Hero, Vigi, Rog, Vill.

So Superman doesn't save people from burnign buildings? It's a life or death decision based on his own personal moral code after all, he's deciding who lives or dies after all.

His personal code doesn't permit him to decide if the person gets to die. Superman will 100% of the time choose to save the person. Its not considered a decision to him. Which is why he is lawful good and not a vigliante.

If even once he has a mental debate of the pro/cons of letting a person die in a burning building and leaves the guy there to burn to death because he's a criminal or whatever. I'd say he's a vigliante.

Until he does that, he's not a vigliante.

Any definition of Hero that does not allow for Superman to be among its number is an incomplete or wrong definition of Hero.

wut? Superman adheres to the law and authority. I don't recall him ever going over and above it. Especially to the amount that would label him as a vigilante(eg Batman, 'I'm going to beat you up because you deserve it').

As for life and death decisions, it doesn't matter if the option is available to him when the character will never pursue it. Just because he has the potential to do something doesn't have any effect on his character. Everyone has the potential to do evil.

well killing is inherently an evil action, and saving lives good. Which why alot of vigilantes are the 'kill people but for the greater good' types e.g. Punisher.

It's not the definition of a hero we're arguing here, just how one definition for Vigilante could be used to describe superman.

He's the ultimate goodguy after all! He'll do what he knows is right regardless of what the law says.

It just so happens Supes is ati-killing and a very good man.

Except Superman follows the law Omy, he even did so when Lex Luthor was president.

He even follows local laws when he's outside of the USA.

Actually he helped de-throne Luthor after Luthor rather smugly made him an outlaw. So not entirely.

well obviously superman isn't going to kill someone, because he would just turn to a robot that changes behavior from good/evil depending where he was.

He would (imo) either leave the country, or if the government is seriously breaching people's basic rights (eg. Nazi Germany) do something about it. Superman can think for himself like most people, he will obey the law until it pushes him to his limit (eg.point of going to evil), then he will stop.

I havent read this so I have no idea what happened. But I doubt he did it out of spite or anything.

Red Kryptonite (Or whatever colour the writers feel like coming up with next).

Or in other words, follows the law only as long as it ties in with his own moral and ethical code.

He did it because he KNEW Luthor was a villain. He followed the spirit of the law and the greater good, rather than the letter of the law. Once again, his own moral code and ethics overruling the law of the land.

IMO, doing that makes for a far better hero than someone who slavishly follows the strict letter of the law.

But he did so legally, through the proper channels, he didn't just pick the man up and put him on mars. He exposed the crimes that Lex Luthor was committing, and he was impeached, just like any other president would, if they were found to be a massive criminal.

After all, there isn't a law that puts the President above the law.

No he didn't. He was a wanted criminal, he should have turned himself in. He choose not too.

You mean that he was falsely accused of trying to destroy the world with a kryptonite asteroid, with Lex Luthor declaring him as an enemy of the state, and offering a bounty on his head?

Now I'm not certain what the correct legal response is when declared enemy of the state, particularly when you have evidence that the presidents plan to destroy the asteroid won't work...

Edit: And Luthor loses his presidency, not because of the false accusation, but because he'd been involved with slave/prisoner trading with a hostile nation/planet, for personal gain.... which he confesses to.

Superman is NOT lawful neutral. He's Lawful Good. He follows the law as long as it doesn't deviate from Good. Its just that the setting he's in (US) happens to have laws that resemble he's own moral code and the idea of what is good (freedom, equality etc).

I'm sure Clark Kent has no problems go on a reporting fact finding spree on corrupt politicians even if they are technically with in the law, unless in extreme cases like terriost cells where other people's live are at risk etc. He will never resort to violence or life/death unless he really has to. I mean REALLY has to.

If he followed the law regardless of good/evil eh would be lawful neutral.

Batman is a vigilante by the real-world definition of the word, because he breaks the law by seeking out crimes to stop. The trouble is, so is every other DC hero, since (as far as I know) there's nothing like the Citizen Crimefighting Act in the DCU to license their activities.

In CoX terms, I'd personally consider the modern Batman to be a Hero. He's a protector first (he'll always choose to save a life rather than catch the attempted killer), and regards principles as more important than results. At the end of the day, Batman has few problems working with Superman; if he met the Punisher, it could only end in violence.

Golden Age Batman, yeah, he was pretty messed up.