Well, are we deciding based upon "Who has undeniably had a positive effect on their surroundings" or who has "proven to be of pure heart"? Because those are two very different things.
Well, are we deciding based upon "Who has undeniably had a positive effect on their surroundings" or who has "proven to be of pure heart"? Because those are two very different things.
Hero's are just those admired for their "good" qualities.
Personally, I think the action is what matters, and the intent is meaningless. So, I'd have to go with House for saving Vegas, or a White Knight Courier, since those two are the ones who have brought the most happiness to the most amount of people.
By that logic, a soldier that accidently shoots his comrade/friend in the crossfire is evil.
I was merely arguing that there's a reason every modern court system includes intent as a valuable defining quality of a criminal.
If you want my opinion, the deed itself and the intent go hand in hand, just like they do in any modern court system.
That's why my vote goes to Mobius. Because he neither wanted to harm anyone AND reluctantly offered up 200 years of his life to go about attempting to solve the problem without having to resort to murder.
I said the action is what matters in determining a hero, not that it determines whether something is "good" or "evil". A soldier killed by an enemy or friendly fire is just as dead. The player can kill Kimball because they think he's a tyrant, because s/he is fanatically loyal to Caesar, or because he owed him/her caps - the end result is the same.
A hero is defined as someone admired by their noble qualities. To me, the intent doesn't determine if someone is a hero. If someone is trying to shoot a crippled orphan, but misses and shoots a terrorist who was about to detonate a nuke, well, that makes his actions heroic to me.
That's why House's saving of Vegas is heroic to me, regardless of why he did it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIWHMb3JxmE