Trencher

I'm not sure that I completely understand what you're going for here.
 
1) You're allowing the people, who are already magic-users, to buy these powers which generally have severe limitations.
 
2) The powers are tied to how the player is expecting to roleplay the character? I think? So what happens if the character doesn't roleplay the character like that? Does he keep the power? Lose the power? Lose the power plus get refunded the points he paid for it? I'm not quite sure I understand how you visualize this working.
 
Anyway, supposing you have magic-users who buy these powers with severe limitations which are tied (in some manner) to the way they're roleplaying.
 
Some of the powers are very, very small...which would be a major concern of mine if I were a player. I might not know exactly what I'm going to do with a character when I'm first starting out with it and expect that I'll grow into a pattern of behavior based on events in the campaign. I wouldn't want to lock myself into a type of behavior in exchange for a very, very small power that I have to pay for anyway.
 
(And how does the +3 PRE for the Kind hero work? I pay 3 points to get 3 points worth of characteristics then have to lock myself into roleplaying a certain way? And I suppose the characteristic bonuses would allow characters to go over the characteristic maximum? Or not?)
 
I suppose the powers are persistent and don't count against any "maximum number of spells you can have active" cap but still I wouldn't be very attracted to that in the form you've proposed here. (But I'll admit to being highly allergic to anything which smells like D&D alignment railroads so I might not be the typical player.) 
 
Now for specific tweaks,
 
Refined hero: +1 ocv skill level vs worthy enemies. Worthy here being enemies that are more powerful and have more CV than the hero. "More powerful" is a GM judgement call that I'd be leery of. But if I were playing a magic-user with AoE spells so that I could have a very low CV, I'd love this one. More cheese, hands down.
 
Pure hero: plus 3 power defense vs evil magic. Even with magic being fairly common, power defense doesn't come into play very often. Very situational to meet an opponent which has an ability which interacts with power defense and even then, there's no guarantee that the Pure hero would be the target. I'd think something which would kick in at least every other session would be needed in order to keep the player from thinking he made a mistake picking this.
 
Kind hero: +3 presence. Maybe useful if you want to go over CHA maxima? If you aren't, not sure why you'd pick this immediately rather than waiting until you have 3 points to buy up PRE.
 
Logical hero: +1 dcv skill level vs monsters and weird creatures. Where others might panic or be stunned the logical hero just analyze the situation and does whats necessary...you make the logical hero sound like he should have PRE defense instead. But the DCV would probably be more useful.
 
Loyal hero: I am thinking +5 ego if their friends are in danger and maybe even +3 in con only to avoid getting stunned as well...getting 5 EGO which won't be useful often or that plus 3 CON which would be useful literally all the time. But eight active points of benefits when other hero powers get only three....
 
Balanced hero: This interesting and rare hero could get +1 to all skills as they are careful and thoughtful about what they do. This is a hell of a big benefit compared to many other powers. Any character who is a skill-monster would pick this one. Maybe interesting but this hero isn't going to be rare (unless your whole campaign is a slugfest which doesn't use skills).
 
 
All of the archetypes are put forward as "heroes". I think you might think about putting the ones who aren't blatantly heroes forward as "archetype" or "character" instead of "hero". I don't particularly want my GM trying to lock me into the role of "hero". And when I can afford to be picky about GM's, I'd be leery of joining a campaign which presented me with a choice of what kind of "hero" I'd like to be when I'm not even sure yet how heroic I want my character to be.
 
I can understand a GM not wanting to run a campaign for villains. But at the same time, there are bards, thieves, card sharps, and a whole assortment of other characters who don't particularly think of themselves as heroes...even if they end up playing the hero more often than they'd strictly like. 
 
It just seems to send a wonky message to players who are thinking they want to be the thieving, killing, mercenary Conan or a Bret Maverick.
 
I'm half asleep and rambling. Hope this made some sense and wasn't offensive.

My first thought reading through it, like Archer, was that these feel like pretty minor benefit.
 
The other things I really felt reading through it was "what is the difference between these various types of heros?"  The descriptions are pretty vague and the lack of any examples makes it pretty tough to figure out which narrow slice of "Hero" my character fits in with.
 
To Archer's other point, for me this would only work in a game where all the players have bought in to playing "heros", and using this to differentiate the heros so they are not all identical boy scouts.

I’ve read through it, but what I see is kind of a mess. The reason for the D&D archetypes — your “four core” and their subclasses — is because they’re drawn from history, or the story gestalt, or the collective subconscious, and then sufficiently romanticized to have a look and feel, then mechanically built to reinforce that. HERO, of course, unless you build those class packages everyone can kind of do their own thing within the boundaries of the campaign. First, campaign limits, good idea. ALWAYS a good idea. But.
 
Your idea, on the whole, isn’t resonating with me. I’m not seeing a proper build/link/benefit chain. To Hugh’s point, these benefits are comparatively minor in the grander scheme of things, and moreover, they are highly proscriptive and in some cases vague. What constitutes a worthy enemy? Is it always one? Can 20 lesser dudes constitute a worthy foe? To your ‘pure’ concept, if we go back to the literature, the common point of purity, from a story telling perspective, is to tarnish it and then gain something less abstract and more concrete. There are examples of characters who start pure and that’s their “thing,” but they are few, far between, and not nearly as memorable as, say, The Red Cross Knight, or the Iliad, etc. ANYWAY. My literature major aside.
 
Now that I’ve said that, I’m left to my primary issue: what I see here doesn’t work for me; I would love to give you what you’re asking for, but I’m not seeing a fully fleshed out idea. So you want to go off from the standard subclasses; Fighter > Paladin/Ranger, Rogue > Assassin/Burglar, etc. Before you can do that, you have to define where these things fit in your world, and why they fit and give them more “teeth” than what you’ve got here. I don’t mean to be a downer or harsh, but it’s kind of like a writer’s circle; if you’re looking for feedback, then my feedback is “this needs a lot of work before I can comment further.”

I'm rambling again and very sleepy. I wanted to take a crack at giving a further explanation or a condensed explanation of some of these archetypes while it is on my mind. At least what I'm getting from the explanation.
 
For Refined hero:
 
Teaching/ethical - has standards, wants to help people, but also wants the people around him to learn (either from his examples or from his teachings).
 
 
The good guy who sees himself as a hero. Not given to deep thoughts or reflection, just does what's "right" according to his instincts at the moment.
 
 
Empathetic. Naturally shows mercy, generosity and compassion. Genuinely wants to understand others as well as help others.
 
 
The thinking man's hero. He thinks deep thoughts and sometimes gets lost in his own mind. But he deeply believes in the philosophy and ethics he has chosen to follow, even if his ethic might seem odd to others (Shoot the hostage??!!). Very sure of himself in all circumstances because the surrounding circumstances never change who he is in his core. 
 
 
Loyalty is everything. That loyalty might come through love, maybe through friendship, or from a teach/student relationship. But whoever has his loyalty has that loyalty to a very profound level. Will go to extremes to help those who have his loyalty. Very deeply wants the people to return that loyalty and become better people themselves through knowing him.
 
 
Interested in justice rather than law. Tends to take the long view. Believes in the goodness of people. Believes that people can be redeemed when shown the error of their ways.
 
 

Red Hood and Cyber Force. and yeah the DC in the title is supposed to be Dark Champion's, not just DC (as in Comics)

 
And just because I want to toss it in here real quick....I like the car...trying to remember where I've seen it before. More Pulp then Dark Champion's I know. 

If I had my way this would be the cover (or close to it) for Dark Champions 6thE.

I thought here DC stood for Dark Champions

Proving yet again he's scum of the earth... 🤬
 
Exclusive: WWE Taking Over Talents' Twitch Accounts In Four Weeks

Well, it does depend on why the Character summoned them at that time, in the first place. 
 
Remember, even Slavishly Devoted Followers only have so many Tasks they can/will preform ( 1 per Ego of the caster) before leaving or maybe falling apart in the skeletons case, or turning to dust in the vampire's. 
 
So, for example, if the Necromancer has an Ego of 20 then each summoned being can/will preform 20 tasks before leaving. 
 
As per the rules, if the Necromancer had them just hanging around "on guard duty" then each day without combat counts as a Task. So if nothing happens for 20 days, then at the end of that all the skeletons would fall apart or wander off, because all their tasks are done. 
If 10 days in a big battle happens, then the skeletons would have 10 Tasks left, which equals 10 phases of combat (each phase of combat counts as one task) before falling apart or wandering off. 
 
Also, per the rules, the summoned beings do take up the actual space needed, so a 1000 skeletons would take up a 1000 hexes/squares and each hex/square is 2mx2m. So that is a lot of space needed for them, roughly the size of an NFL football field if my rough math is correct. And that is all of them just standing there, unmoving, and waiting. 
 
The smarter the beings (like the Vampires) the more detailed or complex the commands given to them can be. So the vampires could be given better commands then just "guard this area", but they still only have 20 Tasks they can preform before dying or going off on their own. So for example, with the Vampires, maybe the necromancer wants them to guard inside his tower (while the skeletons guard outside his tower) he can tell them the same thing, guard this tower and me. And the vampires would, but they would also need to sleep (so would need caskets, but those are easy to come by or make)  and have blood to feed on or they would grow weaker (this doesn't need to be human blood, could be animal blood. And they only need to feed once a week, so only twice in the max 20 days the necromancer would have them). But for the most part they are intelligent beings and can fend for themselves, not needing to be directly controlled or micro-managed. They would just hang out, follow the rules the necromancer set in place (don't feed on the other players), and if anything happened would fight to the death to protect the necromancer and the tower (with however remaining tasks they had in combat phases), and then turn to dust or take off on their own. 
 
So to sum up, if the necromancer, fearing attack, decides to summon a thousands skeletons and 16 vampires to protect him and his home, then all he would need to say to the skeletons is stand guard outside and fight anyone one that comes here. And then the skeletons would just stand outside, remaining still, until something approached and then they would swarm it, and any remaining skeletons would go back to just standing there and waiting, until their tasks ran out or something else came for them to fight. The vampires on the other hand, could be told the same thing, "Guard me and this building", and then they would do so, but they would be like normal guards or house guests, able to wander around, talk, hangout, read books, etc... they would sleep and feed when they need to, but otherwise be ready for an attack if/when it came, and if nothing happened after 20 days they would turn to dust or wander off to do their own thing.
 
So the big limiting factor is the EGO of the caster as that is how many Tasks the summoned beings will preform or if nothing happens how many days they will hang around, or some combo of both. But the summoned beings don't need to be micro-managed for simple tasks like "guard this area" and the smarter the summoned being is the more flexibility and decision making they can do on their own while following the command. 

Grabbed three new converts by eliminating some of the world building overhead by keeping ALL of the 5e character creation and class rules and simply using HERO to play the game.
 
Kicked off the new Dark Hold campaign where all of the known world was conquered by an invading horde of life eating horrors from the shadow realms.  All that remains of humanity is the Dark Hold.  A circle of onyx mountains closing off the last villages and cities of mankind.
 
Even there, when the light of day fails, night terrors stalk the lands for human souls.  Only the presence of the Shepherds keeps them at bay (think dark elf + slender man).
 
Our band of intrepid heroes start off as a group of problem solvers working under the guidance of Shepherd Flynn.
 
Things are going well until the day of the eclipse when strange things begin to change for the heroes - and others throughout the land...
 
30+ Years of Fantasy HERO and I still love it.  Best system ever.

I figured you were having the storm around the PC’s . Also is -2 based on windy conditions. Iow does the book suggest that in windy conditions archers should suffer a -2 OCV- an environmental condition? Cause then you should be able to raise the local wind level and that condition should kick in.  See the GM.

Change Environment for both wind level and a negative to ocv, area of effect:  radius.  You could link telekinesis to it as well depending on effect.
Oh, may want to add hole in the middle

For me it was a lot of gritty, war gamer, paramilitary mercenaries, versus drug cartels, and Marxist guerillas, in Fictitious foreign countries. The games were essentially 80’s and 90’s action movies, with strong tactical element. And at the time in the 80’s and 90’s, the games started as Danger International games with the occasional weird pulp element or talent. The players were a number of prior service, law enforcement, and cold warriors looking to lay a game with looser rules of engagement, and clear goals. Role play was strong, but combat was careful, as it was a heroic level game. But it usually proceeded like the movies it was inspired by, with a lot of explosions at the finale. This may not be precisely your cup of tea, but it was fun.
 
Suggestions from this, is that you need strong role play at the start, to give the upcoming conflict a strong emotional context so the players are deeply invested. Sympathetic NPCs, really despicable villains, and clear stakes help. Combat in these situations can be wildly unpredictable. As a GM, plan the villain’s forces intelligently for the opposition they expect. This might require a bit of research into real world analogues for your fictional forces , but will give them a firm base as to what they capabilities and equipment are, and give idea and flavor to the players. A Toyota Hillux with a 12.7mm DShK, and a T-55 tank present two levels of opposition to the players. The key is for the players to plan something unexpected, then game it out. Miniatures on a mat will help. This sort of thing is very poor for theater of the mind style play, as distances, cover, facing, and fields of fire, become very important for player decisions and actions. The consequences of poor decisions could be fatal, and giving the characters good situational awareness will keep them thinking and involved.  As this is generally a heroic level game with plentiful mil spec weapons, chances of death are high, so warn the players ahead of time, that character death is a possibility. Don’t fudge the die rolls if you can help it, as this can ratchet up the tension up quite a bit. Open rolls during combats, and saving hidden rolls for non combat or unseen actions in the background also help the tension. But a caution Is that some players do not enjoy a high level of tension. Know your players. If a character goes down during combat, hand them Mooks, and enemies to control. It keeps everyone involved, lowers the amount of work the GM needs to do, and may add some variety to the opposition. Keep the goals clear, and never plan the scenario to be completed in only one way. The usual way these scenarios are approached are, direct guns blazing, stealth, indirect through persuasion (“Let’s you and him fight!), or some way that seems plausible that you didn’t think of. Say the group doesn’t have any resources to smuggle their weapons into this exotic, foreign land, but all of them are trained and deadly martial artists, each a master of a different art?  This gives the adventure a very different flavor than if the group were made up of CIA special operators. Same set up. Different protagonists.
 
Now, this may not entirely be the flavor you are looking for, but it’s a good formula for running a convention game. Hopefully these suggestions are helpful. 

Too soon.

I suspect you would likely fracture a group playing this. Real world politics these days is insanely divisive.

But..but...Lolth only has 66 Hp! She's clearly going down first!
Granted, that -10 AC is nothing to sneeze at!

Okay, that was surprisingly fair and thought out. I think I agree. Extremely close-fought battle but Lolth takes the win.

As hero gamers we have all tried to convert stuff from other systems into Hero games to "see who is the strongest". And as such I think this is an interesting video comparing Slanessh to Loth. 
It is not as much of a walkover as you might think at first glance. 
 
 

IIRC Ents were renamed to treants to appease the estate, whereas the term "Orc" came from mythology and was not invented by Tolkien.  Balrogs got renamed too, I think.
 
As for controversy, it's important to remember that D&D has drawn attacks from lawyers and SJWs of all kinds throughout its history.  That's why demons and devils became tanar'ri and baatezu and why Cthulhu was cut out entirely.  It's not entirely realistic to expect a game with such dependence on its subject matter to remain static for almost fifty years.  Allowing orcs and drow to be non-evil is hardly even a change.

Well that is the point. People make up their own version of elves so it is okay to dislike them. 
Tolkien the creator of orcs were a World war one veteran. He saw the futility of total war and were naturally enough inclined to promote the idea that peace and kindness were the way for humanity to survive. I say this to put this notion in context: You can just as well see the strong as people who force others to adapt to them.
Changing and adapting is not really about strength but about surviving. Which is the orcs weak spot. Orchish lives mean nothing to them. Victory for the dark lord and thereby themselves means all. 
Strength, aggression and violence are not ways for them to adapt their own culture (such as it is..) to better survive but to change other cultures and people into another state. These states being enslaved and dead respectively.  
Off course in epic fantasy based on a humanistic morality the morale of said stories are usually to show the futility of the orc (or equivalent) kill or be killed attitude. And the value of peace and kindness (like hobbits for instance). 
Many games and books show the inhuman conditions of the orcs warfare and the heavy toll it takes on themselves and how it lead to their doom. Very few epic fantasy promote the total war soloution that orcs represent. Usually they glorify the single warrior against many and or honor and chivalry in war. For instance showing mercy to conquered enemies are often shown to pay of at a later date.
 
To take video games as an example the excellent video game "Shadow of Mordor" takes to be mild quite a lot of liberties with the lore of middle earth. However there is one thing that game gets right and that is to show of the hopelessness and futility of the orcish condition. The cost of their way of life. Both physically and psychologically. 
 
But there is another example seen in a recent world of warcraft cinematic. In it we meet an old cool looking orc who have doubts about war, especally the current one againt the heroic alliance which could really be avoided and are not fought in an way that appease the orchish sense of honor. (As in this game the orcs are a noble warrior race). 
He then meet an young and a naive troll who idolizes him, idolize war and are ready to fight for the honour of the horde. The old warrior orc is implied to know better.
Then the troll dies infront of the warrior orc. AND THIS CONVINCE HIM TO FIGHT ON!
And the cinematic shows this as a cool and heroic moment. War is the way. War is cool! Fight on! Dont quit! 
These are two approaches not only to war. But to the total war that orcs usually represent. The authors of the cinematic are trying really hard and doing a really good job at making unjust war seem like an honorable. The opposite of what orcs were intended to do. 
 
I think that some people are just attracted to that idea of total war and they try to it honorable and shown as the "only way". 
Off course they dont really want to do that. So story wise they often meet themselves in the door and have to make their warriors extra kind and sensitive like they have done with the world of warcraft orcs.
From the first warcraft game orcs who looted pillaged and stabbed each other in the back up until to the warcraft movie where the orcs were just looking for a place to belong and raise their cute litte orc babies. Each version of the warcraft orcs are heaped on with more and more humanistic qualities while all the players want its to play tusked hulk and smash puny alliance humans. Its diffent wants and needs dragging the concept of the orc in different directions. 

Fair enough. But generally when people say, "the strong survive and the weak perish," they're implying that Nature applies some kind of eugenics to improve the breed; whereas the "weak" who actually perish are generally the young, old, sick, or injured, which likely didn't reflect how genetically healthy they were.