Why don't heroes make sacrifices anymore? (Spoilers for Infinity War and others)

[Norrefve]

This seems to have come up a lot, and it's really starting to bother me.

There are many definitions for what a "good" person or character is, but one that is pretty much across the board, and well understood by almost everyone is: "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." It's one of the defining characteristics of heroes and demonstrates why they are a cut above the villains. They're not in it for themselves, they want to see justice done no matter the consequences to themselves.

So then, why do so many heroes nowadays refuse to make sacrifices? I have seen it time and again, and whenever the hero decides to give in and take the selfish route, it is always bad in the long run and for more people. I have a short list of examples with some pretty big spoilers, so be warned.

In Season 8, Sam and Dean discover "The Trials" which, when performed, will exorcise every demon ever. Since demons are pretty much the worst thing ever, and the cause of the majority of the brothers' problems, you'd think that would be a good thing to do, right? But no, as soon as Dean finds out the Trials will kill Sam, he begs him not to do it. He lets all the demons in the world live, just so he can keep his brother. Seems pretty selfish to me.

Later on in Season 10, Death offers to take Dean far away so that he won't hurt anyone because of the Mark of Cain. The Mark can't be removed without releasing The Darkness, so it's pretty important that Dean takes care of it.The price for Death doing this is Sam's death. Once again, Dean refuses to kill his brother, and so the Mark is released along with The Darkness, which ends up being bad for pretty much everyone. Again.

I haven't seen all the seasons yet, but in Season 3, we learn that if an Original Vampire dies, every vampire who was ever turned from their blood line will die as well. Great, says I, just stake them all and then the entire vampire problem is solved. But no, that would mean killing the Salvatore brothers and Caroline and other "good" vampires (even though they have all murdered people, and most likely will again). The correct sacrifice would be to give up your loved ones so that everyone else's loved ones can live, but the thought never even crosses their minds.

Infinity war has a bunch of examples of this, as well as one, what I'll call, reverse example.

Let's start with Gamora. So Thanos is torturing her sister, Nebula, in order to force her to give up the location of the Soul Stone. If Thanos gets the Soul Stone, he will become way more powerful. And if he gets all 6 stones, he kills half the Universe. Undeniably bad for everyone. Yet Gamora chooses to give him the location to save her sister, who has a 50/50 chance of dying anyway, if she gives in. The sacrifice should be to let her sister die so that everyone else's sister can live.

Next, we have Star Lord. When a bunch of the heroes are on Titan, they hatch their plan to remove Thanos' Infinity Gauntlet so that he won't be able to, you know, kill half the universe. And they almost do it. But then Star Lord realizes that Thanos has killed Gamora (more on that later) and in a fit of anger, botches the team's chance of stopping Thanos. The sacrifice should be to keep his vengeance in check (like he advises Drax to do many times) so that Thanos can't kill any more loved ones.

Then we have Scarlet Witch. We find out that her magic is powerful enough to destroy the Mind Stone, preventing Thanos from getting all 6 Infinity Stones, but that will kill Vision in the process. Vision is more than willing to make the sacrifice, but Scarlet Witch is not. The sacrifice would be to give up your loved one so Thanos can't kill everyone else's loved ones.

Finally, we have Dr. Strange. Thanos is in the process of killing Iron Man when Dr. Strange stops him. He offers him the Time Stone for Iron Man's life, again, allowing Thanos to kill half the universe. The sacrifice should be to keep the Time Stone hidden so that Thanos is powerless. Granted, this is after Dr. Strange discovers the 1 way that the heroes win, so it might not actually be a bad decision, but that remains to be seen.

Then we have the reverse example. When Thanos and Gamora travel to Vormir, Red Skull tells them that you cannot get the Soul Stone unless you make a true sacrifice, that is, giving up someone that you truly love. Gamora (and the audience) is shocked to find that Thanos actually truly loves her, and is able to retrieve the Soul Stone by killing her. Why? Why is the villain able to make the hard choices to get the result he desires, when none of the heroes can do the same thing? It seems so totally backwards, that I can't understand it. Yes, it makes for great story-telling, and I really enjoyed this movie, but so many decisions really bothered me.

These are just a few examples, and I'm sure there are many more out there. Feel free to post more examples, but I'm mostly just wondering why so many heroes are unable to do the things that heroes are usually recognized for.

[Narkis]

You seem in general to have misunderstood what "personal sacrifice" actually means. Me sacrificing my own time/possessions/health/general wellbeing/life is "Good". Me sacrificing my brother's/friends/lover's anything isn't good at all. It is, actually, the very definition of evil to sacrifice others for your goals. Every example of yours can be explained if you readjust your definitions, with a single exception:

It is made abundantly clear that Star-Lord is an immature git who can't keep his emotions in check, and him punching Thanos has absolutely nothing to do with heroism.

[Berserk Mecha]

These days, most folks are more interested in watching flawed people than in watching flawless heroes. Personally, I'm much more invested in watching a selfish person fighting to get what they want as opposed to watching a selfless caricature make sacrifices for the greater good.

The examples that you cited are rather interesting in that most of them are not about the heroes refusing to sacrifice themselves, but refusing to sacrifice those close to them. Those are people that they know personally and mean more to them than people that they have never met.


As for Infinity War, we already knew that Star Lord has a short fuse when it comes to his loved ones getting in harm's way. Remember in GotG Vol.2 when Ego casually mentions killing Quill's mom and what Quill's reaction was to that? His reaction to Thanos killing Gamora was rather restrained by comparison. Having such a passionate reaction makes the character more human and relateable.

As for Dr. Strange's choice to save Tony, well, like you said, I think we all agree that was part of the plan and letting Thanos get all of the Infinity Stones was necessary to save everyone later.

[Razade]

Infinity war has a bunch of examples of this, as well as one, what I'll call, reverse example.

Let's start with Gamora. So Thanos is torturing her sister, Nebula, in order to force her to give up the location of the Soul Stone. If Thanos gets the Soul Stone, he will become way more powerful. And if he gets all 6 stones, he kills half the Universe. Undeniably bad for everyone. Yet Gamora chooses to give him the location to save her sister, who has a 50/50 chance of dying anyway, if she gives in. The sacrifice should be to let her sister die so that everyone else's sister can live.

Next, we have Star Lord. When a bunch of the heroes are on Titan, they hatch their plan to remove Thanos' Infinity Gauntlet so that he won't be able to, you know, kill half the universe. And they almost do it. But then Star Lord realizes that Thanos has killed Gamora (more on that later) and in a fit of anger, botches the team's chance of stopping Thanos. The sacrifice should be to keep his vengeance in check (like he advises Drax to do many times) so that Thanos can't kill any more loved ones.

Then we have Scarlet Witch. We find out that her magic is powerful enough to destroy the Mind Stone, preventing Thanos from getting all 6 Infinity Stones, but that will kill Vision in the process. Vision is more than willing to make the sacrifice, but Scarlet Witch is not. The sacrifice would be to give up your loved one so Thanos can't kill everyone else's loved ones.

Finally, we have Dr. Strange. Thanos is in the process of killing Iron Man when Dr. Strange stops him. He offers him the Time Stone for Iron Man's life, again, allowing Thanos to kill half the universe. The sacrifice should be to keep the Time Stone hidden so that Thanos is powerless. Granted, this is after Dr. Strange discovers the 1 way that the heroes win, so it might not actually be a bad decision, but that remains to be seen.

Then we have the reverse example. When Thanos and Gamora travel to Vormir, Red Skull tells them that you cannot get the Soul Stone unless you make a true sacrifice, that is, giving up someone that you truly love. Gamora (and the audience) is shocked to find that Thanos actually truly loves her, and is able to retrieve the Soul Stone by killing her. Why? Why is the villain able to make the hard choices to get the result he desires, when none of the heroes can do the same thing? It seems so totally backwards, that I can't understand it. Yes, it makes for great story-telling, and I really enjoyed this movie, but so many decisions really bothered me.

These are just a few examples, and I'm sure there are many more out there. Feel free to post more examples, but I'm mostly just wondering why so many heroes are unable to do the things that heroes are usually recognized for.

1. Killing Nebula wasn't going to not get the location of the stone. He'd have started torturing Gamora next to be sure. Or go after Quill or any number of other people. Gamora didn't sacrifice Nebula's life. She sacrificed her own. It's that simple. You'll also remember that Gamora TRIED to sacrifice herself. She told Quill to kill her and he took the shot. Wrong time to do it, when Thanos got the Reality Stone but ya know. She still offered her life for the Galaxy without hesitation. So your point seems...not a point here.

2. Thanos killed the woman he loved. I dare say you'd do the same in his shoes. There's no "sacrifice" here, not one that's warranted. Did he do something stupid? Yeah. Did he have to sacrifice his grief for the greater good? Eh. That's not REALLY a sacrifice. Also ya know. Pretty damn boring of a two part movie to resolve the conflict in one with their very human characters acting like 100% rational robots. Snoozefest. Back to Quill and Gamora though. He was willing to sacrifice his love for the fate of the Universe. So ya know. Why aren't you mentioning that?

3. Except Scarlet Witch DOES make that sacrifice. Too late but she does. Could you strangle the man or woman you love without hesitation and bargaining and all the other stages of grief? Dare so you couldn't. What Scarlet Witch went through is as believable as it could be. She fell in love, she doesn't want to lose the man she loves and she certainly doesn't want to be the one to smother him in his sleep with a pillow. She does, however, do so in the end when all other options are expended. She killed her loved one. Then saw him brought back to life and killed again. Think how that's gotta feel.

4. I think that you're missing that Dr. Strange knows how to beat Thanos and is doing the plan to get the one in 15,000,003 chance of winning. He sacrificed all those lives to save them. I think that's absolutely and 100% clear from the movie. How did you miss that?

5. Your premise is flawed. Thanos isn't the only one making sacrifices.

[Lord Raziere]

Well there is an argument to be made for heroes who succeed without sacrificing something.

Say you go and fight somebody, they're real powerful, you do everything you can to sacrifice many comrades lives to kill this evil guy and you succeed.

Now say you find one day that a guy much like them or even an alternate version of them comes along and their good and whats different? the hero decided to talk them down were successful, no one had to die and the guy is just good now.

That means those sacrifices? were for nothing.

Since you can never know whether or not a sacrifice is truly necessary- its best avoided. A life saved is a life earned, and one should not spend a life unless its absolutely needed. Making a sacrifice is a noble thing yes- but only when its voluntary and when its needed. Involuntary and its just a utilitarian calculation coldly deciding that they are above others by thinking they are ones who decides whether people live or die and for what reason. Not needed, and its just wasteful and stupid- a living army of good people who use caution is better than a reckless horde of zealous would-be martyrs likelier to spend their live fruitlessly against something that kills them easily than help.

The examples you have are not those logical arguments. they "give up the one you love for this abstract thing to happen that be an objective improvement upon the world" or something like that. unsurprisingly, people value someone they know over an abstract thing SAY will happen, but we don't KNOW if it will actually happen because it won't happen until this thing you don't want to happen happens. Which is kind of like opening a TCG card pack, sure its says you'll get a rare card, but open it up and look it'll be mostly commons and a rare that totally sucks and doesn't work to build your deck at all, but you've already spent the money not knowing what you'd actually get and now its too late.

all those examples? are examples of having to pay a loved one's life, something they are very familiar with, for something they have no familiarity with and no proof that it will actually happen. Making a sacrifice for a mystery bag is a fools purchase. Too much potential to be unneeded, too close to being utilitarian without any of the benefits of it actually succeeding. ancient legends of how something works or whatever are not reliable things to trust, no matter how much they turn out to be true. what if the ancient legend says you need to sacrifice somebody for the ancient artifact to work, but no that turns out to just be something someone made up because a culture of people who like sacrificing things as a culture sprung around it and know nothing about how it actually works?

a wise hero gathers the information before making such a decision. a caring hero can't even bear the thought of sacrifice and thinks it wrong out of principle. such heroes will always endeavor to avoid such things and succeed without making a sacrifice and if they succeed? then none was needed in the first place. that and sacrifices do not always have to be in lives. a hero is already sacrificing their time by being a hero and helping others, and dedicating themselves to a greater cause. and often to protect those very loved ones that they're asked to sacrifice. To sacrifice them would be to go against the entire point they STARTED being heroic in the first place, and why must it be the heroes loved one? Why do they have to pay the price out of association with them? because of a bond? it seems arbitrary and nonsensical, much like many seeming moral dilemmas. Their lives matter as well.

the situations you speak of are arbitrary, declare that people they care about have to die for no reason other than they care about them, and with no shown guarantee that what people say will happen, will actually happen. not a situation to spend the money of lives.

[Lvl45DM!]

I don't know who told you killing innocent people for the greater good is what heroes do, but they were lying.

Theres a scene in Supernatural, season 6, where Sam has no soul. Its a flashback in the last ep. A demon has a woman at knife point and threatens her life if Sam doesn't let him go. Sam shoots the girl and snarks "There goes your leverage"
He sacrificed one girl to save others the demon would hurt so he's good right?

[huttj509]

It's odd you mentioned Infinity War but left off a key part:

Vision sacrifices his life. He stops the running, turns to Scarlet Witch, and flat out says "it's time for you to kill me." He even gets the chord structure of the "Avengers heroic theme music" when speaking there, when it's normally played for, like, Captain America coming to the rescue, or Thor being awesome, or something flashy. The hero music doesn't play when SW is destroying the stone, it doesn't play when they're running, it doesn't play when people are dying, but when Vision stops the running, and in a strong personal moment makes the call for his own destruction, it plays.

[Sinewmire]

Selfsacrifice is heroic. Sacrificing others? Not so much.

If you're willing to sacrifice someone else to achieve your mission, chances are you're the villain.

In a darker, grittier series yes, people would be making the "hard choices" of the lesser evil - killing the hostage to save an orphanage or whatever, and we'd see the results of doing these bad things eat into their souls, but marvel isn't particularly gritty. That's not a bad thing, either.

Thanos was the hero willing to sacrifice half the universe in order to achieve his heroic goal of life without scarcity.

Jack: Aha! So we've established my proposal is sound in principle, now we're just haggling over price.

[Elanasaurus]

It's odd you mentioned Infinity War but left off a key part:

Vision sacrifices his life. He stops the running, turns to Scarlet Witch, and flat out says "it's time for you to kill me." He even gets the chord structure of the "Avengers heroic theme music" when speaking there, when it's normally played for, like, Captain America coming to the rescue, or Thor being awesome, or something flashy. The hero music doesn't play when SW is destroying the stone, it doesn't play when they're running, it doesn't play when people are dying, but when Vision stops the running, and in a strong personal moment makes the call for his own destruction, it plays.Oh wow. That's SO COOL!!

Also, if sacrificing other people counts as a noble sacrifice, what about sacrificing their ability to sacrifice themselves? Is that Good? Because that's what SW does to Vision.
:elan:

[Metahuman1]

I feel like I should point out that Scarlet Witch DOES sacrifice Vision, and Vision opts into that sacrifice.


It's just that it didn't matter anymore once Thanos had The Time Stone. After that it was ALWAYS something he could get around.








Also, as for Quill loosing his **** when he finds out Gamora's Dead, Can I just point out that the 2 allegedly level headed, highly intelligent and cool under pressure persons present for that scene (Stark and Strange.) didn't think "Screw pulling the Gantlet off, freaking amputate the arm off to get the freaking thing away form him!"? Even knowing they had precious little time to work with and the fate of the universe was riding on this, and they were never going to win this fight playing anything like fair?

[Keltest]

I feel like I should point out that Scarlet Witch DOES sacrifice Vision, and Vision opts into that sacrifice.


It's just that it didn't matter anymore once Thanos had The Time Stone. After that it was ALWAYS something he could get around.








Also, as for Quill loosing his **** when he finds out Gamora's Dead, Can I just point out that the 2 allegedly level headed, highly intelligent and cool under pressure persons present for that scene (Stark and Strange.) didn't think "Screw pulling the Gantlet off, freaking amputate the arm off to get the freaking thing away form him!"? Even knowing they had precious little time to work with and the fate of the universe was riding on this, and they were never going to win this fight playing anything like fair?

I mean, they dropped a giant rock on him and didn't even draw blood. Amputating the arm probably would have taken even longer than just pulling his glove off, to say nothing of the fact that he certainly would have snapped out of Mantis' trance.

[Peelee]

Completely unrelated to anything, but something I find amusing...


Having seen very few of the MCU movies, I am in the unique interesting position of not caring about spoilers while also not understanding half of the spoilers to begin with.

[Frozen_Feet]

The first thing to consider is that not all works are made from an utilitarian perspective, morality of an act is not decided solely by its consequences and a moral act does not cease to be moral just because it fails.

The last one is most important. The Avengers make a morally correct choice to stop Vision from sacrificing himself as long as there are other options. Vision makes a morally correct choice to sacrifice himself when he runs out of options. The Avengers and Vision all fail, but they're all heroes, all moral people, because their actions when on a sound basis when taking them. Claiming otherwise is faulting them for not 100% correctly predicting the future and commitment to dubious success-based morality. On that account, Thanos would be the most moral and most heroic person in the movie, as he consistently and succesfully implements his vision of a better world.

So yeah. Consider that for a moment: do the heroes in your examples fail because they made an immoral choice, or did they fail despite making a moral choice?

[Dr.Samurai]

Well...

Cap, Sam, and Nat are all fugitives in Infinity War, because they sacrificed their liberty for Bucky's sake in Civil War. I think that's an example of heroism.

Vision sacrificed himself, but *could not* do so without Wanda's power and Wanda did not want to lose Vision. They both sacrificed for the greater good.

Quill attempted to kill Gamora. That's a huge sacrifice. I mean... think about it. If I were in his shoes I'd be racing through every other possible way to undermine Thanos' plan that didn't involve me killing the love of my life. But that's what she wants. It's not what he wants. He has to work himself up to do it. Because he is sacrificing something.

(While I'm on the topic, I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that sacrificing a loved one is not a heroic sacrifice. I understand that it's different than sacrificing yourself, but I still think it falls under a form of self-sacrifice. It's not like it's an easy thing to do.)

Dr. Strange saw the future. And that future included him being disintegrated. And he gave the Time Stone to Thanos anyways. We don't know what occurs in the other 14 million futures (except that the heroes lose), but presumably there are some in there where Strange doesn't die. So this can be considered a sacrifice on his part.

Loki and Heimdall both die trying to thwart Thanos. Thor risks death by star to obtain a godkiller weapon.

I think the point of Pepper being on the phone when Tony is stowing away on an alien ship is to demonstrate Tony's sacrifices to safeguard the world.

T'Challa makes his kingdom the battleground to determine the fate of the universe. Those are his loyal Wakandan citizens getting murdered on the fields there.

So I don't know. I think Infinity War is a strange example to give for lack of heroic sacrifice. I know the idea is that they should have just killed Gamora and Vision immediately or whatever, but the point of a sacrifice is that it's something you want, something that you don't want to be without. If Visions suggests his destruction, and Wanda shrugs, says "Good point" and waves her hand and destroys him and the Mind Stone, is it really a sacrifice? I don't think so. The sacrifice comes from the fact that they are in love and care deeply for each other, and causing harm to one another, nevermind destroying the other, is so far removed from anything they would ever want to do. Love inspires the opposite. Wanda would give her life for Vision. Instead, you're telling her "You can save the universe, you just have to kill Vision".

In rejecting that notion, the heroes are saying "No, we'll risk our own lives to stop Thanos directly instead of killing Vision". This in itself is a heroic sacrifice, because now our heroes are going toe to toe with an intergalactic alien juggernaut. They don't have to have this fight, but they are doing it. And when they are failing at it, Vision places himself on the altar and they destroy the Mind Stone.

I means... it's just heroism all around...

[137beth]

Completely unrelated to anything, but something I find amusing...


Having seen very few of the MCU movies, I am in the unique position of not caring about spoilers while also not understanding half of the spoilers to begin with.

Well, not a unique position, since I'm in the same position as you.

[Metahuman1]

I mean, they dropped a giant rock on him and didn't even draw blood. Amputating the arm probably would have taken even longer than just pulling his glove off, to say nothing of the fact that he certainly would have snapped out of Mantis' trance.

I question that, given how long it was taking to get the gauntlet off and that we saw during the fight that they could cut him, the hard part was getting a clean hit in, and if he's under the spell and restrained they would at least get one go at it.

Hell, I question that once they got him restrained Strange couldn't pick that moment to use the Time Stone to slow time, buying more time, and then use it to age Thanos's Arm, just a segment of it, till it was nothing but scattered dust.




Then again, I'm the guy who though for sure when Strange offered the Stone Up what we were going to find out was off screen he'd sent it somewhere, and Thanos was going to go there, sent by Strange, and when he got there was going to then be confronted by The Living Tribunal and/or The One Above All, holding the stone, and ready to smack him down for his plan.






Also, agree with the point about Black Panther. Hell, he even spells it out in a bit of dialog during the massive final battle. He is doing this fully expecting it to be the complete end of Wakanda, that the kingdom and all it's subjects will be destroyed in this fight. He expects and knows that, and he's fighting that battle anyway. He's not obligated too, but he knows what happens if this is lost, he knows what happens if Thanos succeeds, and he knows they have the best chance of stopping that by doing this.

"This will be the end of Wakanda."

"Then it will be the noblest end history has ever known."

[BWR]

Well, not a unique position, since I'm in the same position as you.

Same here. Well, I've seen all the movies but don't consider the 'spoilers' to be worth much.
Minor rant:
Having spoiler tags in threads like this is quite frankly stupid. If people don't want to be spoiled on something, then they should not seek out situations where people are discussing the stuff they don't want spoiled. Especially since the ****ing title says there will be spoilers.

[Dragonexx]

I don't know who told you killing innocent people for the greater good is what heroes do, but they were lying.

Theres a scene in Supernatural, season 6, where Sam has no soul. Its a flashback in the last ep. A demon has a woman at knife point and threatens her life if Sam doesn't let him go. Sam shoots the girl and snarks "There goes your leverage"
He sacrificed one girl to save others the demon would hurt so he's good right?

Why not just shoot the demon if that's the case?

[Delicious Taffy]

Why not just shoot the demon if that's the case?

Sammy was kinda not in his right mind, for a little while.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It is made abundantly clear that Star-Lord is an immature git who can't keep his emotions in check, and him punching Thanos has absolutely nothing to do with heroism.
This, so hard. I don't understand why so many people find it so hard to understand why Peter Q would punch Thanos. His immaturity and impulsiveness are two of his defining character traits, up there with his self-centered worldview and the toxic masculine ideals he tries to live up to. Though all four kinda feed into each other, like a double ouroboros of short-sightedness, suicidally risky behavior, and ego.


I mean, they dropped a giant rock on [Thanos] and didn't even draw blood. Amputating the arm probably would have taken even longer than just pulling his glove off, to say nothing of the fact that he certainly would have snapped out of Mantis' trance.
These two points are important...as is the fact that they didn't really have anything available to cut with. Except maybe a nanotech axe.
If we're going to get into the shoulda-coulda-woulda game, we should look directly at the guy who has a time-manipulating artifact with no well-defined limits. The sheer level of power offered by that is ridiculous; Dr. Strange could have conceivably "let" one of his comrades die just to rewind their death, knocked Thanos a few seconds back in time to disrupt his attacks, or maybe even rewound Peter Q to a few seconds before he heard that Gamora was dead.
The moral of the story? Don't let your characters manipulate time.


But to answer the question...part of it is a change in the heroes people like to see (complex characters who might not want to sacrifice themselves even if it means saving the world, who try to find another way versus Messianic archetypes complete with martyrdom). Part of it might be how some writers are realizing the implications of killing yourself for the greater good sound in a post-al-Queda world. However, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a large part of it was the fact that the biggest media of recent years has usually been part of a franchise. It's hard to make a franchise work if you kill off your main characters, and bringing them back almost immediately after a sacrifice (I'm looking at you, Clark Kent!) cheapens the impact of future sacrifices.

[An Enemy Spy]

Why not just shoot the demon if that's the case?

Because demons can't be killed by normal bullets. Also because Sam was a soulless sociopath at the time who let his own brother be bitten by a vampire. A hostage just makes his job harder so he eliminated her.

[Lethologica]

Because demons can't be killed by normal bullets. Also because Sam was a soulless sociopath at the time who let his own brother be bitten by a vampire. A hostage just makes his job harder so he eliminated her.
If anything, the hostage makes his job easier - a distracting encumbrance for the opponent. Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake. Killing the hostage is gratuitous cruelty for shock value.

[An Enemy Spy]

If anything, the hostage makes his job easier - a distracting encumbrance for the opponent. Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake. Killing the hostage is gratuitous cruelty for shock value.

Oh yes, as any police officer tells you, once the criminal has taken someone hostage, apprehending them becomes much more simple.

[Lethologica]

Oh yes, as any police officer tells you, once the criminal has taken someone hostage, apprehending them becomes much more simple.
Police officers aren't sociopaths. If Sam, the sociopath (modulo obligatory qualifications about the pop-culture use of that term), doesn't care about the hostage, he shouldn't shoot the hostage, because for him, the hostage makes things easier, or at least no harder. Sam should simply act the way he would if there were no hostage.

[Knaight]

What hasn't been mentioned yet is that a lot of the example characters are pretty overt antiheroes anyways.

[Lvl45DM!]

Why not just shoot the demon if that's the case?

Demon was using her as a body shield and shooting doesnt hurt demons

[Keltest]

Demon was using her as a body shield and shooting doesnt hurt demons

Which makes you wonder why he was using the hostage as a shield anyway.

[An Enemy Spy]

Which makes you wonder why he was using the hostage as a shield anyway.

It was less to shield himself from bullets and more to keep Sam from approaching him. And probably because he enjoys forcing hunters into a moral dilemma. Sam killing the hostage was basically to catch the demon off guard and demon(lol)strate that this was a different Sam Winchester this guy had picked a fight with. The message is clear "If I'll do that to an innocent hostage, imagine what I'll do to you." Demons aren't immune to intimidation.

[Darth Ultron]

This seems to have come up a lot, and it's really starting to bother me.

There are many definitions for what a "good" person or character is, but one that is pretty much across the board, and well understood by almost everyone is: "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." It's one of the defining characteristics of heroes and demonstrates why they are a cut above the villains. They're not in it for themselves, they want to see justice done no matter the consequences to themselves.


First off, you really can't count TV shows. The problem with TV shows is: The Show Must Go On (Status Quo is God). Within a work, particularly long-running series and franchises, almost nothing changes. If something does change, it's generally reset back to the way it was before very quickly. It's not just sacrifices, but really does cover everything.

Supernatural is a perfect example of this: Anything that could potentially separate Sam and Dean, be it a bad argument, demon trickery, a trip to Purgatory, death, or Death, will be quickly resolved because Sam and Dean just can't be apart. If it cannot be fixed quickly in-universe, they will use a Time Skip. Over the course of 10 seasons, the longest they're ever separated is two episodes. So, sure you get whole seasons of ''oh no my brother will die(again)'', but...of course, it never happens.

Second, MCU films, and really all super hero films are both Status Quo is God and For Kidz. So you won't see a lot of sacrifice in a super hero movies as both the franchise must go on and they want to keep things all nice and happy for the Kidz.

Third, you do have the Plot to consider. The reason why anything happens in a movie/TV show: the plot. Thantos has to get all the stones so Infinity War 2 will happen....so he will get all the stones.

All that being said: There is much less sacrifice in modern movies as that is just the current culture view of things. The average movie watcher, and the average movie maker all believe in the whole no sacrifice idea. Most people believe they can ''have it all'' with no sacrifice (or hard work or investment or..). So it is movies.

[Talakeal]

I am fairly certain the main theme of Infinity War is that being willing to sacrifice other people for the greater good does not make you a hero, and the movie is fairly blunt about hitting you over the head with this.

MovieBob mentions in his review that he thinks the character of Thanos is a commentary on modern grim and grity father figures in fiction who constantly do horrible things and are portrayed as being heroes for doing the dirty jobs that only they have the strength to do.

[Sinewmire]

Well...


(While I'm on the topic, I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that sacrificing a loved one is not a heroic sacrifice. I understand that it's different than sacrificing yourself, but I still think it falls under a form of self-sacrifice. It's not like it's an easy thing to do.)

I'd say there's a world of difference between sacrificing a loved one (Thanos) and a loved one choosing to scrificing themself and asking for help (Vision, Gamora). I can agree that being forced to sacrifice a loved one is hard, it's still murder. And if you're willing to kill people against their will to save the universe... aren't you kinda the villain?

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd say there's a world of difference between sacrificing a loved one (Thanos) and a loved one choosing to scrificing themself and asking for help (Vision, Gamora). I can agree that being forced to sacrifice a loved one is hard, it's still murder. And if you're willing to kill people against their will to save the universe... aren't you kinda the villain?
I meant in the context of what we're talking about, which is someone asking a loved one to kill them. It seems people were saying even in these cases (Wanda to Vision and Quill to Gamora) it's not a good or heroic thing, and I don't agree.

Thanos is killing someone against their will. Quill is killing someone that wants to die and made him promise to kill her. I still think what Quill is doing can be considered a heroic sacrifice.

[Devonix]

The movie seems to want to have the super heroes go through the suffering of making the choice to do a heroic sacrifice. But not wanting to tarnish the image of the heroes by having those sacrifices actually happen.

[Keltest]

The movie seems to want to have the super heroes go through the suffering of making the choice to do a heroic sacrifice. But not wanting to tarnish the image of the heroes by having those sacrifices actually happen.
But... they did? Quill pulled the trigger. Wanda destroyed the mind stone. Strange handed over the Time stone.

[Devonix]

But... they did? Quill pulled the trigger. Wanda destroyed the mind stone. Strange handed over the Time stone.

The characters made the decisions to do the actions. But the effects of those actions were rendered irrelevant. Yes the emotional turmoil did happen, but our heroes still have the clean hands of not actually killing their loved ones in the eyes of the general audience.

[Kato]

I feel like I have a more fundamental question for op...
What do you mean, "anymore"? When was it common for the hero to sacrifice the life of an innocent to reach their goal? This is not something new, it was the norm for a long time and the outliers have always been a subject of debate. Of course risking or even sacrificing the lives of countless unnamed future victims is not smart but it is what nine out ten heroes do and have done for a long time.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I meant in the context of what we're talking about, which is someone asking a loved one to kill them. It seems people were saying even in these cases (Wanda to Vision and Quill to Gamora) it's not a good or heroic thing, and I don't agree.

Thanos is killing someone against their will. Quill is killing someone that wants to die and made him promise to kill her. I still think what Quill is doing can be considered a heroic sacrifice.

It is, but not so much on Quill's side (or Wanda's side) as in Gamora & Vision's side. They're the one choosing to put the greater good above their own lives. Quill and Wanda's is a sacrifice, and a big one indeed, because it takes a lot of effort to attempt to kill your loved ones, but it doesn't fall under the specific subset of Heroic sacrifice (which is laying down your life for others).

Let me be clear, I think the emotional and moral strength required are equivalent, and I do not deny the immense effort it would take, especially on the emotional side, but they can be classified separately from self-sacrifice.

Or, in other words, you and Sinewmire are probably not disagreeing on the substance of the actions, but in the classification & nomenclature.

Grey Wolf

[Malifice]

This seems to have come up a lot, and it's really starting to bother me.

There are many definitions for what a "good" person or character is, but one that is pretty much across the board, and well understood by almost everyone is: "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." It's one of the defining characteristics of heroes and demonstrates why they are a cut above the villains. They're not in it for themselves, they want to see justice done no matter the consequences to themselves.

So then, why do so many heroes nowadays refuse to make sacrifices? I have seen it time and again, and whenever the hero decides to give in and take the selfish route, it is always bad in the long run and for more people. I have a short list of examples with some pretty big spoilers, so be warned.

In Season 8, Sam and Dean discover "The Trials" which, when performed, will exorcise every demon ever. Since demons are pretty much the worst thing ever, and the cause of the majority of the brothers' problems, you'd think that would be a good thing to do, right? But no, as soon as Dean finds out the Trials will kill Sam, he begs him not to do it. He lets all the demons in the world live, just so he can keep his brother. Seems pretty selfish to me.

Later on in Season 10, Death offers to take Dean far away so that he won't hurt anyone because of the Mark of Cain. The Mark can't be removed without releasing The Darkness, so it's pretty important that Dean takes care of it.The price for Death doing this is Sam's death. Once again, Dean refuses to kill his brother, and so the Mark is released along with The Darkness, which ends up being bad for pretty much everyone. Again.

I haven't seen all the seasons yet, but in Season 3, we learn that if an Original Vampire dies, every vampire who was ever turned from their blood line will die as well. Great, says I, just stake them all and then the entire vampire problem is solved. But no, that would mean killing the Salvatore brothers and Caroline and other "good" vampires (even though they have all murdered people, and most likely will again). The correct sacrifice would be to give up your loved ones so that everyone else's loved ones can live, but the thought never even crosses their minds.

Infinity war has a bunch of examples of this, as well as one, what I'll call, reverse example.

Let's start with Gamora. So Thanos is torturing her sister, Nebula, in order to force her to give up the location of the Soul Stone. If Thanos gets the Soul Stone, he will become way more powerful. And if he gets all 6 stones, he kills half the Universe. Undeniably bad for everyone. Yet Gamora chooses to give him the location to save her sister, who has a 50/50 chance of dying anyway, if she gives in. The sacrifice should be to let her sister die so that everyone else's sister can live.

Next, we have Star Lord. When a bunch of the heroes are on Titan, they hatch their plan to remove Thanos' Infinity Gauntlet so that he won't be able to, you know, kill half the universe. And they almost do it. But then Star Lord realizes that Thanos has killed Gamora (more on that later) and in a fit of anger, botches the team's chance of stopping Thanos. The sacrifice should be to keep his vengeance in check (like he advises Drax to do many times) so that Thanos can't kill any more loved ones.

Then we have Scarlet Witch. We find out that her magic is powerful enough to destroy the Mind Stone, preventing Thanos from getting all 6 Infinity Stones, but that will kill Vision in the process. Vision is more than willing to make the sacrifice, but Scarlet Witch is not. The sacrifice would be to give up your loved one so Thanos can't kill everyone else's loved ones.

Finally, we have Dr. Strange. Thanos is in the process of killing Iron Man when Dr. Strange stops him. He offers him the Time Stone for Iron Man's life, again, allowing Thanos to kill half the universe. The sacrifice should be to keep the Time Stone hidden so that Thanos is powerless. Granted, this is after Dr. Strange discovers the 1 way that the heroes win, so it might not actually be a bad decision, but that remains to be seen.

Then we have the reverse example. When Thanos and Gamora travel to Vormir, Red Skull tells them that you cannot get the Soul Stone unless you make a true sacrifice, that is, giving up someone that you truly love. Gamora (and the audience) is shocked to find that Thanos actually truly loves her, and is able to retrieve the Soul Stone by killing her. Why? Why is the villain able to make the hard choices to get the result he desires, when none of the heroes can do the same thing? It seems so totally backwards, that I can't understand it. Yes, it makes for great story-telling, and I really enjoyed this movie, but so many decisions really bothered me.

These are just a few examples, and I'm sure there are many more out there. Feel free to post more examples, but I'm mostly just wondering why so many heroes are unable to do the things that heroes are usually recognized for.

(Letting someone else be tortured and die) or even out right (murdering them) is not 'making a personal sacrifice.'

Vision and Gamorra on the other hand, did make such a sacrifice (at least Gamorra tried to, via Quill).

[Malifice]

I meant in the context of what we're talking about, which is someone asking a loved one to kill them. It seems people were saying even in these cases (Wanda to Vision and Quill to Gamora) it's not a good or heroic thing, and I don't agree.

Thanos is killing someone against their will. Quill is killing someone that wants to die and made him promise to kill her. I still think what Quill is doing can be considered a heroic sacrifice.

Neither Vision or Gamorra actually wanted to die. You're aware of this right?

They only ask to be killed to save the universe. Because they're good people prepared to make personal sacrifices for others.

Unfortunately for them, good people also dont go around killing other people. The people that actually killed them (or attempted to) only did so as an absolute last resort and when no other option was reasonably open to them (i.e. Thanos was right there, and the victim - whom both of them loved and vice versa - was begging them for it). And even then they were very cut up about it, to say the least.

More than one hero flat out refused to do it. Because good people dont murder people, even when they ask them to. They look for another way. A good way. Preferably one that involves the good person making a personal sacrifice to help others, instead of engaging in murder

[Cheesegear]

I think what Thanos does, is actually the other meaning of the word 'sacrifice'. Go look it up. The word has two meanings. And the other meaning fits Thanos' character much better...Because that's what he actually does.

Where you kill a goat so the Gods make it rain.
Except the difference is that Thanos really, really, really likes his goat. Because the Gods demanded not just any goat, but his favourite goat. Which tricks people into thinking it's the 'good' kind of sacrifice. Except it's not. It's really not.

[Dr.Samurai]

Neither Vision or Gamorra actually wanted to die. You're aware of this right?
Yes, they did. That's why they asked the people closest to them to kill them.

If there was another way to stop Thanos that they could see then they likely would have gone with that option. No one wants to die.

But in the situation that they found themselves in, they chose to sacrifice themselves. So yes, they wanted to die. It wasn't done against their will. It was what they asked for. They wanted to be killed rather than allow Thanos to get his hands on the Stones.

That said... you're honing in on the wording which isn't necessary. The point is that Quill is not imposing death on Gamora the way Thanos is. In one circumstance, she is demanding that Quill kills her. In another, she is trying to prevent Thanos from killing her.

That's the difference.

They only ask to be killed to save the universe. Because they're good people prepared to make personal sacrifices for others.
So you're saying people don't "want" things. They just ask for stuff for the sake of other stuff.

I think you're saying the same thing I'm saying but just avoiding the word "want" for some reason.

[Talakeal]

Yes, they did. That's why they asked the people closest to them to kill them.

If there was another way to stop Thanos that they could see then they likely would have gone with that option. No one wants to die.

But in the situation that they found themselves in, they chose to sacrifice themselves. So yes, they wanted to die. It wasn't done against their will. It was what they asked for. They wanted to be killed rather than allow Thanos to get his hands on the Stones.

That said... you're honing in on the wording which isn't necessary. The point is that Quill is not imposing death on Gamora the way Thanos is. In one circumstance, she is demanding that Quill kills her. In another, she is trying to prevent Thanos from killing her.

That's the difference.

So you're saying people don't "want" things. They just ask for stuff for the sake of other stuff.

I think you're saying the same thing I'm saying but just avoiding the word "want" for some reason.

Being willing to go through with something =/= wanting to do something.

[Frozen_Feet]

... if you're willing to kill people against their will to save the universe... aren't you kinda the villain?

*sigh*

Let's get the trivialities out of the way first: yes, Thanos is a villain in context of Infinity War.

But that's not a general answer to the question.

For a general answer, you first need to answer what moral and practical basis exists for the action taken. Overall, in fiction, it is not at all odd to find heroes killing people for much pettier reasons than saving the universe. See, for example, practically any war movie. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to determine why Captain America in First Avenger is justified in killing a couple of Nazis but Thanos isn't in wiping out half the planetary population.

[Mordar]

At least in terms of the Avengers (and superheroes in general), this is addressed.

Heroes will sacrifice themselves to save others (Captain America: "...lay down on the wire for the other guy...").

Heroes will do everything they can to stop others from having to sacrifice themselves (Iron Man: "I'd cut the wire", but he'd also take a nuke into a hole in the sky expecting to not survive, saving others).

Cap may understand that if Thanos gets Vision's gem half the world dies. Cap understands that he doesn't have a prayer against Thanos. Cap still fights Thanos, because by God he's not going to stand by and watch Vision die while there is breath in his body to stop it. Now it would be interesting to see what happens in a situation where Cap has the power to destroy the gem...because that would force a decision that doesn't allow Cap to do his best and fail (try to stop Thanos) and do so without having had any option that would impact the end game.

Re: Gamora and Vision "wanting" to die...

I think it is safe to say neither wanted to die, but both were willing to die because the situation demanded it (in their opinion). So in the statement "I want to die because if I don't die right now bijillions of other people will", that qualifier is pretty darn important.

It's like if I put "...flavored with deadly poison in a cone made from your favorite comic book and placed on an island surrounded by maneating fish and in the direct path of a meteor just large enough to destroy anyone on the island" as a qualifier on "Do you want some ice cream". That might change your answer.

- M

[Tvtyrant]

This seems to have come up a lot, and it's really starting to bother me.

There are many definitions for what a "good" person or character is, but one that is pretty much across the board, and well understood by almost everyone is: "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." It's one of the defining characteristics of heroes and demonstrates why they are a cut above the villains. They're not in it for themselves, they want to see justice done no matter the consequences to themselves.

So then, why do so many heroes nowadays refuse to make sacrifices? I have seen it time and again, and whenever the hero decides to give in and take the selfish route, it is always bad in the long run and for more people. I have a short list of examples with some pretty big spoilers, so be warned.

In Season 8, Sam and Dean discover "The Trials" which, when performed, will exorcise every demon ever. Since demons are pretty much the worst thing ever, and the cause of the majority of the brothers' problems, you'd think that would be a good thing to do, right? But no, as soon as Dean finds out the Trials will kill Sam, he begs him not to do it. He lets all the demons in the world live, just so he can keep his brother. Seems pretty selfish to me.

Later on in Season 10, Death offers to take Dean far away so that he won't hurt anyone because of the Mark of Cain. The Mark can't be removed without releasing The Darkness, so it's pretty important that Dean takes care of it.The price for Death doing this is Sam's death. Once again, Dean refuses to kill his brother, and so the Mark is released along with The Darkness, which ends up being bad for pretty much everyone. Again.

I haven't seen all the seasons yet, but in Season 3, we learn that if an Original Vampire dies, every vampire who was ever turned from their blood line will die as well. Great, says I, just stake them all and then the entire vampire problem is solved. But no, that would mean killing the Salvatore brothers and Caroline and other "good" vampires (even though they have all murdered people, and most likely will again). The correct sacrifice would be to give up your loved ones so that everyone else's loved ones can live, but the thought never even crosses their minds.

Infinity war has a bunch of examples of this, as well as one, what I'll call, reverse example.

Let's start with Gamora. So Thanos is torturing her sister, Nebula, in order to force her to give up the location of the Soul Stone. If Thanos gets the Soul Stone, he will become way more powerful. And if he gets all 6 stones, he kills half the Universe. Undeniably bad for everyone. Yet Gamora chooses to give him the location to save her sister, who has a 50/50 chance of dying anyway, if she gives in. The sacrifice should be to let her sister die so that everyone else's sister can live.

Next, we have Star Lord. When a bunch of the heroes are on Titan, they hatch their plan to remove Thanos' Infinity Gauntlet so that he won't be able to, you know, kill half the universe. And they almost do it. But then Star Lord realizes that Thanos has killed Gamora (more on that later) and in a fit of anger, botches the team's chance of stopping Thanos. The sacrifice should be to keep his vengeance in check (like he advises Drax to do many times) so that Thanos can't kill any more loved ones.

Then we have Scarlet Witch. We find out that her magic is powerful enough to destroy the Mind Stone, preventing Thanos from getting all 6 Infinity Stones, but that will kill Vision in the process. Vision is more than willing to make the sacrifice, but Scarlet Witch is not. The sacrifice would be to give up your loved one so Thanos can't kill everyone else's loved ones.

Finally, we have Dr. Strange. Thanos is in the process of killing Iron Man when Dr. Strange stops him. He offers him the Time Stone for Iron Man's life, again, allowing Thanos to kill half the universe. The sacrifice should be to keep the Time Stone hidden so that Thanos is powerless. Granted, this is after Dr. Strange discovers the 1 way that the heroes win, so it might not actually be a bad decision, but that remains to be seen.

Then we have the reverse example. When Thanos and Gamora travel to Vormir, Red Skull tells them that you cannot get the Soul Stone unless you make a true sacrifice, that is, giving up someone that you truly love. Gamora (and the audience) is shocked to find that Thanos actually truly loves her, and is able to retrieve the Soul Stone by killing her. Why? Why is the villain able to make the hard choices to get the result he desires, when none of the heroes can do the same thing? It seems so totally backwards, that I can't understand it. Yes, it makes for great story-telling, and I really enjoyed this movie, but so many decisions really bothered me.

These are just a few examples, and I'm sure there are many more out there. Feel free to post more examples, but I'm mostly just wondering why so many heroes are unable to do the things that heroes are usually recognized for.


Because then they have to retire characters who make money. Both Disney Star Wars and Disney Marvel have had major "don't ever die if you can avoid it" speeches recently. Marvel also had several attempts to sacrifice individuals fail, showing the ineffectiveness of those strategies in a world where they have been very effective (Avengers for instance).

The point is the bottom line.

[Darth Ultron]

Because then they have to retire characters who make money. Both Disney Star Wars and Disney Marvel have had major "don't ever die if you can avoid it" speeches recently. Marvel also had several attempts to sacrifice individuals fail, showing the ineffectiveness of those strategies in a world where they have been very effective (Avengers for instance).


Though, it is more then likely that in Infinity War 2 most, of not all, of the original Avengers will die or at least ''retire''. To more get rid of the current actors, then the characters. There is a chance that they might want to do the ''new'' versions of the classic characters..you know to be so cool.

So they will have Thor Girl. And Falcon becomes the new Captain America. And they have Iron Woman. And a Woman Hulk. And a new, younger sexier more um ''strong'' Black Widow.

Give them each a movie....and if it does bomb, they can always bring back the classic character(but with a new actor..wink wink).

So we might get some hero self sacrifice...

[137beth]

Though, it is more then likely that in Infinity War 2 most, of not all, of the original Avengers will die or at least ''retire''. To more get rid of the current actors, then the characters. There is a chance that they might want to do the ''new'' versions of the classic characters..you know to be so cool.

So they will have Thor Girl. And Falcon becomes the new Captain America. And they have Iron Woman. And a Woman Hulk. And a new, younger sexier more um ''strong'' Black Widow.

Give them each a movie....and if it does bomb, they can always bring back the classic character(but with a new actor..wink wink).

So we might get some hero self sacrifice...

In the comics, don't most of the "replacement' characters eventually get re-replaced by the original ones?

[Keltest]

In the comics, don't most of the "replacement' characters eventually get re-replaced by the original ones?

Yes and no. The original ones are still around, but theyre off soul searching, or retired, or whatever else it is they do when they aren't super-heroing. They don't come in and reclaim their names from their replacements, although they may steal the spotlight.

[Wardog]

If you're willing to sacrifice someone else to achieve your mission, chances are you're the villain.

Or any officer or NCO in any military anywhere.

[Malifice]

Yes, they did. That's why they asked the people closest to them to kill them.

No, they didn't want to die. If they wanted to die, they would have done it themselves.

They were offering themselves up as a heroic sacrifice. Because they're good people.

Luckily the people around them were also good people, and good people don't kill other good people to save the world unless there is absolutely no other option (and even then it's quite likely they wont be able to do it).

I'm not sure about you, but I would have found it very jarring indeed if any of the Avengers took Vision up on his suggestion when he proposed his own sacrifice.

Vision: ''Destroy the Stone and we all live.''
Cap/ Stark/ Thor: ''Sounds good to me buddy, any last words? (buries axe in Visions face)''

I'm not saying such an act isn't practical or effective; we're discussing whether good people could do such an act. Clearly they can (both Quill and Wanda both attempted to do just that) but only as an absolute last resort, when no other option reasonably presents itself, and after all other options have been tried and failed.

A good person would rather sacrifice their own life (heroic sacrifice) to prevent Thanos. As most (indeed every) Avenger all tried to do. It wasn't until Thanos was right there, and they realised there was no other way of stopping him, that Wanda and Quill both (extremely reluctantly) took Vision and Gamorra up on their offers.

You'll also note that the narrative was very clear that when they did so (When they demonstrated to Thanos they were prepared to kill the one the love ín order to save the Galaxy) he wasn't mad. In fact, he stopped each time they tried it to comment on just how impressed he was with what they were doing.

In other words, the Evil villain was impressed with the hero killing someone he loved 'for a greater good'. The reason being is that doing so is evil. The narrative (via Thanos' dialogue) was clear on this.

Thanos pauses to congratulate the Quill and Wanda on becoming (and acting) much as he would. As a monster prepared to kill the one you love for a higher purpose. The villain.

[Lvl45DM!]

Or any officer or NCO in any military anywhere.

Yeah.
A villain.

No but seriously, soldiers sign up with the expectation of being sacrificed to save others, thats sorta the point.

[Dr.Samurai]

No, they didn't want to die. If they wanted to die, they would have done it themselves.
Vision is unable to destroy the Mind Stone. Only Wanda can do it. Gamorra does try to kill herself later. The reason she asks Quill for his help is because presumably if Thanos has her to lead him to the Soul Stone, then she probably isn't in a position to take her own life.

I'm not sure why you're trying to strip context from my use of the word "want". Obviously this is a last resort effort, a back against the wall, no other way, we have to do this to stop Thanos decision. But it is still a choice. By all means ignore the word "want" and substitute "prefer", "chose", "asked", "requested", etc. The point is that it is different to what Thanos is doing and shouldn't be dismissed as a heroic sacrifice on the parts of Quill and Wanda.

They were offering themselves up as a heroic sacrifice. Because they're good people.

Luckily the people around them were also good people, and good people don't kill other good people to save the world unless there is absolutely no other option (and even then it's quite likely they wont be able to do it).

I'm not sure about you, but I would have found it very jarring indeed if any of the Avengers took Vision up on his suggestion when he proposed his own sacrifice.

Vision: ''Destroy the Stone and we all live.''
Cap/ Stark/ Thor: ''Sounds good to me buddy, any last words? (buries axe in Visions face)''
Yeah, that would have been uncharacteristic. I think that's obvious. Where you and I disagree is that when Wanda assists Vision in his heroic sacrifice (a sacrifice that is otherwise heroic according to you, and one that he wants to do but can't do on his own), it suddenly becomes an evil act.

I'm not saying such an act isn't practical or effective; we're discussing whether good people could do such an act.
Not really what I'm discussing. To me it's pretty obvious that they can. I was drawing a distinction between Thanos sacrificing Gamorra, and Quill killing Gamorra. I don't think they are the same, and I think Quill's action can be considered a heroic sacrifice. He is giving up the thing probably most precious to him in his life, but he isn't doing it for himself, he's doing it for Gamorra, who made a choice that she, as the only person that can lead Thanos to the soul stone, would rather die than serve that purpose, and she asked Quill to make that happen if she couldn't.

You are essentially taking away agency from both Vision and Gamorra by getting hung up on the word "want". They both made a choice. In the moment that I'm referring to (where Wanda and Quill attempt to kill them) they want to die. ***Quill and Wanda wouldn't take the actions they do if Gamorra and Vision didn't want it***.

Clearly they can (both Quill and Wanda both attempted to do just that) but only as an absolute last resort, when no other option reasonably presents itself, and after all other options have been tried and failed.

A good person would rather sacrifice their own life (heroic sacrifice) to prevent Thanos. As most (indeed every) Avenger all tried to do. It wasn't until Thanos was right there, and they realised there was no other way of stopping him, that Wanda and Quill both (extremely reluctantly) took Vision and Gamorra up on their offers.
Correct. None of this is in dispute. In fact, I made similar points in my first post...

You'll also note that the narrative was very clear that when they did so (When they demonstrated to Thanos they were prepared to kill the one the love ín order to save the Galaxy) he wasn't mad. In fact, he stopped each time they tried it to comment on just how impressed he was with what they were doing.

In other words, the Evil villain was impressed with the hero killing someone he loved 'for a greater good'. The reason being is that doing so is evil. The narrative (via Thanos' dialogue) was clear on this.

Thanos pauses to congratulate the Quill and Wanda on becoming (and acting) much as he would. As a monster prepared to kill the one you love for a higher purpose. The villain.
Put the Thanos kool-aid down for a second. He's a delusional narcissistic psychopath. You're not supposed to learn lessons from Thanos. He doesn't perceive reality through a similar lens to Malifice. Thanos thinks killing half the people in the universe is a good solution to the problem of resource scarcity. He thinks he loves Gamorra. He lets heroes live that will undoubtedly thwart his efforts in the next movie. The guy is not with it. I don't care that he sees a reflection of himself in Wanda's sacrifice, or Quill's sacrifice. He is wrong, and you are wrong for equating them as well. It simply is not the same thing.

If Vision's sacrifice of himself is heroic and good, but can only be done through Wanda's efforts, then it can (and will be) argued that Wanda's reluctant and heart-breaking efforts are also good and heroic.

But you argue that they are evil, with little to back it up beyond "Thanos thinks so".

[Goblin Slayer]

ummm i dunno if the op has seen the anime or read the manga but all might is pretty much the self sacrificing hero seeing as he got a prediction about his death that no matter how his sidekick tries to alter the outcome with his clairvoyance but all might still he comes out to be a pillar of hope to the world. he literally knows there will be one last battle that he will be killed in such a gruesome way his sidekick was not willing to tell him how. also his side kick knew the out come of trying to save a young girl from the yakuza would mean his death and he did it anyways.

i thin op is basically cherry picking stuff that the heroes seems to not make sacrifice or just did not partake any medium that had a self sacrificing hero. also willingly sacrificing people even if they are willing does not make it your sacrifice it makes it theirs.

[Dr.Samurai]

also willingly sacrificing people even if they are willing does not make it your sacrifice it makes it theirs.
So to be clear... you're saying that when Wanda destroys the Mind Stone, and Vision in the process, she has not sacrificed anything?

I don't dispute that Vision is making the ultimate sacrifice. But in the case of reluctantly killing your (willing) loved one, I don't see how the argument can be made that you have not sacrificed something...

[Malifice]

So to be clear... you're saying that when Wanda destroys the Mind Stone, and Vision in the process, she has not sacrificed anything?

I don't dispute that Vision is making the ultimate sacrifice. But in the case of reluctantly killing your (willing) loved one, I don't see how the argument can be made that you have not sacrificed something...

Yes. Vision was the one making the sacrifice; not Wanda.

Ditto Gamora and Quill.

You're missing a key element of the narrative of that film - killing people for the greater good is wrong. It's the central motive and justification of the protagonist and villain. He does so on his daughter and half the universe. Its expressly repudiated by all the heroes. When they do attempt to engage in the act, it's not only as last resort, but the villain and protagonist Thanos takes time to congratulate them on it, and each time it proves to be ultimately pointless or negated by Thanos.

Its reinforced by heroes refusing to let others die and capitulating to the villain instead (Loki, Gamorra, Strange).

Killing someone else you love isn't heroic self sacrifice even if they ask you to do it, or it's for some sort of 'greater good'. If you want to frame it as such be my guest but the movie was at great pains to say otherwise.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes. Vision was the one making the sacrifice; not Wanda.

Ditto Gamora and Quill.
Simply not true. You were hung up on the word "want" earlier and now I guess you're tripping up over "sacrifice" as well...

You're missing a key element of the narrative of that film - killing people for the greater good is wrong. It's the central motive and justification of the protagonist and villain. He does so on his daughter and half the universe. Its expressly repudiated by all the heroes. When they do attempt to engage in the act, it's not only as last resort, but the villain and protagonist Thanos takes time to congratulate them on it, and each time it proves to be ultimately pointless or negated by Thanos.
It's not the same thing.

Gamora and half the universe are not willingly sacrificing themselves to Thanos to save the rest of the universe. Killing half the universe is not a "last resort" to saving the universe from resource scarcity.

Thanos is insane and delusional. It's not the same thing the heroes are doing. I don't know why you keep equivocating here.

Killing someone else you love isn't heroic self sacrifice even if they ask you to do it, or it's for some sort of 'greater good'.
So you keep saying...

If you want to frame it as such be my guest but the movie was at great pains to say otherwise.
No it doesn't. You're making a moral argument. The movie shows us that even with personal sacrifice (assisted or otherwise), it may not be enough to defeat the big evil. That's not the same as saying it is wrong or evil to assist Vision in sacrificing himself.

There was never a question of destroying the Time Stone, Strange won't allow it. All Thanos has to do is get that stone and then he can undo any "sacrifice", whether it's personal or assisted. That includes Gamorra's sacrifice had it been successful, and we saw that happen with Vision's sacrifice. So what is the "moral lesson" there? It's the same. If the villain has enough power then nothing the heroes do matter. It's not commenting on whether it's evil or not to grant Gamorra's wish.

You don't derive evil from whether something is successful or not. Or maybe that's the argument you're making?

[Lethologica]

Yes. Vision was the one making the sacrifice; not Wanda.

Ditto Gamora and Quill.

You're missing a key element of the narrative of that film - killing people for the greater good is wrong. It's the central motive and justification of the protagonist and villain. He does so on his daughter and half the universe. Its expressly repudiated by all the heroes. When they do attempt to engage in the act, it's not only as last resort, but the villain and protagonist Thanos takes time to congratulate them on it, and each time it proves to be ultimately pointless or negated by Thanos.

Its reinforced by heroes refusing to let others die and capitulating to the villain instead (Loki, Gamorra, Strange).

Killing someone else you love isn't heroic self sacrifice even if they ask you to do it, or it's for some sort of 'greater good'. If you want to frame it as such be my guest but the movie was at great pains to say otherwise.
I didn't think I would say this about Infinity War, but the movie is more complex than that.

Trading lives doesn't work, in the sense that Thanos trivially overcomes it. Neither does not trading lives. Infinity War, part one, is partly a meditation on the spectrum of futile heroism: every hero is pushed to their last resort, and it still fails. We have heroes refusing to trade lives for emotional, principled, and utilitarian reasons; we have heroes resolving to trade lives for emotional, principled, and utilitarian reasons. The same heroes take different positions at different times in the movie when driven by different forces. Those who argue for sacrifice don't consistently lose the moral argument, and those who argue against it aren't consistently more effective.

Thanos is, like most Marvel villains, a dark inversion of heroic traits. That means heroic traits and acts can also be villainous. It does not mean those traits and acts cannot be heroic.

Beyond that...the text is not presumptively infallible. The movie can say something is or is not heroic self-sacrifice, and we can disagree. You can't go from "the movie was at great pains to say [killing someone else you love isn't heroic self-sacrifice]" straight to "Killing someone else you love isn't heroic self sacrifice" without any additional steps.

[Niek]

The perfect should never be allowed to be the enemy of the good. Seeking a better way is all well and good, but if the chips are down and you still havent found one, you need to make do with the options you have.