Thread:NerdWithAKeyboard/@comment-29414935-20200207171733

I know that heroes have an "Admirable Standard" like villains have the "Heinous Standard". But in my view, it's way easier to decide which villains are Pure Evil than which heroes are Pure Good. Because you can do more with crimes than heroic deeds in my opinion. Like you can make a villain who destroys planets and another one who kills mutliple children, and boom! You have two Pure Evil villains!

With heroes it's way harder, because most good guys do similar things, like rescuing lifes, hold motivational speeks, helping others in danger etc. So it's harder for them to stand out. But I saw we have many heroes that haven't done something special in comparisson to other heroes but they still count. But also, I don't know if it was category abuse before the rules were made.

Another thing is, that I don't know which would be flaws that would be disqualifier for a Pure Good hero. I know there are some approved ones who have mistakes or said something bad but still count. I agree that they are Pure Good, but still saying. It also would be not logical, because everyone has flaws, and it makes better Pure Good than the lame standard ones who are always good without mistakes. Like for example, Captain America form the MCU has made an mistake as he lied to Tony and broke his heart. But he had done so, because he wanted not to break his heart and keep him and Bucky save. And also, Cap says a funny line in Endgame, that sounds a little arrogant, when he looks on his past self and says "That's america's ass". Or Ant-Man from the MCU who is annoyed of the stupid boy in the ice cream shop he is working at the beginning. Or Izuku and All-Might, where All-Might says "shit" or Izuku calls Bakugo an "idiot" and "unsympathic person". Or Black Panther from the MCU who first wanted to kill Bucky and avenge his father but then learned that revenge blinded him and almost let him killed the wrong person. They also can kill villains, even in brutal but quick ways if it's self-defense, like Link for example. So that all are minor things, and I agree that they don't stop them from counting.

But at what point does a good person really counts as a hero or as a Pure Good hero? Because most characters are just good civilians and not heroes. Heroes do something outstanding and not the "norm" stuff.

I have two heroes in my one story who are some of my most likeable heroes ever, and the purest of the pure. I know that heroes also have to stand out and that a "sweet and friendly person" isn't instantly Pure Good. But I think these two do enough and no other character in the story comes near to them, that's why the two only would count in my opinion. But I could be wrong and also not sure about the deuteragonist. So the protagonist was an bully victim and always never defended himself because we wasn't violent or vengeful. Later he shows his childhood love interest his love and they form a relationship. He is later on adventures and saves people's lifes, even the one of his former bully who wanted to kill him or his little niece who was in danger. He also saves his island from bigger evil. His girlfriend is the deuteragonist. She may not be an life or island saver like her boyfriend but she does other outstanding deeds. Like protecting her boyfriend or other bully victims from bullying and bullies and always is positive, even to villains or bad people, and rarely to never being angry at someone. Also she always gives people hopes and helps them in bad situations, like a voice of reason. 