Giants in the Earth discussion: Jack Sparrow and Pirates of the Carribean

[Relique du Madde]

He specifically went to Tortuga to find 99 hapless souls to give to Davy Jones. And even if he wasn't, he was pretty comfortable with leaving Will to Jones.

No, he's Evil. I'm trying to find one instance in both movies so far where he does something truly Good, but I'm coming up short.

Not entirely. He was asking people to become pirates (an inherantly chaotic or evil trade) which is known to end in death or imprisonment of the majority of those involved. The souls of those he got to sign on were hapless but they were not innocent, instead they would be complacent in their own demise. So in effect Jack was only hastening their ill fate by acting as a proxy for Davy Jones (since those people would have signed any carter for any pirate ship and may have died no matter what).

However, if Jack would have decided to capture/sink ships or pressgang crew members then that would have been evil.

 

[Thomas Percy]

Of course, a lot of Jack's actions in Pirates 1 could be construed as evil too, but we get to see his schemes unfold according to his designs. In Pirates 2, we never got to see his endgame plan.

That's why we MUST see third part .

 

[Hussar]

Not entirely. He was asking people to become pirates (an inherantly chaotic or evil trade) which is known to end in death or imprisonment of the majority of those involved. The souls of those he got to sign on were hapless but they were not innocent, instead they would be complacent in their own demise. So in effect Jack was only hastening their ill fate by acting as a proxy for Davy Jones (since those people would have signed any carter for any pirate ship and may have died no matter what).

However, if Jack would have decided to capture/sink ships or pressgang crew members then that would have been evil.

So, it's ok to make deals with a devil to sell souls so long as the souls you sell are evil?

Sorry, selling souls to the devil is pretty much definitively evil. Jack's pretty much the epitome of Neutral Evil. He's out for himself and he's willing to sell people's souls in order to get what he wants.

A good character does good acts. Not just not-evil. Doing just not-evil makes you neutral at best. However, selling souls, pretty much drags down the evil side of the balance.

 

[Klaus]

Not entirely. He was asking people to become pirates (an inherantly chaotic or evil trade) which is known to end in death or imprisonment of the majority of those involved. The souls of those he got to sign on were hapless but they were not innocent, instead they would be complacent in their own demise. So in effect Jack was only hastening their ill fate by acting as a proxy for Davy Jones (since those people would have signed any carter for any pirate ship and may have died no matter what).

However, if Jack would have decided to capture/sink ships or pressgang crew members then that would have been evil.

I watched PotC2 this week, so I remember it well. Jack was signing on people with no nautical expertise, inclination or skill. Some of them had no skill at anything, and at least one had a death wish.

No, he wasn't signing them in to man the Black Pearl, he was signing them for Jones' chest.

 

[Klaus]

When he went back to the Pearl as it was fighting the Kraken. That was his one Good act, which of course led to Beths first Evil act and his heroic death. As had all been foreshadowed.

If Elizabeth's analysis of Jack is to be believed, he went back to the Pearl to find out what it'd feel like. And he jumped into the Kraken's maw out of pure swashbucklery.

That does not make him any less Evil.

 

[Gez]

Yes, Jack is evil. He's nonetheless the good guy of the story, because it's clearly biased toward pirates of course, but he's evil as far as alignments are concerned.

It shows that one can be chaotic evil and still not be a clone of Belkar.

Giving him levels of barbarian, as Mark proposes, isn't a bad idea; but if so he needs the whirling frenzy variant instead of standard rage.

 

[Henry]

Klaus, so is it possible for a neutral character to perform evil actions at all? What woudl constitute neutral, if Jack is evil?

 

[Slife]

Charismatic Selfish.

 

[Klaus]

Klaus, so is it possible for a neutral character to perform evil actions at all? What woudl constitute neutral, if Jack is evil?

Most Neutral characters won't be consistently favoring neither Good nor Evil. Like, say, a housewife that helps out the local orphanage, but still spreads nasty gossips about her neighbours.

If you only take into account the first movie, Jack is more CN than anything. But the second movie establishes that Jack made a deal with the devil to get the Black Pearl, and when push came to shove, actually plotted to have Will's soul replace his own in Jones' ship. When that proved unsufficient, he proceeded to enlist 99 other souls to appease the devil.

 

[Henry]

Most Neutral characters won't be consistently favoring neither Good nor Evil. Like, say, a housewife that helps out the local orphanage, but still spreads nasty gossips about her neighbours.

If you only take into account the first movie, Jack is more CN than anything. But the second movie establishes that Jack made a deal with the devil to get the Black Pearl, and when push came to shove, actually plotted to have Will's soul replace his own in Jones' ship. When that proved unsufficient, he proceeded to enlist 99 other souls to appease the devil.

Had he carried out the plan, I'd probably say yes. But seeing as how he's constantly having changes of heart and reversing the decisions he's made to leave people high and dry to his benefit, he continuously keeps getting pulled back to doing the right thing. With that conflicted a soul, I'd still have to call him neutral. To me, a good or evil alignment shows a commitment to that ideal, a consistent choice; someone who vacillates, doing wickedness and then undoing that wickedness, I'd call neutral. Were Jack truly evil, he'd never have had a second thought in most circumstances.