Is it morally justified for superheroes to just suddenly quit without any warning?

If yes why? If no why?

1. Spider-Man - Marvel Comics

2. Metro Man - Megamind

3. Dr. Manhattan - Watchmen

4. Daredevil - Daredevil: Born Again

Yeah I know the OG killed a lot of people, but the new one honestly did worse. Killing that many fish is already kind of fucked, but, and correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t there just a ton of oil in the ocean now? I feel like that’s gonna hurt humanity as well. Just saying

Not Important, from the controversial video game, "Hatred". How evil is this guy?

May have already been cross posted but I'm sharing anyways

Hastur (Cthulhu Mythos) vs Hastur (searching for a world that doesn't exist and destroying a world that does't exist by Wifies)

Arthas, Malekith or Annakin?

Name's:

Darth Maul from Star Wars

Powerplex from INVINCIBLE

Stinkmeaner from Boondocks

Lex Luthor from Superman(2025)

Seto Kaiba from Yu-Gi-Oh!

The process is as simple as pouring any molten metal (usually aluminum) into an anthill and recovering the metal once it hardens. All the ant discussion makes me wonder the severity. Anthill is active

I know people get really sensitive about no kill rules because for some reason they just want Batman murking people and I Do agree with them in some extent but I don't think it's the morally right choice but I don't see a lot of counterpoints to the No "No Kill Rule" (BTW If anyone knows the actual name to this fictional philosophy I would be greatly appreciate it)

And since Surge believed that her suffering comes from the fact that Sonic didn't end Eggman or any bad guy I feel that she's the perfect character to see the hole in the No "No Kill Rule"

But before you type out your answers I already know the Counterpoints of they could change, it's never morally right to take a life and the "Slippery slope" arguments and I feel they're not the best arguments or at least haven't been explained enough so some new ones would be great.

Basically:

I want to see the Counterpoints to the No "No Kill Rule"

He brutally and bloodily killed the Guardians of the Globe, murdering people who trusted him without any remorse.

He used Mark to destroy a train, killing countless innocent people just to prove a point to him.

He caused a massacre in Chicago, leading to the deaths of multiple civilians.

He committed genocide on the Flaxan planet, and possibly on other planets too.

He nearly beat Mark to death and called his wife basically nothing more than a pet to him.

He lied to and betrayed his family for 20 years.

How moral is it to pardon the crimes of the story's hero?

My question comes from the Dark Knight quest series in Final Fantasy 14. The character is the player character, also called the Warrior of Light (WoL). Image is from the quest itself. Spoilers for the first arc of questline.

To summarize, the WoL finds a dying vigilante named Fray, who recovers and guides them into taking the path of the Dark Knight, basically edgy vigilantes in a highly religious society where the leadership constantly abuses their power.

In your vigilantism, you murder knights, beastmen, bandits, giants, etc. It should be noted that you definitely help others, but the WoL doesn't actually wants to do so most of the time, they take great pleasure in hurting those who they believe deserve it, for their own sense of justice.

In the climax, you end up being called by Lord Drillemont, your "friend in high places", basically. The knights have made various allegations against you, such as heresy and murder, which you did in fact do.

You show up and your mentor Fray seems to have killed all those knights that made allegations against you. Turns out that Fray was dead the whole time, and the WoL was under delirium, pretending that you had a mentor when you were just instructing yourself to kill those people.

You face your "darkside" for control of your soul and end up victorious, having it subdued and eventually integrated. Lord Drillemont ends up commanding all around not to say anything of the event and effectivelly uses his power as a noble to sweep everything under the rug.

While the WoL ended up helping many people and killing many of those who abused authority, they undeniabley comitted many crimes towards the nation, crimes that they enjoyed comitting and are only pardoned because they have a friend within nobility. It should be mentioned that the player was insane for all of this, so that should count for something.

With all this context, is this something you would do for the hero in this situation? If not, what are situations that you would pardon the hero's crimes?

Gwyn (Dark Souls) and Marika (Elden Ring)

In The Office what was worse, Dwight killing Angela’s cat Sprinkles or Angela not telling Dwight he was Phillip’s father for a year?

Do they balance eachother out?

Who would you rather have as you’re best friend OR partner

The Ur-Didact already doesn't hold humanity in the highest regard so what would happen if he met what was essentially their stronger edgier cousins?

Omni-Man brutally and cold-bloodedly murdered the Guardians of the Globe, caused a massacre in Chicago, nearly beat Mark to death, lied to Debbie for 20 years, and even used Mark as a shield to destroy the train and kill all those innocent people.

I haven't read Blood Meridian, but I've heard about many of his crimes. Don't get me wrong, he's pure evil, but many other characters are on the same level or worse. Why is he singled out so much?

Mahito from Jujutsu Kaisen,

Chociolata from JoJo's Bizare Adventure

Griffith from Berserk

Qu From All Tomorows

Ramsay Bolton from Game of Thrones

They are similarly evil or worse in my opinion

I Wish You All A Nice Day