This sounds like a stupid question because the answer should be obvious. A hero is defined by their reputation, which is created through words and actions. If they aren’t acting like a hero, they won’t be seen as one. So, why ask the question?
The reason is because I’ve seen a lot of stories where the hero will stop being heroic, but still be treated as such. The consistency is broken by them no longer following their established morality path. It can happen if triggered in the story, but I’m talking more about weird blips of bad behavior. For example, the noble hero who refuses to kill will take a life without a second thought or remorse. Then, the story goes on as if that didn’t happen. It breaks the character’s reputation with the audience even if the in-world fans aren’t phased. It can tarnish the entire book because that character no longer stands for what they claim to.
Let me make it clear that I mean reputation in the same story and not a reimagining or retelling of a character who has been around for decades. That does open the door for some flexibility because you can show how they developed their moral code (Man of Steel) or have them be ground into the dirt by years of fighting a brutal fight (Batman vs. Superman). This is still a challenge though because fans hate change and will pounce on such things without seeing if there’s a reason for it. The lose and rebuilding of a reputation can be a storyline, but it’s one where the readers need to be willing to face the darkness.
Fantasy is an interesting genre with reputation too. You have great heroes spoken of in legends who are either adventurers or war heroes. This ends up creating the idea that certain actions we can’t do in our world are allowed. Killing is the big thing, especially of monsters. Imagine a person running around our world slaughtering lions. . . Well, we do have people doing that and they’re called a poacher. That’s mostly because we see lions as part of our environment and dragons as cool, but not necessary to an ecosystem. So, the world rules and perspective helps give some flexibility to heroes getting away with certain actions.
Another part of the reputation questions is rationalization. Not only for the character to do so, but the readers. Sure, a hero can totally give a clear explanation for why they let a town burn down. It doesn’t mean they’re right since positive reputations don’t mean a person is infallible. A reader might still go along with it though depending on their own thoughts on the characters. The common example I use is when Luke Callindor in Beginning of a Hero ran into a mouthy asshole. He was already established as a noble, if not immature, hero who won’t kill on a whim. Yet, people wanted him to murder this guy. I’m sure I’d have gotten backlash if I had him to do it too, but that would make more sense since it was out-of-character. The desire to see even slightly bad people get severe punishments is a major factor on hero reputation in the eyes of readers. Maybe it’s a little bit of wish fulfillment because they would love to kill those they don’t like and get away with it.
Going back to the title question, the reputation of a hero is incredibly important both in and out of the story. I would so more so with outside because the audience needs to enjoy the hero to keep going in a story. Consistency is crucial to establishing and maintaining a strong reputation too. Not easy to do because an author is human and might do something for the story without realizing it wouldn’t be what the characters would do. At least we have editing for that though. Still, authors really should consider the reputation of their heroes when actions are taken. It would bring a stronger dimension to their overall growth and stability.
Legends of Windemere 