Originally Answered: Who is more noble? A tragic hero or a religious hero? Why?
This doesn't go for every hero, it's on a general basis. Just letting you know.
What is "noble?" In the simplest terms, it can be broken down to morals. If a hero has morals, they are generally noble. Now, a hero without morals may not be very noble.
Religious heroes tend to have morals that tragic heroes might otherwise ignore. Especially if the tragic hero is somewhat vengeful, or perhaps even a little insane. A religious hero, say for example... a knight that refuses to slay an unarmed man, woman, or child- would have a set of strict morals. Knights were supposed to be very noble, and a lot of that was do to the code they lived by. The oath they took. Again, it all comes back to morals. A tragic hero like the Punisher would be very prone to breaking even instinctual morals. He wouldn't be consider ed noble at all. Effective, yes. But certainly not noble. Hamlet. He was what most consider insane. So he might not be all that moral. We all know that insanity tends to cloud judgement, decision making, and sometimes even basic instint. Insanity is a good explanation for a man who is not noble.
Now, religion tends to give people motives for doing good. Of course, not every religion will do so. But many religions have the basis that if you do good in life, you will receive good in life, and even after life. So in conclusion, a religious hero may be noble simply because they believe it is the right thing to do. They may do so because they like to do so. Selflessness, bravery, and compassion are the things that make a noble person. A tragic hero tends to be selfish, and seemingly indifferent. Notice how a tragic hero tends to not be happy? They also aren't so religious. Sure, they may have one, but they rarely, if ever, speak of it. Hamlet was selfish. The Punisher was seemingly indifferent. Sir Gawain was brave, and selfless.
I hope I've helped, even if just a little. Good luck on your paper.