Perhaps on the Crystal Hall. Everybody is a hero in their own eyes. There is a medical term for making the tough decisions, it's called triage. You just have to remember that some people are not going to have the same priorities as you. Pure right and pure wrong, or good and evil, exists only in comicbooks. If a terrorist is holding the trigger switch to a bomb that would kill thousands of people but you can't get a clear shot at him because he is using a young girl as a human shield, what do you do? Brutal logic says you have to take the kill shot even if it means killing the young girl, in order to save those thousands. But be prepared to have your skin flayed from your body for deliberately killing an innocent child. Hero or villain? And in whose judgement?

In Afghanistan Bradley Manning committed treason to expose the deaths of some innocent civilians (less than a hundred, IIRC) killed by American forces. Afghanistan's government wants to try those soldiers as war criminals. In WW II, the British High Command, with the endorsement of Winston Churchill, committed to the policy of saturation bombing of German cities. Several of those cities (think Dresden and Hamburg) were consumed by the fire storms that resulted, killing tens of thousands of civilians. The men that approved the policy and those who carried out the bombings were awarded medals and received accolades. This would suggest that wholesale civilian deaths are acceptable, retail civilian deaths are not. Who's the hero and who's the villain? Can anybody be said to be a hero, or a villain? It's much like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who commented on defining hard-core pornography "I know it when I see it". Hero or villain is defined by others, and the "standards" are ambiguous at best.

These are just some late night brain bubblings and may not help with what you want, but I hope it gives you something to consider when defining who is a hero and who is a villain.