The Politics Of Hitman


An interesting discussion.

And while I don’t think Hitman should court controversy for controversy’s sake, I would like one or two contracts to plainly illustrate that the ICA is not a moral organization. That’s one of the things that makes it interesting to me, and differentiates it from similar groups, like Third Echelon or MI-6.

Now and again, a hit should make us feel uneasy, if not outright disgusted.

I agree with Pitman that killing a rape victim on behalf of her rapist is much too far; but killing a rich and miserly old man on behalf of an emotionally neglected son who wants to inherit his father’s wealth is, I feel, more acceptable, and it still does a nice job of making the player feel morally conflicted and driving home the point that 47 isn’t a hero, or even an anti-hero, but an impartial tool, a weapon.

P.S. The inspiration for my example is J. Paul Getty from the film “All the Money in the World”: the kind of target who isn’t evil, and who doesn’t deserve death, but who has enough unflattering qualities to prevent the player from feeling like an unmitigated monster for killing him. lol


Kinda like the perfect ground between a literal dictator and a innocent baby?


Yes, nationalists tend to have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.


I’d much rather it be “mired in controversy” for shitting on far right types than for embarrasing sexism (ie Saints trailer). Although in an era where killing Nazis in Wolftenstein is considered by some to be “too political”, you never know how the entitled, whining gamer crowd will react.


Yeah. It’d take some thought from IOI’s writers, but I’m sure they could come up with a few interesting targets who fit the criteria, leaving us with the sense that 47 is a bad dude without destroying our positive image of him.

I just don’t always want to feel like my hands are spotlessly clean when I’ve murdered someone for money. It’s a dark business. Let’s not pretend 47 is doing the Lord’s work. lol


Oh I’m in no two minds, fuck nationalism and the far right, I myself am a socialist, if we wish to go into politics.


Look at it this way - Targets in Hitman will almost always be powerful and they will almost always be bad. If not outright bad, then they’ll be morally ambiguous and prone to corruption. Powerful people attract a lot of enemies. Not only that, nobody wants to play a video game where they go around brutally enforcing the status quo, destroying dissent with violence, enacted on behalf of brutal tyrannical despots. That makes for a dark, depressing and cynical experience.

I’d rather play the game where you’re picking off the power brokers, the dictators, and so on - Not killing a heavily guarded charity worker because of muh edge.


Agreed. Any morally grey type contracts shouldn’t just be on John down the road or whatever, the ICA also costs quite a lot as a service, so it wouldn’t make sense for it to just be used to crush small fry’s.


Also before I forget - fuck off


I wouldn’t mind more innocent targets.

47 is a contract killer, but the way things are going he’s becoming more of a superhero. Contracts mode alleviates it a bit though, but that’s not canon.


Why, though? Why would a completely innocent, innocuous person with no enemies get marked for assassination? Who did they piss off?


Domestic disputes with the rich, don’t want to pay the divorce settlement so they hire the very best to frame it as an accident.


If the client is a bad guy, the guy he wants killed can be a good guy. An incorruptible politician, someone who slept with the wrong person’s wife, the head of a competing firm making life difficult for someone, the list goes on and on.
The ICA is neutral, not good or bad. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to think that some kind of outright criminal organisation would enlist them. Or some rich but petty civilian holding a petty grudge.


I get the idea that perhaps a huge corporation would want to assassinate people much like Diana’s parents but, at the same time, it is a bit more fun killing wanks. Penelope Graves seemed pretty a-OK


The ICA are neutral. The people hiring the ICA clearly are not neutral. Wanting someone dead is not an act of neutrality.

I have no interest in playing a game where you go around on behalf of a genocidal regime, killing aid workers or doctors in warzones. I want to be the equalizer, the angel of death come to take the lives of the powerful, well guarded global elite - Not some petty thug who kills at the behest of some corporate overlord.


Then superhero games are your thing! Lucky for you there are plenty out there :slight_smile:


So Hitman is a Superhero game now? Because the dynamic is decent how it is now in my opinion. No reason to change it for the sake of edgelord schlock.


Plus the ICA have rules to not go against the interest of alliances they have with the FBI, CIA ect so it’s highly unlikely you’d see 47 killing for a dictator. Corporate is different though


There’s many ways to go about this. Just because someone pisses off another (or gives motive for killing them) doesn’t make them ‘not innocent’.

Perhaps a better way of saying would be more innocent targets.

If some douchebag oil tycoon (Koch Brothers) has enough money to pay ICA for granny down the road to get killed so they can put an oil rig over the grandkid’s backyard, I’m okay with it.

As said earlier by @David47, some hits should have us walking away uneasy & queasy.


Stop assigning motives to my arguments. Yesterday it was sexism, today it’s a desire to be edgy. You know full well that kind of thing is pushing buttons. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

I just think there’s no reason at all within the Hitman universe why 47 should only be going after bad guys. Contract killing is a nasty business. It’s about money, not about morals. And 47, in case you missed it, is a contract killer. One who’s genetically designed to feel no emotions.