Very much agreed, (especially on the point of why are we sparing corrupt billionaires) but with one small amendment.
Story-wise, if you’re planning for you Protag to spare the Big Bad, you CAN have them kill.
This can be by accident, or in self defence, or even be a group tragically killed somehow. It can be a named character or even just a random grunt. But it can only be done once. And it must be traumatic, a despairing event. Hell, it could be a side character who does the killing, but leaves the hero disturbed. It needs to leave the Protag shaken, showing the Protag can’t stand killing. This then pays off against the Big Bad, when the Protag tries to kill them, but can’t bring themselves to do it, or bravely doesn’t even try.
Of course, you don’t need this kill, but it can make things a bit more complex for a growing hero. Let the audience see how they react to killing before they climactically spare someone.
I’ve always found this point interesting. This whole idea of sparing the villains has roots in the old idea that revenge is evil.
You must let your anger go. Revenge is a poison. When you take revenge, you dig two graves. And of course, the old classics Don’t lower yourself to their level. If you kill them, you’ll be just like them.
It’s an old trope, and one media has had fun with, but also one its been tied down by. It’s one of the reasons we like antiheroes, because they’re not so bound by this code and will kill a rat bastard. It’s one of the common complaints of heroes (Batman keeps sparing Joker). There’s this feeling in media that a good character is often one kill away from corruption, that they’ll lose all restraint and start killing after that. Then again, there are characters who kill once and swear off it forever after that. Often, it’s because of an age rating, as you can’t have your kid hero kill the bad guy.
(As OP said, it’s almost like we’re teaching the kids “Please spare the corrupt power mad dictator. Don’t kill the man who’s oppressing you”. Funny that.)
Then sometimes you get The Captain from Netflix Castlevania: “Revenge is good. Bastards need punishing.”
You need to know your own character’s moral code and how okay they are with a little murder. Whether they would spare the oppressive tyrant/billionaire/CEO. It can tell us, the reader/viewer, a lot about this character you want us to care about. And it needs to stay morally consistent. It can change, but we need to see how and why, and what leads to that change, and that operates in both directions. Why would they kill henchmen, but spare the boss? Has something happened between those two points to change their view? Or is the writer just bending to the old trope that Revenge=Evil? Is a corporation just telling you violence is never the answer, while doing things that leave violence as the only answer.
I don’t know where I’m going with this, but yeah, back to the topic, you can’t have your “hero” mow down armies, then balk at killing the commander. If anything, that dishonours every death before they “do the right thing”. I always like to imagine the villain, now spared, would look at the carnage and think “What the fuck! Were my men’s lives not worth anything?”
There are stories out there where the hero is easily a bigger monster than the villain, but the writer didn’t do it on purpose.
