DE: How Did We End Up Like This?

[bjornwilde]

So, killing...how does your character feel about it? Do they do it? Is it only in certain situations (line of duty, neighbor stole the newspaper, etc.) or is it whenever? How is their attitude about it compared to their canon? Does it really solve most problems?

Oh, and I wanted to just say I love *all* the answers and questions from yesterday. = ]

Comments

[thebesteverseen]

It's definitely an option.

And it's definitely not far from the top of the pile.

[haole_cop]

.

[sdelmonte]

Charlie is from a canon where, for the most part, killing is something the heroes avoid. Superheroes don't kill, and when they do bad things happen (Superman's nervous breakdown in the late 80s, Wonder Woman's credibility being shot after killing Max Lord). So he has this aversion built into his meta-DNA. Beyond that, being a vigilante with no powers and no affiliation, he wouldn't have killed without risking arrest and jail. But further beyond that, his attitudes evolved from "killing would be a bad idea" to "I won't kill." I think he killed someone one (in one of the few Question stories I don't own) and decided he would never do that again. At this point in his life, he sees killing as justified only by extreme circumstances.

Knox supports the right to defend yourself against threats, and if that means killing, so be it. Which is not to say that he wouldn't then also support the right of the courts to how you accountable. He can't see any situation where he might be called upon to kill, though, and can't imagine himself pulling the trigger with ease.

Cyborg has the same meta-code as Charlie, perhaps moreso being from a kiddie show. Heroes don't kill, period. Again, he understands there is sometimes a necessity at work (as in war). But he won't be part of that.

Howard is getting very, very rich off the deaths of men. Granted in wartime, and against the Axis Powers. But this does have a way to blur the ethics. He doesn't believe in vigilante justice, but he understands that in order to protect yourself, you sometimes need to kill. At the same time, I can't see him becoming as callous as certain manufacturers of firearms seem to be about what guns do to people.

Gibbs is very much in favor of using all forms of violence to further his chosen career. He's probably killed a few people who didn't really deserve it, and shrugged it off. Even though, as I have said many times, he knows he's going to Hell.

And Kirk...how many people has he killed? He at once believes that violence is wrong and self-defense is necessary. The diplomat and the scientist in him vie with the warrior constantly. And the dispute between these faces of Kirk - the ones we saw so starkly in Richard Matheson's "The Enemy Within" - will never be resolved entirely. Kirk's ideal is from another episode: "All right. [War is] instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands... But we can stop it! We can admit that we're... killers. But we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill... today!"

[camwyn]

But we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill... today!"

Which, frankly, is one of the best lines ever to come out of Star Trek as far as I'm concerned.

[saphyria]

Yrael has no problem with it. Whether it's necessary or not doesn't even factor into it.

Zelgadiss will kill if he has to (oftentimes because someone else is trying to kill him and his friends), but never on a whim.

Sunshine would love to avoid it entirely, please-and-thank-you. But she can't. So she deals. She doesn't like it, but since 99.999% of the time she is flat-out fighting for her life, Rae will tend to go straight for lethal force. These are not Buffy-verse vampires, which take some punches before getting slow and hurt enough to stake. You have to stake Rae's world's vampires before they get a chance to tear you in half (which translates in non-Rae terms to "get them before they know you're there"). A vampire avoiding being staked isn't going to bother with finesse.

[a1enzo]

Enzo is not totally anti-deletion like Bob—he's seen what happens if you let the villain walk free—but he's not all "rawr virus shoot on sight" like Matrix either. He will always (given the chance) offer a villain the opportunity of surrender and hopefully reformatting/rehabilitation… but he may not offer it twice. (The Tenth Doctor approach.)

He has killed before, semi-sentient giant insects on Val von Doom's rescue mission. He has not personally deleted any fully sentient malware yet, although he has assisted on a few captures.

[camwyn]

Ray is not big on the killing of sapient beings; the only time I can remember him actually getting into lethal combat was when he went with Andrew Wells to the Buffyverse and helped with a fight against a whoooooole lotta demons. Nonsapients may or may not be acceptable depending on whether or not they pose a threat/are food animals.

Gordon went from 'no' to 'for self defense, quite a lot of self defense', had a temporary breakdown in the cliffside cave in HL 1 when it all hit him, and then brought up his blood sugar and got back into action. If an enemy poses no threat to him or to anybody else he won't open fire on them, and if they- who am I kidding, Gordon's enemies don't surrender. The closest he gets to enemies who surrender is the Vortigaunts who refused to fight at the end of the first HL game. They didn't attack him, so he didn't attack them.

Shephard isn't a big fan of killing people, but shit, if they're shooting at him or his companions or his people or otherwise presenting a danger to his people then they had better expect a very fast death. He'll pray for forgiveness, but he believes what he does is necessary- yes, I mean that specific phrasing. Shephard came to terms with his role in life a long time ago and has told Terezi Pyrope, among others, that that role is 'I kill shit so folks don't die. Good times, it means all I'm killin' is shit for dinner so folks don't starve.' (I should also note that I once tried running the Dark Tower gunslinger mantra or creed or whatever past him- you know, the one about 'I do not aim with my hand/shoot with my hand/kill with my gun; he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart'. Shephard's response in my head was "... 'with'?")

Ellen is very, very good at killing things, and people, and wishes people wouldn't keep making her prove it. She has a severe issue with killing anybody who can't fight back- she's still not really okay with having done anti-aircraft duty at Adams AFB, even though the men on the Vertibirds she shot down would have gladly killed her or her fellow Brotherhood members if they'd made it to the ground. She really doesn't like killing a defeated or surrendered enemy, and has only done that once, to two slavers at Paradise Falls. That was on the grounds that she had nowhere to imprison them and no resources to deal with them, and there was no time (as she saw it) to come up with a better way to ensure they wouldn't hurt anybody else the instant she turned her back. She still has bad patches about that, too. And there are very few people in the world she has ever actively wanted dead, instead of just killing them because she had to. The primary example of such people are the adult inhabitants of Andale. She's... still trying to work out the rest of it.

Varric, on the other hand, has few to no problems with killing as necessary, although he is not a particularly violent fellow and would prefer to find clever ways around the necessity where possible.

Mordin... oh lord. To quote one of his colleagues from early in canon, "He's not a normal doctor! Doctors don't shoot people and display the corpses out front as a warning!" To quote Mordin himself, “Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes execute dangerous people. Either way helps.” Which isn't to say he's conscienceless; he just tends to prefer the big picture as his guide and sometimes people have to die for that.

Medic: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *snerrrrk* *cough* um. Wow. Yeah.

Santo doesn't kill. Unless the killing takes the form of something like setting off the self destruct sequence on Aquiles the Moon Nazi's secret base and not stopping to get all the henchmen out before the explosion, he doesn't kill. (At least, so far as I can tell from his canon. I haven't watched all of it yet and he has a few secret agent movies where things might be different. Also not sure how he disposes of monsters/the undead just yet. That's next on the list.)

[damncompass]

Joshua probably couldn't kill someone if his life depended on it. Probably. However if his sister's life depended on it, he might. It's not something that he wants to think about, even though it is a bit of a reality with his new job. Above all, he doesn't want to hurt people, in any way. In a more global sense, he mostly understands the need for war, but he doesn't have to like it. He'd never sign up for the military, but he respects those who do. He's just this side of a pacifist, (His father -was- a pacifist, and possibly a draft dodger.) so he'll always look for a non-violent solution first.

Helena: I point you to (paraphrased) canon:

Claudia: I guess losing a child is the most pain someone can go through.
Helena: No. When I tracked down the men who murdered my daughter; that is the most pain someone can experience.

Helena has killed in the past, (people who murdered her daughter, an agent on accident, MacPherson) and if it came down to it, she would do it again. She wouldn't do it as carelessly as she has, but she would. She believes that sometimes removing people from society is the best way to deal with it. If she hadn't killed MacPherson, say, he would have come back to the Warehouse and probably killed everyone there. (asshat) Even though there are a number of resurrection Artifacts in the Warehouse, she would still choose killing over something like bronzing. (too cruel)

[minkhollow]

Cata and Sam: In the proper contractual circumstances, as painlessly as the contract requires. Torture is for people who can't actually handle what they're doing. Besides, it's not like the person's permanently dead (unless, again, that's what the contract requires).
Just Sam: If he catches you raping someone he'll kill your ass.

Claudia: Thinks there's a time and a place for it - after all, what else were they gonna do with MacPherson at that point? - but I don't think she could bring herself to make that decision. Better that she has Teslas, really.

Apollo: More inclined to improvisational botany when you piss him off that mightily.

Imp: Would rather not, thanks. There are other people for that, see.

Regulus: Thinks there are people the world would be better off without them in it (Bella's very high on that list), but realises making that call himself wouldn't let him actually fix any problems.

Red: Has no problem killing animals. That's how she eats three-quarters of the time. People, though... she'd rather not. But if it comes down to self-defense or defense of her friends, she will.
Ruby: Very non-violent.

[death_gone_mad]

Amascut actively promotes killing as a solution of all problems, so there's her position. She has a real easy time of it as well as the only god who insists on peaceful conflict resolution is her step-sister Apmeken. Apmeken wasn't a problem that could be solved by killing, so mutilation had to step in :-/

Fairy Fixit isn't a killer. That said, she tends toward the minorly lawful flavored true neutral D&D alignment because of her upbringing and there are horrible things she can do if pressed, teleporter accidents and fungal infection/spells among the possibilities. Cordyceps fungi might be one of those possibilities. However, even when teleporter "accidents" happen, it is usually the stranded on a deserted island type accident. So, not a killer but the alternatives can be much worse. They usually aren't though.

[camwyn]

Cordyceps fungi might be one of those possibilities.

Thus setting off the scenario behind The Last Of Us...

[genarti]

Thor: Is a warrior from an alien quasi-sorta-Viking culture. He is totally okay with killing provided it's done honorably: in battle, or in an extreme case for carrying out legal justice. But mostly in battle. (Sometimes the battle itself is the legal justice, to be fair.)

In terms of matching his canon, well, he's from a superhero movie canon; there's a lot of individual variation, but I don't think there's anyone on the Avengers who officially Does Not Kill, although some of them are way twitchier about it than others. And Thor is right in line with standard Asgardian morality on the subject.

Clare: Does not kill humans, at all, ever. Has no problem whatsoever killing monsters, since that's basically the job she was recreated for. Is wiling to kill her own kind under the right circumstances: if they're evil, or if they've requested it. This is pretty much standard for her canon.

River: Feels that killing is sometimes warranted, for the sake of the rest of the world, and that she is qualified and entitled to pass that sentence and carry it out. She finds it acceptable in self-defense, and in defense of others, and when someone is harming innocent people badly and won't or can't stop themselves. It's not acceptable as vengeance; it's a tool to address the future, not the past.

She lives in a space western, so plenty of other people around her are okay with killing, and plenty of others aren't. River is probably out there on the edge of people embracing vigilante responsibilities, though.

Regan: Accepts that sometimes it needs to happen -- in war, etc, maybe in the legal system although she's somewhat conflicted about that -- but is really uncomfortable with it as anything but a faraway abstract. Because she's from the citified privileged Core of the space western universe.

Trowa: hahaha Trowa's body count. Um. He's fairly close to River, but with less vigilanteism about it. He's willing to kill if it's necessary for protection of others or in self-defense. He's theoretically willing to broaden that to assassination to prevent another war, but that's a thing that has a LOT of variables to weigh, and he would be very very careful in doing so before he made that call.

I'm not even sure how to compare that to his canon. There are others who accord with him, but there are a lot of variously strict pacifists running around too. And the occasional LET'S JUST DROP A SPACE COLONY ONTO THE EARTH villain.

Enjolras: is... complicated. He's absolutely willing to kill, both in battle and in cold blood. He also condemns himself for the latter, because Enjolras is a man who rigidly and fiercely adheres to his own principles. In general, he thinks that killing and violence are a necessary part of the transition from an unjust, broken system to a new and better one, but that violence is also inherently part of that old system, and the new one will (eventually) not require it. This includes both battle and judicious Terror (which I am using in a very specific French revolutionary sense). He would be more than happy to tell you at great length about his ideas on this! Or his ideas on most things.

In terms of comparing with his canon... that's also complicated. Enjolras is the voice of one perspective on this, and Hugo is arguing a lot of different perspectives with himself in Les Miserables. On a closer IC level, Enjolras is out on one end of the continuum that his friends are at various other points on, but they're all enough in accord to be insurrectionists on a barricade when it comes down to it.

[saved7]

Gen.

Gen.

GEN.

I read all the scanlations recently.

GEN.

[baptizemyself]

Helena.

Helena has no qualms about killing the guilty. These days she's trying this thing where she doesn't kill. But she would do it in a heartbeat in the right circumstances.

[alchemistseraph]

Welp.

Tsu'tey...has really less than a problem with killing things/people/etc. His canon paints his tribe as very spiritual about said killing of things, letting the soul of whatever they killed go back to the world a la Pocahontas. What this means for anybody else is that yeah, he's serious about the 'if you mess with my folks we gonna have a problem', but he's also probably not going to desecrate your corpse. (Until the whole Hometree thing happens, then all bets are off.)

Noriko would rather not kill people, but does know that she's fully capable, physically speaking, of doing so. She just kind of hopes for the best and tries not to think about it more than necessary.

Hal hasn't ever really had, doesn't have currently, and probably won't have a problem with the concept of killing people. It's just not a thing he particularly worries about? Not to say he's murder-happy, just that he's a definitely militaristically-inclined king. (See also: France.)

The Swede: This is a man who spent several years in Andersonville as a prisoner of war. I doubt he has a problem with it in any shape, color, size, or form.

Finvarra: ...What about it, again?

Ganymede: Would prefer not to, unless he has to, but he certainly can. It just doesn't often become a real problem for him.

[bcgphoenix]

Gaeta, being ex-military, understands that deaths can and will occur during a war. He also believes that you need a damn good reason to take a life, and when he's faced with the necessity of killing, he tries to minimize the casualties as much as he can. (See: the mutiny, though that didn't turn out so well.) Taking lives without a just cause makes him sick.

Olivia's an FBI agent, so she has killed people in the line of duty/out of self-defense before -- but, like Gaeta, she takes the idea of killing very seriously and only does it as a last resort.

The Trickster doesn't exactly like killing people, but hey, sometimes you gotta break a few eggs, y'know? If he springs a trick on them and they die in the process, well. Guess they didn't learn their lesson fast enough.

Bolin haaaaaates the idea and will never ever kill somebody if he can help it. There are ways to defend yourself without going that far, man.

[varadia]

X has zero qualms about killing. It does not hurt or upset her to do it, and there are times when it is the most efficient or effective solution. She prefers not to kill people who cannot make a go of killing her back. It's not exactly innocence, but non-dangerous people that cannot defend themselves are not -- you shouldn't NEED to kill them. They are easy to incapacitate, usually. So.

Raven has no problems with killing. Sometimes it's funnier not to, and watch people destroy themselves with their idiocy instead, but he's got knives for a reason. And a beak. Plus, eyeballs. Though roadkill is better for that.

Dean Winchester has no problem killing monsters, or whoever/whatever is trying to kill other people that don't deserve it. He's gotten more used to killing people being used by the monsters too, over the years, which he is kind of sad about sometimes. When he has time to think about it. Don't ask about Hell.

Galadan has zero issues with killing. Sometimes it is the best, simplest, swiftest, or most long-termedy useful means of achieving a goal. Killing -- and the potential for it -- are just useful tools. Much like most people.

Michael the Archangel is also willing to kill, though not humans. Evil such as demons, sure. Mythic monsters, sure. But even then, she tends toward casting them out and/or down, instead. Thanks, legend.

Nynaeve al'Meara is a healer to the core, but to defend her friends, reality itself, or those that need protection, particularly in the midst of battle -- yeah she's willing to use deadly force. Especially against the Shadow. (She has never actually thought about what the inverse of being a good Healer means, though several Darkfriends and Forsaken in canon did. *twitch*)

Wonder Woman knows there are times when a foe must be killed, and she does not shrink from such battles, but she prefers to begin with an open hand extended, and leave death off the table for as long as possible.

Sam Tyler is capable of firing a gun, but I don't think is prone to using it for directly deadly shots, inasmuch as that can ever be controlled. So. Yeah.

[jothra]

If you annoy Coyote, you might want to be prepared to get maimed, if not murdered outright. She tones this down in the bar because of the rules, but will happily break them if no one is watching. She has no qualms about killing people in self defense, in the heat of the moment, for revenge, or in cold blood.

Duo killed a lot of people in the war. He doesn't want to do that anymore. He still works in law enforcement, so it comes up. He will not hesitate to defend himself or others with lethal force if necessary. But he doesn't like it, and it is no longer his first resort.

Donatello also killed a lot of ninjas in the past. And a few aliens. And...you know what, NYC was pretty weird for a while, okay? He isn't a pacifist, because of his training and previous experience, but he'd like to be. Like Splinter says in the new cartoon, "Do no harm. Unless you mean to do harm. Then, do lots of harm!"

It is Ambriel's job to protect life and the fabric of the universe from those who wish to destroy it. If a sentient has made their decision to do evil, and has no intention or capability to turn away from it, Ambriel will attempt to kill them. Regretfully, but with no mercy.

[cook_the_rude]

Good question; ask the next one, please.

[alchemistseraph]

Just sayin', but I love you for this.

[orange_lily]

Yugo follows the basic Rider rule of 'if its human, it's off limits, if it's a monster, it isn't' and has killed monsters before - although only two thus far. He's not really okay with it, but he realises that there is an element of necessity there.

This may not last! In general, KR Wizard is a lot less rigid on that rule, though: When the main character finds out that Gremlin has retained his humanity and that 'his humanity' here involves being a serial killer, he has no problem attempting to kill him with extreme prejudice. Which is without even delving too far into the fact that KR's definition of human is a bit weird at best (killing NEVERs, which are basically reanimated human bodies that still have their minds and personalities, is seen as sad but fine, for example).

So, Yugo won't kill humans at the moment (but Phantoms are fair game), but canon is set up in such a way that he may not have a choice later.

[gavin62truck]

Tommy: nope. He can't kill anything or leave anything to die if he can help it. He may want to use an air rifle to tag an annoying squirrel that's been chewing on his roof; he may threaten someone to within an inch of his life out of revenge; and he may even consider shooting his son's killer (he let his uncle do that); but other than that...nope. He has too much blood on his hands already, and it goes against everything his job stands for.

[bjornwilde]

Ben, like Charlie above, comes from an era of superhero comics when taking a life is just not something heroes do. Despite the gritty grimy themes in modern Marvel comics, I've kept this since it is such a core part of him. He values life and will do everything in his power to save lives. That being said, he is also a solder (are airmen solders?) and he knows that sometimes ideals need to take a back seat to reality. The death would plague him afterwords and he would never forget it.

Hank at his current age couldn't kill anything. He knows deaths happen in wars and sometimes police need to kill in the line of duty but he is neither. Post CUban, he might think he could take Magneto or Azazel's life if it came down to it, but I still don't think he could. In the future I see him being much more active in perserving life, even going so far as to develop/learn a purely defensive martial art. He will become a healer and a builder and I don't care what Singer does.

As to canon, I would say aside from the examples I gave above, killing is what the villain does.

Andrea will kill to protect innocent lives or in self defense without hesitation and likely not doubt her actions. It's what she's trained for. Killing is also pretty ingrained to her canon so she's not that much of oddball.

Young Quinlan couldn't imagine killing and might even sacrifice himself to not kill. He has a thing about death. Old Quinlan will kill if innocents need protecting, in self defense or if the one needing the killing is a Empire agent or Bounty Hunter. Smugglers might be on the list if they are truly vile or threaten his family.

Anton might feel bad about killing a vampire but will get over it. Don't judge him, he's meet some nice ones. He is more one to let the idiot get themselves killed than to do the deed himself. It's easier that way.

[inlovewithwords]

Henry falls firmly in the 'no killing' zone. Not everyone in his canon agrees.

Lois probably thinks killing is wrong, but sometimes it has to happen (military brat). Neither she nor I are certain if she could do it under duress, but my suspicion is yes, given the right impetus. Generally she's sure there must be another way--but she's not blind to the time when there isn't.

Tavi is Aleran, a military field commander, and a trained assassin. Killing is part of life. He'd prefer never to have to, and goes to great lengths to find diplomatic solutions to avoid killing non-Vord sentients whenever possible. He is also averse to it as it is somewhat wasteful and there is always a better use of life and people than killing. He's good at finding that extra option, so he takes it. However, he's also constructed a death ray and contemplated cold-blooded murder out of love for a friend. He's actually less bloodthirsty than most of his canon, though.

[whatisastiles]

There's a bit more kill or be killed going on in Stiles life than he's completely comfortable with this past year. That said, for all that he mostly just jokes about it, he'd rather be the one doing the killing. Especially if it's Peter who ends up dead.

[misslucyjane]

Mine fall between Only in the Line of Duty and Only in Self-Defense, I think. A defining moment for Bilbo, for instance, is choosing not to kill Gollum even though he had an opportunity and motive, certainly--Gollum would not have hesitated to kill him, were their positions reversed. Steve has killed, of course, and quite a few people, but he's a solider and it was wartime. It's not something he enjoys in any way. The most significant death that I can think of that was Merlin's doing was Morgana's, but 1) it saved Camelot and 2) she got better. So. Lydia hasn't killed anyone, and I hope she is never put in that position. As for the Ice King, I don't want to definitively that he never has, but since Adventure Time is a kids' show I doubt we'd see it even if he did. (And in his favor, when he hired an assassin to go after Finn and Jake, he thought all the assassin was going to do was punch them.)

[street_sparrow]

Giovanni - no, no, and no. Depending on the point in canon, he's either a sweet clumsy boy or a lover, not a fighter - although he does seem to gain a decent level of swordsmanship overnight, he still never kills anybody.

Sharpe - well, he's a career soldier. He's killed a lot of people, most of them at close quarters, and he'd do it again in battle or defence of himself or others.

Harry Callahan - not unless his girls were in imminent danger of death and there was no other way around it. He knows how they feel about killing.

Nancy - for Jamie, yes. She's his mother and would do anything for Jamie.

Jonathan - kills vampires and homicidal demons at every opportunity. Wouldn't kill anything with peaceful intentions.

Michael - See Jonathan, although his limit is "anything capable of being redeemed".

Roshaun - Only if he really, really had to, or the killing would save a lot of other lives. He swore an Oath.

Norrington - Yes.

Gavroche - would be a lot more reluctant now than he was as a street urchin. He's a wizard now, for one thing, and he saw a lot of bloodshed on the barricade, including his own.

[ceitfianna]

This is a great question, time for more essays as I got my errands done.

Will is from a canon set in a medieval world where death and dying is part of life. I think the Men of Sherwood try not to kill more than they have to but in their world, the wrong sort of injury can kill you. If someone's threatening people that Will cares about then he doesn't have that many compunctions about harming them or killing them.

Charles is defined in canon by his choice not to kill and to avoid violence. When pressed, he will defend himself but in canon when Erik injured the Russians, he followed after and soothed their pains by putting them to sleep. He will always choose the non-violence route as much as possible even if Marvel doesn't make it easy. One big reason for this is that he knows how dangerous he can be and keeps a tight control on his power.

Sameth has walked in Death and isn't comfortable with killing a living person. If they're Dead, he doesn't have as many issues but it doesn't come easily to him, which makes him an exception in his family.

Moist canonically doesn't do anything violent, mainly because its safer for him. If you're a thief, people will still chase you but if you hurt or murder someone the guards will never let you get away.

Demeter is a goddess and so has a different sense of mortality, if you harm those she loves, killing would be the nice option.

William is like Will from a difficult and violent time, in canon, he shoots men though I don't believe he actually kills anyone. I think he's capable of it but hasn't come to the point where he has to kill yet.

Jane has little experience with violence and is happy not to. She would rather cut you dead with a witty line than violence.

Tumnus does know how to fight but he's not comfortable as a fighter, his father died fighting the White Witch. That's why he's more a diplomat in the Narnian court.

The Pirate King prefers not to kill canonically but I wouldn't be surprised if he has killed some people. I don't think he enjoys it as he'd rather have fallen enemies to crow over.

[bjornwilde]

Just piping in to say I love Demeter's answer. = ]

[jjprobert]

Jack is definitely not opposed to killing people in the line of duty. Or because they're opposing his attempts to save the world.

That said, he had an experience in Iraq, that's making him think about this. He's not going to stop killing. (seriously, his body count in three books is easily into double figures, probably more like three). But, he is going to look for other ways to get what he needs to do done, without killing people who are just doing their jobs. If they're opening fire on him, fine, he'll kill them. If he can get them to surrender, or beat them without killing them, better.

Max, on the other hand, while accepting that killing is necessary, and something the others (or, just Jack, at the moment) will have to do, it isn't something he can ever see himself doing personally.

Bean is not opposed to killing, unless there's a more expedient way to do things.

Alfred is quite willing to kill in defence of his master. Indeed, in comics, Alfred is the only member of the Bat family allowed to carry a gun. Though, that may just be acceptance that he's older and therefore needs the extra advantage. He doesn't like it, but he's willing to do what's needed.

Erik, uh, no. He's not going to. He understands that other people around him (now he's working with SHIELD) have and will, in line of duty, but he'd sooner never have to do it himself.

[aberration]

Elle doesn't generally have any issues with using lethal force. This is somewhat complicated by her worldview, but she essentially views the world in two separate spheres: people like her, and everyone else. People like her are those that live outside the established social order - she wouldn't know how to outright state it, but these would be career criminals, spies, agents of secret organizations and corporations, and those that purposefully interfere with her work. These are all fair game (and she, in turn, is fair game to them). Anyone else is absolutely off-limits, as harming them would go against the purpose that's been drilled into her, even if she wasn't always great about living up to it. She used to have a sadistic sort of pleasure in her jobs that involved violence, and she still gets a general adrenaline rush from it, but at this point it's not something she enjoys. It's just what she's capable of doing. Even with people in her "sphere" so to speak, she doesn't really kill out of vengeance or even anger, as people who have "wronged" her are often the people she'd rather have around. She does, however, feel a need to kill people she sees as having betrayed her (or... certain others), as these people present an ongoing threat if she, or the other person, may be susceptible to being manipulated by them. Someone who may lead her or someone else down the sort of road her father did is someone who she can't allow to live. (Though they also happen to be harder to kill.)

Asami does briefly consider killing another person in canon, and it's more in response to his attempt to kill her than out of immediate self-defense. She ultimately relents, but this mercy doesn't really do her any favors. Though she's probably going to find the whole ordeal traumatizing, it means killing another person isn't out of the realm of possibility for her, though the circumstances in which she'd actually go through with it would have to be pretty extreme.

Leslie's just not getting anywhere near this question.

Manny is dead, though there is the option of Sprouting in the land of the dead. (This means being struck by a poison that causes flowers to grow into one's bones, destroying them. The poison is usually launched in bullets that are fired by "Sproutella" guns.) He does Sprout someone on one occasion, and not out of immediate self-defense. He also indirectly causes another to be crushed into pieces. Both were incidents where he cold have avoided or escaped engagement, but they also both involved pretty terrible guys who had Sprouted/destroyed others. It's not something Manny would do easily, but he's can also engage in a rather ends-justify-the-means type of thinking.

Marceline tends to talk herself up more than she actually engages in killing. She's not really opposed to it, and she did kill the former Vampire King, and tried to kill Jake in her first appearance. But I think to a degree she just genuinely enjoys the world, and the others in it, so she sees no real point in removing them. At worst, messing with someone is generally more fun than killing them, and at points she's even prevented harm from coming to others when she, well, doesn't want it to. She also doesn't have to kill to survive, but she does choose to drink blood sometimes.

Katara, despite being the kind, quasi-motherly, gives-overwrought-speeches-about hope member of the group, does think there are times when killing others is justified. She threatens to kill Zuko at one point, and absolutely planned to kill the man who murdered her mother, though she finally decided against it. While she could accept, in that moment, that killing that man wouldn't bring her any sense of peace or justice, she does not share Aang's view that killing others is never acceptable. And I imagine there were times when she let him know that.

Hiccup thinks he wants to kill a dragon, though he'll find that he can't. At least, not for the sake of it. I don't think he ever wants to kill any person or dragon, but he would (and does) in moments of immediate self-defense. In the show, he's also sort of goaded into attacking a villain, which makes me think this could be stretched to a willingness to do things that could lead to injury/death of another, even if not in immediate self-defense, if the situation was extreme enough.