captain America is just such a hero. Both however are intent on the same thing - not just the toppling of bad men from power, but eradicating the entire society (not necessarily killing everyone though). Because these scenarios are so extreme however, such stories are difficult. Everyone sees WWII as just such a scenario, but other wars are less clear which is why questions about Cap in Vietnam or Iraq generate such controversy. It is not surprising then that war heroes such as Cap become more like standard superheroes, or that even horror heroes tend to become much softer heroes after a while - once the crisis has passed.

Well said, Chris. I agree with it in large part.

I don't think the Spectre and Ghost Rider are working to wipe out an irredeemably corrupt society, though. I think they're illustrating exactly the contrast you talk about when you demonstrate why Batman can't execute the Joker.

Batman's power to act, investigate, and punish derive in lockstep with societal legitimacy. When society is legitimate, Batman's power either derives from society (e.g. cooperating with Gordon) or is curtailed (e.g. can act mostly only in self-defense and defense of others). When society is illegitimate (various corrupt mayors), Batman can arrogate to himself the powers necessary to restore legitimacy (but not more).

But the Spectre and Ghost Rider are contrasts to that; their authority doesn't derive from society at all, but from another source, so they can legitimately exercise powers that society would reserve for itself. It forces the question about non-societal authority. In a comic book universe, there's no question whether the Spectre is working for God. But here in the real world, there are lots of people who incompatibly claim the same authority.

"Batman's power to act, investigate, and punish derive in lockstep with societal legitimacy. When society is legitimate, Batman's power either derives from society (e.g. cooperating with Gordon) or is curtailed (e.g. can act mostly only in self-defense and defense of others). When society is illegitimate (various corrupt mayors), Batman can arrogate to himself the powers necessary to restore legitimacy (but not more)."

Wow, you make it sound as if Batman was created by legislation and not a man.

Batman derives absolutely no authority from "society." He is driven by and restrained only by his own passions and conscience. He may work with authority figures who are willing to assist, but those authority figures often do so "off the record."

At times, the relationship with authority has been more cozy, but that's different from being granted sanction by authority.

Getting back to the core question..

The superhero genre boils down to this: "I'm here to help."

Everything else is just how and why. Costumes, powers, codes against killing, are all optional. Mind you, the how and the why are what make each character unique and give us the stories. But the common denominator is, "I'm here to help"

Superheroes are allowed to protect the innocent because self-defense is an inherent right, and the heroes are acting as their victim's defenders.

Superheroes are not allowed to kill though, at least not in the sense we are talking about. A hero may inadvertently kill a villain (as Captain America has done - the first Baron Zemo in Avengers #15 or the ULTIMATUM terrorist in Captain American #320), but he never intends to kill either. Zemo's death in battle was the result of Zemo's own mistake, and the terrorist's death was a dilemma where either the terrorist had to be immediately stopped or more innocents would die.

Though note that by society's rules (American society and law, anyway, which is what Cap would be operating under), that latter death was perfectly legitimate: killing an attempted murderer in the immediate defense of innocent lives is sanctioned both legally and morally. (There are those who dissent from this view, but I think it's fair to say it's the mainstream position.) Despite this, it was not okay with Cap, who was tortured by the decision.

A possible point is that a normal person might well be tortured by being forced to kill, even if it was clearly the right thing to do. But Steve Rogers was a veteran of World War II-- we can at least presume he was already battle-hardened to a fair degree, and had come to terms with that initial shock. His reactions were those of a classic superhero, for whom killing is something that he should always be able to work around, rather than those of a soldier or even a more mainstream action hero.

Similarly with Batman and the Joker. It's not just that Batman doesn't execute the Joker, but that he, and the readers, expect that no matter how many innocent lives the Joker may threaten or take, it will never be necessary or appropriate to kill the Joker to prevent his next killing. There are any number of situations in which the Joker is about to kill someone and the simplest solution is to kill him first, such that if a civilian or police officer managed it they would be clearly in the right. The Batman is expected to come up with a different plan-- possibly a more difficult and complex one, with more chance of failure-- rather than take the "easy" way out. He's even, generally, expected to save the Joker's life when failure to act would cause the Joker to be killed by his own machinations, his confederate, or the environment, which is far beyond the legal or moral duty of an average citizen, and also goes well beyond protecting innocents.