Code VS Killing Poll

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Because his motive is not to protect the innocent' date=' or defend the weak, but to punish the wicked. I think that this is an important distinction. People who consider the Punisher to be heroic, or the Authority to be villainous, would probably disagree.[/quote']

 

Then we can agree that the motive behind killing makes Heroic or nonheroic, we just disagree on the specifics. I can respect that.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Why they can't be satisfied' date=' or confortable, with the thought of the lives they have saved snuffing out the serial killer about to skin one more child, the mad bomber about to blow out a bus, or the crazed nihilistic demon-god about to snuff out the sun, instead of wallowing in remorse ?[/quote']Well, I guess they're worrying about whether they did the right thing.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Lets say I'm a superhero. I see a man beating his wife and I step in and stop him with physical force' date=' easily because I am superhuman and I snap his neck. That is murder. I did not have to kill him, yet I choose too. I'm sorry, comparing the "demonization" of say Spiderman or the X men to the antics of the Authority is reaching. They've murdered people, they turn to lethal force as the first and only option and demonstrate a practical contempt for life. That is why they are not Heroes in my eyes, but contemptible serial killers with delusion of granduer.[/quote']I personally think that the idea here was to have a superhero team with the power of a government actually using that power in a way that governments do. That is: I believe that this was a conscious device on the part of Warren Ellis, one that he used to create the moral content he was after for his book. Of course, I don't have any special insight into Ellis' thinking, and, without checking back through my complete collection, I can't be 100% sure that Ellis himself was responsible for this. All the same, I do believe that Ellis was looking to turn 4-colour conventions on their heads and inside out (what an understatement, heck he was trying to eviscerate them!). His method of doing this was to elevate a superteam to the level of power of a nation state, and then have them act as such, with all the consequences that entails.

 

I think we might be closer in opinion than it seems, but we're never quite going to meet. but to play Devils' Advocate for a second,

I don't get why the Authority's tactics are exceptable, but the Punishers are not. He is killing to protect/avenge people. He is killing "bad people" in surgical strikes that harm as few innocents as possible. I would wager the drug dealers and gang members that he's takekn out have actually saved quite a few lives. Addmitly, he hasn't saved the world. It is beyond his power to do so, but I imagine if he was a more powerful being he would be much like The Authority.

 

Why is he a "costumed serial killer" and the Authority are heroes?

An interesting point nexus. Well first off, to amplify what I said above, I would suggest that the writers of The Authority are consciously playing off the term 'collateral damage'. By setting up heroes who actually are trying to change the world for the better, albeit in a form that causes collateral damage on a scale compatible with the levels of power involved in the battles the Authority fight, I think that these writers are trying to make a point about real world governments who preside over similar scales of carnage, wring their hands, cry crocodile tears, and so on, but actually do nothing to stop these problems if they aren't actually complicit in them. In other words, we are dealing with an artistic conception expressing a definite viewpoint here. If you like the viewpoint and buy into the artistic conceit, then the Authority are heroes; if you don't, then they are crypto-fascist psycopaths.

 

Another aspect of the matter is largely historical I suggest. The Punisher appeared when 4-colour still largely ruled unchallenged. So at the time his schtick was that he was a vigilante. This IIRC- I only read a few Punisher stories) meant more than just that he went out and picked on criminals. His raison d'etre was that the law was an ass, wasn't it? He believed that he has a mission to use violence to do the job that the law couldn't, yes? I suppose you could say that a big difference between him and the Authority is that the Authority want to change the social, legal and political structure per se (though I think I am reading a bit between the lines here), while he just wants to mete out rough justice to those who the law can't touch. A classic vigilante in other words. If a character like the Punisher was to be created today (I mean, assuming that such a character hadn't already been done to death, but assuming the current post-4-colour trends), then I suspect he might be presented and perceived quite differently. He was a victim of his circumstances in terms of his perception in other words.

 

So I guess I'd have to say that the Punisher is a vigilante because he falls within the classic definition of one; the Authority aren't vigilantes because they don't. Whether that makes one better than the other is a different matter though, one which is as much a matter of personal taste as anything else IMO.

 

-EDIT- PS. I've just noticed that nexus was talking about the Punisher being a "costumed serial killer" while I was talking about him being a vigilante, which is not the same thing. Ah well.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Because his motive is not to protect the innocent' date=' or defend the weak, but to punish the wicked. I think that this is an important distinction. People who consider the Punisher to be heroic, or the Authority to be villainous, would probably disagree.[/quote']

 

 

To be fair, The Authority crossed that line a while ago. They are no longer simply protecting the weak but are now actively seeking out those they feel are a menace and (usually) killing someone to get their point across. On occasion the recipient of their judgment might not have done anything yet (or anything warranting a death sentence). Yes, they are ruthlessly defending the world and the people in it from "evil", but it's more from a "this is OUR world now" feeling than any sense of altruism. Fighting fire with fire isn't heroic in my opinion.

 

Mags' comments regarding vigilantes vs. superheroes should be reiterated, too. Punisher is a true vigilante and shouldn't be held in comparison to those who label themselves "true" superheroes. I think the current discussion is focusing more on traditional heroes, not vigilantes, so I don't think Punisher has a place in it.

 

To put another point on it, at least from the comics perspective, a hero is one who, despite having powers and abilities far beyond those of normal men, CHOOSE to place the same moral and ethical limitations on what they do that a normal person would. In other words, they don't consider themselves above anyone in the grand scheme of things. The Authority does, and they've done away with the morality of killing because they automatically assume they're right, and that's why I wouldn't consider them true heroes in the comic book world. Yes, they can be heroic, but they're not heroes.

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

What you see as "angst and crocodile tears", I see as moral dilema, questioning your action and, well, basically not being a hardened borderline psycho. I've read pretty much every issue of that series. The characters kill without hesistation or thought.

 

Maybe you have missed the instances where they spare redeeamable opponents (the Iron Man clone, Dr.Kriegstein) and/or where killing would not be the best option for the greater good. OTOH, they generally kill either in the heat of battle, in war situations, when the survival of millions is clearly at stand (murderous superhuman clones or invaders from alternate Earth bombing cities, cthulhoid god-thing about to exterminate all life on Earth), or in cold blood, scum who really deserved it (power-crazy psycopath destroying cities just to make a point; chief of an imperialistic culture who put up indiscriminate genocide and rape as an ideal; president of genocidal Third-World regime; superhuman who practices mass murder for sexual thrill; U.S. president and corporate executives who sent child-molester, serial-killer super-assassin to eliminate them and had put them through heineous torture). You might argue that intensity of evil in their opponents and the frequency they show up is unrealistic, and I won't contest the point. However, when they can, they avoid unnecessary killing (they do not firebomb Russian and Chinese tropps invading Cechenyia and Tibet; they give an ultimatum and offer them option to pull out or surrender), and they do periodic soul-searching (not in the heat of battle, which would be plain stupid), but in the quiet moments, when they ask thrmselves about why they do what they do, and if they are doing the correct thing(cfr. Jenny Sparks, Jack Hawksmoor, Engineer, in several issues). And they manage to defeat unstoppable menace by using empathy (Tank Man, renegade Doctor). As regards the sinking of Italy on alternate Earth, yeah, that was tough, and proably a lot of innocents died, too. Yet they were in a war situation, dealing with headquarter area of a world-wide expansionistic, aggressive culture gloryfing genocide and rape. And destroying it gives the rest of that world a chance to shake off their masters, and eliminates the menace to other dimensions. Allied powers did nothing different, carpet-bombing German cities and killing a lot of innocent civilians, in order to put an end to Nazism.

 

What really struck me was when they were replaced by the "evil Authority" for awhile, aside for having a somewhat different agenda I couldn't tell any major difference in their attitudes about taking life.

 

um, yeah, just like when new Authority dumps overboard refugees the old Authority had sheltered, being aware some of them are still alive, or when they exterminate future superhero squad sent to block ecological nearsightedness tha would endanger the future, or kill humanitarian providers to steal their provisions. Old Authority kills to end menaces to communities, humanity or Earth,always mindful of the greater good; new Authority kills to protect the privileges of their political and corporate overlord, disregarding the spiritual (razing collective memory of mankind for development), environemental (killing pacific environmental actvists) and social harm to humanity. Just the same thing, sure.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I wanted to see, during the US take over arc, a group of young idealistic (and in that world, to be fair, extremely naieve) metahumans try to beat the Authority when they take over. In their typical fashion, these supers are killed to a man. And later the Authority find out that they were actually decent, likeable people, not the typical psychopathic caricatures they ususally fight. I think the reaction would be intereseting. Vigilante Mentality is a psych lim as much as Cvk and should be tested as well.

 

Actually, I wonder about that take over. I never saw the actual issues where they did it. How did they handle the soliders, secret service and cops that would, of course, try to stop them. Kill them without hesistation or did they pull punches?

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Maybe you have missed the instances where they spare redeeamable opponents (the Iron Man clone, Dr.Kriegstein) and/or where killing would not be the best option for the greater good.

 

-SNIP-

 

Old Authority kills to end menaces to communities, humanity or Earth,always mindful of the greater good; new Authority kills to protect the privileges of their political and corporate overlord, disregarding the spiritual (razing collective memory of mankind for development), environemental (killing pacific environmental actvists) and social harm to humanity. Just the same thing, sure.

Hear hear! Well said that man!

 

PS. Obviously my attempt to prevent this becoming an 'Authority good or bad' thread failed miserably. Oh well, I'll just have to kill you all now I guess...

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Maybe part of the problem here, you know with people disagreeing in general, is that the original question, or poll rather, was posted here under the "Champions" group or threads. So it automatically falls under the basic Superhero guideline, I think, that heroes are heroes period.

 

Dark Champions (street level, vigilante et all) should be discussed in another area of these boards. This same question could be posted in each of the genres and get different answers. But trying to lump it all together, like some of you guys are doing, will only confuse the issue and create more arguments.

 

Check the board, guys... this is the Champions area. The original poster indicated "Superheroes" in his poll. That should mean something, right? So why bring in Punisher, Batman and other street-level concepts into the mix? For what purpose than to muddy the waters?

 

For discussions that include all genres and are not rules-related, topics should go to the General Gaming area.

 

 

Mags

[Blue]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

That was pretty entertaining there, Mags.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Maybe part of the problem here, you know with people disagreeing in general, is that the original question, or poll rather, was posted here under the "Champions" group or threads. So it automatically falls under the basic Superhero guideline, I think, that heroes are heroes period.

 

Dark Champions (street level, vigilante et all) should be discussed in another area of these boards. This same question could be posted in each of the genres and get different answers. But trying to lump it all together, like some of you guys are doing, will only confuse the issue and create more arguments.

Mags

Erm, I have to say that the Authority aspect of the debate raises pretty much the same issues about power, violence, etc, and they aren't street level. Oh, and don't you think that the exchanges have calmed down a little and are now a bit more like an actual debate? Hmm?

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Mags' comments regarding vigilantes vs. superheroes should be reiterated, too. Punisher is a true vigilante and shouldn't be held in comparison to those who label themselves "true" superheroes. I think the current discussion is focusing more on traditional heroes, not vigilantes, so I don't think Punisher has a place in it.

 

Thanks Vanguard. I was starting to think my posts were invisible. Whew, glad to know they aren't.

 

Cheers,

 

Mags

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The psychopathic little tin gods in The Authority... calling them "heroes" is incorrect because they are not heroes in any sense of the word... kill casually and without remorse. In recent issues, Midnighter said he wanted to kill something just because he was having a bad day. So he went out and killed people.

 

Just because he was having a bad day.

 

Oh, please. He cracks a macho, intimidating one-liner just as he is about to enter a battle with murderous opponents. Prove is, he never uses such phrases except when he is a bout to enter battle with opponents who deserve lethal force. He's doing nothing different from countless soldiers in countless battles. He says this when he is about to battle murderous superhumans who are razing cities and killing hordes of innocent civilians. He does not say it when he is about to shoot jaywalkers or random

 

If being happy of putting an end to mass murderers makes one a psychopath, maybe the world needs more such psychopaths.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The Authority "spared" one guy that I saw. A super soldier, power suit guy that Midnighter -couldn't- kill. That was why he turned to non lethal tactics. His first thought, his standard operating prodcedure failed. That was my entire point about why I don't consider them Heroes, but apparently you can understand the difference or someone actually putting some value on the act of killing.

 

Look, if you want to start a thread talking about how "cool" the Authority is, go start one. I promise I won't come and say anything at all. I've stopped with Authority sux stuff on this one.

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Erm' date=' I have to say that the Authority aspect of the debate raises pretty much the same issues about power, violence, etc, and they aren't street level. Oh, and don't you think that the exchanges have calmed down a little and are now a bit more like an actual debate? Hmm? [/quote']

 

Yes, they have calmed down. I was just reminding people to look at the section of the board we are in... people forget sometimes.

 

I don't read The Autority, but I get it that they are not a traditional hero team, though they are at the same powerlevel as most tradtional superhero teams.

 

Brings up another point: Does power level automatically make the genre? I don't think so. Power and points shouldn't make a difference in a discussion like this. I've seen instances where a teen-team of superheroes are lowpowered, while street-level PCs can be built on higher point levels. Its the concept of the genre that decides what is applicable and acceptable when it comes to purposefully using your powers to kill (murder). Accidental deaths happen in any genre. Negligence happens in any genre, too.

 

In the example I stated above, for what had happened in our game, Witchcraft's death was due to extreme negligence on Dominis' part. Whether that comes out in the end is still only my guess. The sad part is that the PC had no remorse and the Player went, "Oh well", shrug.

 

Without sounding too preachy, Superheroes shouldn't be heartless killers. Ever. If you want to run the other kind... the anit-hero (i.e. Wolverine) either be prepared to face the music or play in a different genre is all I'm saying.

 

Mags

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I should add that I am currently reading the Dark Phoenix Saga. I am still reading it and since I don't recall the outcome I'll say just this: Wolverine ripped up a number of agents (I assumed they were all killed) in the Hellfire Club; while Dark Phoenix killed an entire planet, over 5 billion beings, when she consumed their sun and it went supernova on them, destroying all the planets in the system.

 

Wolverine never has to own up to his killing sprees. I don't recall this ever being an issue with him either. Regarding his fighting style, the other X-Men just look away. Does that make them accomplices, I wonder?

 

Dark Phoenix, or rather, Jean Grey never has to pay for her crimes either. Interesting how the X-Men stand behind her all the way, claiming that she didn't do the deed... it was 'The Dark Phoenix' which is, essentially her with all her powers unleashed.

 

Was Jean Grey out of her mind? Insane? Would it hold up in defense now that she has regained her former state of mind? Should she still be punished?

 

Is this a case of bad writing (incontinuity)? Some would say yes. Others would say that what they did will eventually catch up to them. Personally, I don't consider either of them Superheroes. Superpowered, yes. But not heroes.

 

And Beast, who was on duty for the Avengers, erased the tape, stole the Avenger's jet and left his post without letting anyone know... all so he could go help the X-Men. We know where his alliegence is. I wonder if that was addressed, too?

 

 

 

Mags

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

He (Wanderer) has in the past said that a true superhero would do things like sink whaling ships because they are evil, destroy polluting factories, because they are evil, and slaughter wholesale those governments which do things that Wanderer considers evil.

 

(BTW, he's expressly said that the entire US government would then go on the chopping block...)

 

So consider yourself corrected, Raven Sorry about that.

 

To put things into persepctive, I also said that they would take care that innocents (ship crews and factory workers) are spared, and they would do such things to put environment-harming activities out of business, and they would slaughter dictatorial and genocidal governments, and that a democratic government that was willing to risk nuclear destruction of earth just to prevent revolutionary superheroes to enforce theri agenda on them would be genocidal, and therefore worth extermination.

 

The US government bit: I said that I hate and despise Bush and his cronies so much that if I run a "cosmic superhumans at war vs. governments" scenario, I would make sure that it would include a scene of superhumans storming White House, deposing Bush on live TV and executing him (but I would make sure there would be good dramatic justification for the act, such as sending super-assassins against characters and loved ones, or ordering to use WMD in populated areas to eliminate the characters), just as sheer wish fulfillment, and because it would be a really epic and dramatic scene. Hey ID4's director blew up White House, and Mark Millar did the "White House Sotrming" scene twice, why couldn't I?

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The Authority "spared" one guy that I saw. A super soldier, power suit guy that Midnighter -couldn't- kill. That was why he turned to non lethal tactics. His first thought, his standard operating prodcedure failed. That was my entire point about why I don't consider them Heroes, but apparently you can understand the difference or someone actually putting some value on the act of killing.

 

I have to respectfully diasgree with you on both counts. First, they also spare Dr. Kriegstein, when they realize he was sincerely trying to take over the world in order to save it from environmental-social foreseen collapse (hey, he's a supergenius able to create generations of superheroes, maybe he has a point), and he is liable to try his social engineering in Third-world nations who welcome it, and keeping him alive and putting his genius to productive work is the best fro the greater good. True, they spare very little opponents. Yet, it is also true that very few of their opponents deserve to be spared: run the list: mass murderer/genocidal superhumans or politicians or godlike beings, with little or no redeeming features. You may argue that the writer is extremizind on this to make across a political point, and I won't argue. Yet, in the Authority's world, ther's plenty that deserve killing.

 

On the second, I find it unplausible, that Midnighter would find Tank Man "unbeatable". He has dispatched far worse. Rather, he senses Tank Man is in the same quandary he was years ago before he defected, and shows his opponent a way out, drawing from his own experience.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

... and they would slaughter dictatorial and genocidal governments...

 

You are as entitled as anyone else to a little harmless "if I had a rocket launcher" fantasy now and then, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "slaughter" and "superhero" are two words which I do not ordinarily associate with one another.

 

(That's your cue, Worldmaker. )

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

To put another point on it' date=' at least from the comics perspective, a hero is one who, despite having powers and abilities far beyond those of normal men, CHOOSE to place the same moral and ethical limitations on what they do that a normal person would. In other words, they don't consider themselves above anyone in the grand scheme of things. The Authority does, and they've done away with the morality of killing because they automatically assume they're right, and that's why I wouldn't consider them true heroes in the comic book world. Yes, they can be heroic, but they're not heroes.[/quote']

 

Here's one of the main cruxes of the current debate. Your definition *might* be true in strictly 4-color superhero context. Yet the genre has greatly broadened beyond that. You are certainly entitled to feel that non-4-color superheroes are no more true superheroes, though the fact they exist in source material has enlerged the frame of reference, and your definition no longer satisfies the reference material. Besides, being willing to kill and being willing to ignore laws are wholly different, if interrelated things (though I'm well aware that in your view, ingoring the law, too, disqualifies superheroes from your strict standard).

 

I utterly fail to see the point or the meaning of the final line. How can one be heroic, yet not being an hero ???

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

You are as entitled as anyone else to a little harmless "if I had a rocket launcher" fantasy now and then, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "slaughter" and "superhero" are two words which I do not ordinarily associate with one another.

 

(That's your cue, Worldmaker. )

 

Sorry if my choice of words offends your sensibilities. Let's then say they would "put an end to", "remove" or "eliminate" genocidal dictators .

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The Authority "spared" one guy that I saw. A super soldier, power suit guy that Midnighter -couldn't- kill. That was why he turned to non lethal tactics. His first thought, his standard operating prodcedure failed. That was my entire point about why I don't consider them Heroes, but apparently you can understand the difference or someone actually putting some value on the act of killing.

 

I have to respectfully diasgree with you on both counts. First, they also spare Dr. Kriegstein, when they realize he was sincerely trying to take over the world in order to save it from environmental-social foreseen collapse (hey, he's a supergenius able to create generations of superheroes, maybe he has a point), and he is liable to try his social engineering in Third-world nations who welcome it, and keeping him alive and putting his genius to productive work is the best fro the greater good. True, they spare very little opponents. Yet, it is also true that very few of their opponents deserve to be spared: run the list: mass murderer/genocidal superhumans or politicians or godlike beings, with little or no redeeming features. You may argue that the writer is extremizind on this to make across a political point, and I won't argue. Yet, in the Authority's world, ther's plenty that deserve killing.

 

On the second, I find it unplausible, that Midnighter would find Tank Man "unbeatable". He has dispatched far worse. Rather, he senses Tank Man is in the same quandary he was years ago before he defected, and shows his opponent a way out, drawing from his own experience.

 

You can only disagree with me on one count. Its the only one I commented on. As I recall, Midnighter was at a disadvantage at the time and had to come up with another way to defeat his opponent. So it was no act "mercy". But as I said, why don't you start an Authority is great thread?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

How can one be heroic' date=' yet not being an hero ???[/quote']

 

Vanguard00 may be using "hero" in an archetypal sense. Sort of like the D&D difference between small-e evil and big-e Evil. There is a genuine difference, but it's not something one can easily measure (or agree upon).

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It is clear that Wanderer just doesn't understand.

 

I'm done trying to argue with him. In my opinion, facism is something to be fought, not something to be promoted. He obviously disagrees. I'll pity him, but I'm done with actually responding to him.

 

If advocating revolutionary means to promote a political agenda means fascism to you, I hope you are not currently taking political science or history courses, cause you'd need to do much better than this.

[JohnOSpencer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

SNIP

Question for the "Heroes NEVER Kill" camp: What happens when a villain with a known murderous streak threatens an innocent with certain and instantaneous death, unless you comply with "X" immediately? Hint: Hitting said villain with your stongest attack and HOPING or ASSUMING he'll survive is, IMHO, the same as choosing to kill. Let's also assume for the moment that you can't entangle the villain, put some kind of defense on the impending victim, or teleport either target. Basically, you can't just negate the threat, you have to use a damaging attack.

 

Characters in that type of campaign shouldn't be put in that type of situation. Those kinds of situations should always have a way out in any campaign where anyone was required/encouraged to take a total CVK.

 

John Spencer

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I think it's valid for a lot of characters not that they necessarily would slide down the slope' date=' but they are afraid they would. Most Supers who are forced to make this consideration have looked into the abyss.[/quote']

 

Fair enough, I'll grant it may be more common. But I think the core point is that then the more we have that the less 4-color it is. I mean, really, how often did this come up in the Silver and early Bronze?

 

Batman is the clear worst case example, and it's due to the psychotic nature of many of his villains, and the writers' propensity to (over) use them, exacerbated by having 4+ books a month.

 

I think Magneto and Doom are quite capable of taking lives if it suits their purposes, but it's a means to an end, unlike Joker and friends for whom the killing is the end unto itself.

 

However, anyone committing grandiose acts to take over the world has dfoubtless got some blood on his hands. Magneto has used EM pulses that knock out the power grid - was no one on life support? Were there no traffic fatalities?

 

[nb: Ignoring the most recent Magneto arc in X-men because "it was an imposter", of course]

 

Realistically, but don't forge tthe heroes knock down buildings and fight super-battles which would normally leave scores dead. We rarely, if ever, saw the horrid results you describe (though in a real world they would happen) and in fact were rarely given anything that alluded to them. Worst I remember of Doom was the occassional hapless aide or the not-being-executed but still miserable wretches of his kingdom.

 

I definitely agree that, if you want the players to adhere to a code vs killing, it's important to provide villains and a world setting which make this a viable strategy. The revolving door of psychpaths definitely discourages that approach, encouraging a more final solution. This makes the psychopaths more appropriate to a darker game setting, whether more grim supers or Dark Champions.

 

This does, however, support the view that Supers who don't kill are more "heroic". The villains used for "heros who kill" must commonly be portrayed as more ruthless, maniacal, vile and/or evil so that their killers will look more heroic by comparison.

 

Or "more" heroic.