Excuse me for the lateness of this one. Whilst there is nothing wrong with having virtuous heroes to aspire to it can make for quite facile characterisation, and a much weaker hero. Consider the bucket of awesome that is Wrath of Khan, and its portrayal of Kirk versus Khan. Particularly how Nicholas Meyer wrote Kirk, (cited in Memory-Alpha’s article on STII).

“Initially, producer Harve Bennett was resistant to the idea that Kirk could do anything ‘bad’, yet Meyer won him over; in fact, he believed the story needed Kirk to have flaws. “There’s a distinction to be made between heroes and gods,” he explained, “which I think we sometimes get confused about. [...] let me explain my theory of heroism. If a man jumps into a raging torrent to save a drowning child, he performs an heroic act. If the same man jumps into the same torrent to save the same child, but does so with a ball and chain attached to his leg, he’s not less heroic; he’s more heroic. “If you look at the heroes of antiquity and myth, they all have flaws. It’s something that they have to overcome; their flaws are something that they have to act in spite of. The challenge is not to defy your fate, but to endure it. That is heroic.”