Been a long time since I read this, so i could be wrong… did the guy agree to it, or was he just betrayed and used as a (dead) pawn? I don’t remember him expressing an opinion.
Shucks, let’s straddle that line by mentioning both the literature and the Star Trek episode built around the fact that, y’know, Edith Keeler must die.
I seem to recall he consented - it was a purposeful self-sacrifice, and his comrades reluctantly did the job.
In an outtake scene from Alien, Ripley tearfully agrees to a coccooned Dallas’s request to kill him rather than let a chestburster do the job much more painfully.
In The Wild Geese, Richard Burton’s mercenary officer character shoots his wounded friend and comrade (Richard Harris), when the man begs him to, rather than let him fall into enemy hands and be tortured.
In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Counselor Troi, bucking for promotion, undergoes a Holodeck emergency simulation in which she orders Chief Engineer LaForge to his death to make a repair that, if not completed, would result in the ship’s destruction. First Officer Riker wants her to understand that being in command sometimes means making very tough decisions.
Depending on your definition of “hero,” in Watchmen, Ozymandias kills thousands in NYC in an alien-invasion hoax to avert WWIII, and Dr. Manhattan kills Rorschach rather than let him reveal the secret of Ozymandias’s scheme.
Does the finale of Speaker for the Dead count?
Fredric Brown may as well have done this in THE HATCHETMAN: our racing-against-the-clock hero Matt Anders (a) desperately needs a car and credentials, and so (b) shoots a guy to gain access to the base where sinister deeds are being plotted.
Our hero thinks to himself that it’s possible the guy was one of the schemers who’s in on the big scary conspiracy – but readily admits that, no, he probably wasn’t. “Anders had been sorry about that. But what was one life when billions were at stake?”
I disagree with you about something in your spoiler box, Isidur.
[spoiler]Sisko DOES raise an objection to the murder of Senator Vreenak and his crew–after the fact, admittedly, but he didn’t know about it ahead of time. As soon as he hears of the destruction of the Senator’s ship, he realizes [del]what Garak has done[/del] what he has enabled Garak to do, and heads straights to Garak’s shop to kick his ass.
I’m not sure this quite qualifies. Even though Sisko ultimately decides that, since the deed has already been done, it would be foolish to come clean now, he’s not the one who made the decision to assassinate the senator. Also, as fond as I am the character of Garak (his presence is an excellent indicator for a great episode), he’s not a good guy. If you called him a good guy he’d either make a mental note that you were a potential mark, injure himself laughing, or punch you in the throat for the insult.[/spoiler]
Skald, your summary matches my recollection and assessment as well.
I may be misremembering but in the novel doesn’t the protagonist also:
kill the original Firefox pilot rather than just stunning him as in the movie?
I think Firefox was one of the few occassions where I preferred the movie to the book, although both were good
It left a sour taste in my mouth when:
The dissident scientist dies believing Gant had failed him, in the movie he lives long enough to see Gant approach the Firefox
I have a soft spot for the movie because I remember watching it as a child and thinking the attack on the Minsk was the coolest frikking thing I have ever seen…actually I rewatched it recently and its still very very cool… 
And the Firefox is my favourite fictional airplane ever as well.
Forsyth threw in something that arguably qualifies, in The Fourth Protocol.
So there’s this guy A, an ambassador from Africa who recruits spies for the Soviets. And there’s also B, who betrayed Britain by becoming a spy for A. C, the crown’s chief of counterintelligence, learned all of this from D’s dogged detective work.
Over in the Evil Empire, E’s evil plan was approved by Fearless Leader F; his gun-toting goon G got to work – with help and info from H and I – assembling a nuke, for to murder lots of innocents.
C promptly sent misinformation through B to A – and J, just doing his job, jumped to the conclusion that he should unnecessarily warn C: as if J discovered the E-F-G-H-I plan and is hereby willing to save the West from it so long as they’ll kill G. Otherwise, they’ll capture G solo and embarrass Russia, right?
Problem is, J doesn’t know who G is – but he knows who H and I are, and so has klutzy K Keystone Kop his way over to meet 'em, inevitably tailed by folks he can’t possibly spot or shake. In no time flat, L liquidates G just as J wanted – and that doesn’t count, because G was in on the evil plot.
But to wrap up a loose end, J figures K – who knew nothing about killing anybody – has to die likewise; just think of what’ll happen if K ever mentions ineptly visiting H and I for no good reason shortly before G’s misadventure! C and D apparently figure it the same way, in that our heroes review J’s logic and don’t disagree.
OK, that’s just way too complicated to follow, presented like that.
I saw the movie and even I’m a little confused.
Thanks, Skald and Irishman, for the correction re: Sisko and Garak.
But Skald, you know better by now than to call me “Isildur.”
Sorry, I’ll try again.
The undercover bad guy wants to murder lots of innocents.
Our heroes want to stop him, but can’t find him, because he’s undercover.
Our heroes tail an innocent bumbler to find the bad guy; the bad guy knows too much and has to die; the innocent bumbler also knows too much and has to die.
“Permit me to be frank, Sir Nigel. Winkler could not have shaken off a headache with a box of aspirins. He was an incompetent and a fool.”
In the first place, I didn’t call you Isildur. Respect the typos!
In the second place, it’s entirely like me to troll you thus.
In the third place, I can call you “Valandil” instead if you want.
True, also true, and no thanks.
I’ll teleport you a couple of lembas cakes by way of apology if you want.
Just remembered an example that doesn’t really fit, but which is probably also of interest. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the author or the title.
Fantasy short story. The Devil suddenly appears to the Secretary of Defense (or some other such high-placed US official), and informs him that his counterpart in the Soviet Union has offered the Devil a deal: He’ll burn a town full of innocent Russians to death, if the Devil will assassinate the SoD. The Devil is not present at this time to carry out the assassination, but rather to ask if the SoD would like to make him a counter-offer: “You know what sort of thing I like. Or at least, if I don’t, the Russian’s offer should give you a pretty good idea.”. The SoD does not offer to burn an American town, but rather argues that he should be left alive, because the present uneasy balance between the US and the USSR will, in the long run, cause more chaos and suffering than assassinating him would ever cause. The devil ponders this for a bit, then gleefully concedes that it’s true, and leaves in a poof of sulfurous smoke.
I have that story at home someplace; that is, I remember the book it’s from but not the title or author. I’ll try to track it down later.
You’re too kind, my dear Skald, but it’s not necessary.