Superhero or Vigilante?

My view on the matter is as follows. There is only one difference between a superhero and a vigilante, and that is the presence or absence of superpowers. Both superheroes and vigilantes pursue justice in their own way and with their own means, and they do not confine themselves to the influence of the law to accomplish them, as law is often trumped by justice or the greater good.

Of course, the term 'vigilante' does not necessarily imply that the character must be without superpowers. If that restriction is waived, the two terms become synonymous. Another interpretation of such is that they differ by their moral code; a superhero tends to have a 'stronger' moral code than a vigilante would. For example, a superhero would try to remain within the bounds of law and morality as often as possible while combating evil, while a vigilante would take a more direct approach and even the playing field - after all, if villains don't play fair, why should they?

In essence I do believe there is a line (presence or absence of superpowers), but there is a large grey area when defining 'vigilante', and that grey area can cause the differences between 'vigilante' and 'superhero' to blur, or even disappear entirely.

 

Well, looking at definitions I can see a few key differences.

Vigilante: a citizen or member of a group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

Superhero: a benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers or exceptional abilities also: an exceptionally heroic or successful person.

Neither often have legal authority, especially with modern movie superheroes, and both usually end up picking up the slack of regular law enforcement. One of the key things I see different in these definitions would be the use of the word 'benevolent' in the definition of superhero.

When you boil it down, the main difference would be that 'superhero' has the word 'hero' in it. A vigilante can do what he wants. Some vigilantes use brutal and cruel ways to enforce justice, and if they weren't helping the people many would no doubt be seen as vicious villains. A superhero, though, is one who has a moral code that they do not break. They try their best to align true justice and the law. Both may have or may not have superpowers, both often inspire hope in citizens and fear in criminals, but the biggest divide is that superheroes are bound by the title of 'hero' to a moral code, while vigilantes are not. At least, that's my perspective.

 

As I've told you before, meu amigo, the difference between a vigilante and a superhero has always, in my mind, been their reception to their public image. Superheroes are receptive to their image while vigilantes range from neutral to straight up hostile.

 

The only real difference are characteristics:

Superheroes: Extroverted, more unrealistic
Vigilantes: Usually more independent, a little more realistic

I see superheroes as reformers, whereas I see vigilantes more as anarchists.

That being said, I've always been more of a vigilante guy, though I have superheroes whom I'm fond of as well.

 

It's been said above and I agree that the defining difference is the public opinion (and opinion from the relevant law enforcement agency) of the person in question. If the majority of people in their sphere of influence see the person as doing a good that they can agree with any that the person in question is unilaterally loved, then they're a hero. However, if the majority of people see the person as doing one kind of good, but potentially also doing harm or being capable of doing harm, they may be seen as a vigilante.

Three examples of being on either side of the spectrum: Batman, Iron Man, Phoenix Jones. In the comics/cartoons where Batman is just a purely good guy punching bad guys in the jaw, he's a hero. In the series (plural) where Gotham PD has a headache and citizens are wary of him, he's more of a Vigilante (over-arching mostly-accurate simplification: 1960s Batman is a hero, 2010s Batman is a vigilante). Iron Man's a hero when he blasts terrorists, but he's a vigilante when the government decides he might be a threat to national safety. Phoenix Jones (real life superhero in Seattle) is a hero when he's responding to domestic violence calls and muggings faster than police do, but he's a vigilante when he makes a citizen's arrest unlawfully and Seattle PD has to slap him on the wrist.

 

There's somewhat a difference. Sure both help others, but vigilantes are more like those Robin Hood type of characters who do things according to what they think is morally correct outside the law. On the other hand, superheroes are more for the law, or rather, more for doing acts for the eye of the public.

The thing is vigilantes have way more freedom because of what they are, "enacting their own form of justice." They don't care about the law. They could kill someone and say they did the right thing since it's their justice.