To add to the conversation on Fanatic's personality, she doesn't call herself "Fanatic". That's her hero name, sure, and it's definitely the name of her comic book, but she never refers to herself as that. Imagine the sort of person it would take to call themselves "Fanatic". She isn't that person. She calls herself "Angel of the Lord", "The Lord's Agent", and even "Judgement", but not Fanatic. That is what other people call her.
Just to weigh in a bit here.
http://sotm.wikidot.com/heroes:fanatic
wikied
<< >>
*follows christopher around like a lost puppy with a wiki notebook*
Interesting.
However, that also doesn't speak very highly for how people percieve her, does it? I mean, if the other heroes don't respect her enough to call her the codenames she would take for herself, but instead refer to herconsistently with an insult, that's harsh stuff. Especially if even her allies among the Prime Wardens do so.
As an aside, my mind is utterly blown at the realization that Fanatic actually has a comic book of the same name. Almost nobody gets that - Sentinel Comics seems much more fond of poetically titled comics like "Stranger in a Strange Land" or "Immigrant's Song". Go Fanatic.
One more note, on the subject of heroes killing people: I suspect that Sentinel Comics (modern-day ones, at least) are more in the vein of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the like, in that excuses are found to keep named characters around, but heroes do still kill sometimes, especially non-humans and violent mooks. After all, when people yell at Absolute Zero for sadistically impaling a sentient creature, he mocks them, and manages to stay in the world's most prestigious super-team.
I'm not sure Fanatic would be all aboard the let's kill sinners train. She's not an evangelical preacher who's trying to cleanse the world of non-believers. I think people call her Fanatic because in a world of doubt and skepticism, she unconditionally believes in a higher power. It's true that she has the angelic wings and the powers to back up her claims, but in the world of Sentinels, some people probably believe she's just a genetic experiment or something like that. Also, other heroes might not mean it as an insult. A lot of them probably think that she came up with the name herself. Also, she was raised in a convent, and even though she criticized them for inaction, their values and teachings still would've heavily influenced her. I think it would take a lot for her to just up and murder someone.
I'm not sure Fanatic would be all aboard the let's kill sinners train. She's not an evangelical preacher who's trying to cleanse the world of non-believers. I think people call her Fanatic because in a world of doubt and skepticism, she unconditionally believes in a higher power. It's true that she has the angelic wings and the powers to back up her claims, but in the world of Sentinels, some people probably believe she's just a genetic experiment or something like that. Also, other heroes might not mean it as an insult. A lot of them probably think that she came up with the name herself. Also, she was raised in a convent, and even though she criticized them for inaction, their values and teachings still would've heavily influenced her. I think it would take a lot for her to just up and murder someone.
That's all possible, I'm just sayin', there's a card where by my best interpretation she's killing some guy in a suit and tie by dropping him from the sky onto someone else, and a few where she's stabbing people with a sword. Even if we're talking Marvel-like, that's pretty extreme as a matter of course. And the lady does use a sword, which, you know, usually deadly, though that can and has been ignored for plenty of comic heroes, so it's not a deal-breaker. Plus a lot of her quotes sound pretty uncompromising.
I could very well be way off on my interpretation, and if I'm told otherwise I'm not going to argue, it's just the impression I got. Her name wasn't really a factor, though it's good to know that "Fanatic" doesn't come from her, because even a fanatic doesn't call -herself- one, it has only negative connotations. That always struck me as odd until now.
The only cards that have her doing stuff to non demons or villains are Brutal Censure and Final Dive. In Brutal Censure, it's unclear whether or not she's killing the priest or forcing him to see the error of his ways, whatever errors he may have caused. The quote for Final Dive suggests she may be trying to kill the guy, but she also may just be trying to intimidate him in order to force repentence or get information. I agree that Fanatic would be a hard hero to get along with, but I think it's because she's very passionate and has very black and white views on morality.
Well you can't really discount cards where she's attacking villains, that's the whole point. I never claimed she's just killing random people, but that she's the kind of hero who might very well kill a criminal if her views decide he deserves it, which is something most heroes don't do. Stabbing Apostate in the chest probably counts. I mean, that's enough that in almost any superhero comic, even a Marvel themed one, your average hero would be all like "Woah, you have to stop that." Same reason most Marvel heroes don't like the Punisher much. Of course, context matters, so if it's a "We exhausted all other options" kind of thing, it's less of a big deal, but the cards don't give much context.
Plus, I think the effects of Final Dive kind of bear out the "killing a guy" idea–dude 1 (guy she's carrying) is destroyed and the dude 2 (guy she dropped him on) takes damage. I'm sure the guy in the suit did something wrong, but probably not something most heroes would see as wrong enough to get dropped from the sky on someone.
I mean, it's subjective, at least until someone who made the game clarifies things. This is just how I'm interpreting the things I see on the card. It's an interesting way to look at the character, for my money. Adds some conflict with the other good guys. Even if she's not as kinda crazy as I like to think she is, I'm pretty sure she'd have a lot of arguments with the rest of them on exactly what they should and shouldn't be doing, crimefighting-wise.
I think it's important to remember that her encounter with Apostate really caused her to question herself. In the artwork for Zealous offense, she is not redeemer Fanatic yet, and so this confrontation could be occuring during her biggest crisis of faith. I can agree that she's probably edgier than some of the other heroes, but if she liberally murdered people, even villains, I would think other heroes would try to bring her down. I just don't see the majority of other Sentinels heroes putting up with that, and I don't think she partakes in actions that would justify her being a villain card herself. Instead of Punisher, I like to think of her more like Ultimate Thor.
Superheroes have the uncanny gift to use lethal weapons non-lethaly - or rather, comics physics include a lot of "this is only lethal if the story asks for it" laws. If Fanatic's use of a sword and habit of droping misbehavers from the sky was enough to make her a "killer", then what about Ra who burns his ennemies alive, or Expatriette's guns... Or Bunker's. Guns have a tendancy to be more lethal than swords.
Who knows ? Maybe Fanatic doesn't drop anyone from heights - she just threaten them to do it, and once they cower with fear, launches them at another ennemy (HP=0 or "destroyed" may mean "knocked over", "unconscious", etc). Brutal Censure could very well be like the "fire of truth" or whatever the name was, of Ghost Rider : reveal to the "sinner" the truth of his ways and brutalize him by awakening his inner guilt...
Though with the really "truly evil", I doubt she would hesitate to use extreme means. But I think she is not the kind of girl to kill without a very, very good reason. Or the other heroes would not help her - but fight her, just like they will fight Iron Legacy.
And remember - a lot of her powers and abilities are all about sacrificing herself, not about sacrificing the life of others. But I am sure she can severely "scare the bejesus out of them sinners", pardon the slang.
FInal Dive always makes me think of the end of Dogma, with Affleck's character flying over the church carrying people around and just...droppin' 'em.
Hehe, yeah, it is a bit like that. In fact, I think that's what it reminds me of, too. I'm pretty sure it reminds me of something, anyway. His name's Bartleby, btw ;).
I remembered the name, but I was too lazy to double-check the spelling. 
Well, Expatriette at least must kill people. She's the token 90's antihero - there must be dozens of issues of assorted comics where she guns down rooms full of pointy-footed people on thin pretexts. Like Cable, I imagine she's scaled this back in the past decade, but still.
Ra and Bunker don't neccessarily use weapons any deadlier than a sword or a long drop, but it's about how you use it. We never see either of them using, or even threatening to use, their powers on normal-looking humans. That makes a big difference - escalation of threat. It's like how we all accept that Superman can turn his mountain-smashing fists on a normal human with great enough control that there's no risk of turning people to pulp, but if he switched to using his laser eyes, we'd question it - that's a deadly-looking attack, and so tends to be reserved for superhumanly tough foes, or nonliving targets.
But, again, I don't know that either Cable or Superman is the right point of reference, because Absolute Zero impales a man! He stone cold kills someone while at least one of his teammates watches, and he's still so much a member of the high-profile super-team which blackmailed an invalid into risking his life alongside them (Freedom!), their name remains changed to reflect his status among them.
When did Absolute Zero implae a normal person? If you're talking about Frostbound Drain, the guy in the art is just really cold, but doesn't look like he'll die from whatever AZ did to him. The current art for impale is Omnitron, and I think the art for the original edition was either an alien or a robot being spiked, which is still kind of dark, but not the same as killing an innocent civilian. It's hard to say about Ex-Patriette, for the most part, it looks like she fights metahumans, and her outlook on life is certainly a pessimistic one, but that doesn't mean she's necessarily murdered people in cold blood.
Punisher's whole theme is taking revenge on those who have broken the law. Most of the other Superheroes do their best to avoid him. I think of Ex-Patriette a little more like a lower budget Nick Fury. She has no powers, but she grew up around super powered humans, and so she knows how they think and how to fight them. I'm not against heroes being darker, and I certainly believe heroes have dark moments depending on whatever's happening in the storyline.
I have the original release, rather than the Enhanced Edition, and I had always thought that the being getting torn in half on Impale was a Thorathian. Looking again, however, there are wires sticking out, so maybe Zero's acts are less heinous than I believed.
And what you're describing is exactly how I think ExPatriette is likely being portrayed in the "present day" of Sentinel Comics, off of which the game is based. What I meant is that she seems a lot like Cable, sans time travel, and so like him and many antiheroes like him, was probably much darker and more murderous when she was introduced, in an era when lots of "heroes" gunned down large numbers of human mooks.
I could see justification for AZ's violent action in the original impale if there is a full scale alien invasion and innocent people are dying left and right. I like the idea of Ex-Patriette maybe being darker before she started interacting with the other heroes. I think spending time with Fixer and Wraith could allow her to start prioritizing justice over revenge. It could definitely be an interesting arc for her and still allow her to be labelled as a hero.
Just to confirm, the original Impale card did feature a robot, not a human.
Playing my first game in a while today, I noticed this:
"The team was killed by an angry human with wings and a sword. It was awful!" - Gene-bound soldier, Freedom Five #536 (from Sanctifying Strike)
So, Fanatic kills humanoid alienswho are intelligent enough to speak and to feel upset about it.
Also, I seem to have forgotten to mention ealier that Expatriette shoots a human between the eyes in her bio. So, that's two heroes with confirmed kills, even if Absolute Zero remains unknown - and Fanatic is even on a team with noted nicest guy in the setting Haka.
Ironic
Even the good superheroes probably kill minions in the fight against justice, and so I would count killing Voss's minions as something that puts her too close on the darkside. With Ex-Pat the person she kills is an evil meta-human which would fall under a similar category as Voss. It's like Watching James Bond shoot and kill a bunch of nameless Specter mooks. They may have been real people with families and backstories, but in the context of the superhero story, they are the clear evil doers and an audience is not really meant to sympathize with them.
That's exactly what I am discussing here, actually. There are many genres which work exactly as you describe, but the overwhelming majority of superhero stories aren't among them. One might say this is because a being with such godlike power who kills people is much scarier than a mere man like Bond doing the same, or more cynically, argue that it is because the superhero genre relies on recurring villains more heavily than almost any other - either way, most superheroes from mainstream comics would refuse to kill a proven psychotic murderer if the latter handed them a gun and threatened to kill a hostage every minute the hero stalled. That's the convention.
What cases like Fanatic, Expatriette and possibly Absolute Zero indicate is that Sentinel Comics may work on different rules than Marvel and DC do - a question which I find interesting.
Ironic