Kyle wrote:What's the source for the quote?
A discussion of the FATAL rpg according to google.
It is a pervasive view and has an annoying tendency to manifest "shades of gray" as 'behaves like an asshole and gets rewarded for doing so" or "the world just keeps dumping on characters until they become nothing but angsty." Thankfully, there's still plenty of works that use flawed heroes to highlight heroism rather than flaws. I mean take someone like Garth Ennis, who does some really scummy protagonists but still clearly gets the necessity of levity and praising heroic ideals. Look at how he treats Superman. Superman isn't a joke or an outdated notion when he shows up in Ennis' comics. He's the paragon of goodness and an inspiration. Ultimately, I think there has to be heroism or it is just a deconstruction or satire of superheroes.
I think there's also a major issue with being able to see multiple sides and portray them well. Nuance is not often handled well in superhero comics and its far too common that the "right" side just seems to be designated by the writer without allowing ambiguity. AvX and Civil War both did this absolutely terribly by not being willing to explore the conflicts between characters in a deep, meaningful way. You can have a good story and make it unclear which side was right but instead, the current method just seems to be to make the designated "wrong" side do something horrible to justify the actions of the "right" side. But putting that kind of thing into a continuous universe creates a breakdown for other elements.
Now I am an ardent supporter of the "superheroes don't kill" rule for a lot of heroes but that's really hard to justify when you have villains slaughtering hundreds every time they escape. An unbending no-kill policy can be justified for some heroes like Superman (who values all sentient life and views killing as the ultimate betrayal of the Hope he stands for), Batman (who views killing as the anathema of everything Bruce Wayne created the Batman to stop), or Spider-man (who is strongly motivated by saving people after inadvertently letting Ben die) but why would other heroes let these villains continue to live? Honestly, why doesn't Thor just bash in the heads of Carnage and all the other unrepetant and irredemable monsters? Why doesn't Wonder Woman (or any of the antiheroes or even outright villains) kill the Joker? And of course, writers make it even worse with the "it will make me as bad as him" or the "if I kill him, who next?" justifications. That's utter nonsense. Even sidestepping the morality of guilt by inaction, it makes the heroes weak. A hero that won't kill because it would make him look or feel bad is not a hero. A hero shouldn't kill because valuing all life is intrinsic to their nature. He or she could no more willingly take a life than he or could choose not to love or feel emotions.