Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Shadowbane2]

I'd say LN. Some of his actions can be rather down right eveil, though it's always for the greater good.

 

[Hellcow]

Is torture worse than death?

It depends. In my opinion, yes. A good person can kill evil people, but I expect them to do it quickly and cleanly. They should not take joy in the suffering of others, nor should they kill if it can be avoided without placing innocents in danger.

If torture involves a slow, systematic infliction of physical and psychological damage on another being with the potential of causing permanent maiming or psychological damage, I think it's worse than a pitched battle against a group of evil (or, for that matter, good) creatures who, if left unopposed, will kill innocents.

Now, I believe that there's a strong pulp tradition of heroes being willing to rough up a suspect to get him to talk. In my mind, it's all about the extent of the injury you're willing to cause, whether you will employ violence if other options are available, and who suffers. Punching the goon to get him to talk? Fine. Punching his wife in front of him? Now you're not so good in my book.

In Eberron (which I realize is not the topic of conversation, so my apologies) I see alignment as flexible. A good person can do something terrible if he absolutely has to. If the only way to save the universe is to eat the bad guy's children until he confesses, you may be forced to do that; you shouldn't have to say "I can't do that, I'm good." But it should be a traumatic experience for the good person as well as the victim, and something he hopes he'll never have to do again. If it's something he's comfortable with... if he carries around a bib in his pocket for baby-eating... he's evil. And I agree with the idea that the more you do it, the easier it is to justify it as acceptable... making it easy for good to slip into evil.

D&D is based around violence and death. But I don't think that a good person is justified in bloodthirsty slaughter, even if the victims are evil. A CG barbarian may fight with rage in his heart, but in my opinion, if he's CG, he should be fighting in the defense of others... not simply because he loves killing things. Meanwhile, the bloodthirsty, sociopathic barbarian who truly only loves to kill things could serve a good cause, if he happens to be on the right path; he's fighting a war against demons, and if he wasn't killing the demons, they'd kill innocents. The result is good. But he himself is a very disturbed and evil man.

I see Jack in the same way. He fights the good fight. The world may need him. His methods may be necessary. But that doesn't make him good. Again, in Eberron, you can have the evil king who wants peace; it's all about what he's prepared to do to get it. I think many spies and spymasters will be neutral at best or evil, simply because of what needs to be done to do their jobs efficiently.

But, that's just my opinion, and one I've gone into far too much detail about on other threads... and one that has more bearing on Eberron than core D&D rules, anyway. So I'll shut up now and go back to lurking.

 

[RangerWickett]

Don't go back to lurking, Keith. You have good insights, and you should push heavily to get Eberron's ideas of alignment put into a more 'core' book at some point. However, I'm afraid of turning this thread into something about 4e. That would be torture.

Anyway, earlier when I brought up torture, I was thinking of Jack Bauer's style of roughing up a badguy and threatening things he cherishes because it's the fastest way to get answers, even though it probably shouldn't work. When you've got 5 minutes to save the world, and you have the option of taking 2 minutes on a cruel act that might pull it off, or taking an hour to arrange a presidential pardon, well, I'd go with the 2 minute cruel act.

But yeah, Jack is certainly not as good as he was in earlier seasons. And I think I've been convinced by Keith that he's evil, but working toward good goals.

In other news, I just started playing in an Eberron campaign last night. *grin*

 

[Alzrius]

Can someone expand on this reference? Its an idea I've contemplated for a royal assassin type in the past....

I can't expand on the direct reference, but the idea there seems to be thematically drawn from Kanjincho, a very popular kabuki play.

The play is about the famous figure Minamoto no Yoshitsune, who is fleeing, along with his faithful sohei (warrior monk) Benkei, assassins from his brother Minamoto no Yoritomo.

When the pair comes upon a holding of Yoritomo's that they must pass, they try to disguise themselves. So refined is Yoshitsune, however, that the soldiers quickly realize who is attempting to pass through their checkpoint. Desperate, Benkei, still in disguise, attempts to convince the soldiers that this person cannot be Yoshitsune, and to prove it, beats him. The soldiers let the pair pass.

The reason they let the pair pass, however, was not because they were convinced of the deception - indeed, they all saw through it. However, to strike your lord is the height of dishonor; it is the worst shame. That Benkei was willing to make such a sacrifice for his liege awed them so greatly that they couldn't bring themselves to arrest the two.

This is largely the same principle for the Scorpion Clan in L5R, I suspect; you dishonor yourself so that that which you serve may proceed smoothly.

 

[Banshee16]

It depends. In my opinion, yes. A good person can kill evil people, but I expect them to do it quickly and cleanly. They should not take joy in the suffering of others, nor should they kill if it can be avoided without placing innocents in danger.

If torture involves a slow, systematic infliction of physical and psychological damage on another being with the potential of causing permanent maiming or psychological damage, I think it's worse than a pitched battle against a group of evil (or, for that matter, good) creatures who, if left unopposed, will kill innocents.

Now, I believe that there's a strong pulp tradition of heroes being willing to rough up a suspect to get him to talk. In my mind, it's all about the extent of the injury you're willing to cause, whether you will employ violence if other options are available, and who suffers. Punching the goon to get him to talk? Fine. Punching his wife in front of him? Now you're not so good in my book.

In Eberron (which I realize is not the topic of conversation, so my apologies) I see alignment as flexible. A good person can do something terrible if he absolutely has to. If the only way to save the universe is to eat the bad guy's children until he confesses, you may be forced to do that; you shouldn't have to say "I can't do that, I'm good." But it should be a traumatic experience for the good person as well as the victim, and something he hopes he'll never have to do again. If it's something he's comfortable with... if he carries around a bib in his pocket for baby-eating... he's evil. And I agree with the idea that the more you do it, the easier it is to justify it as acceptable... making it easy for good to slip into evil.

D&D is based around violence and death. But I don't think that a good person is justified in bloodthirsty slaughter, even if the victims are evil. A CG barbarian may fight with rage in his heart, but in my opinion, if he's CG, he should be fighting in the defense of others... not simply because he loves killing things. Meanwhile, the bloodthirsty, sociopathic barbarian who truly only loves to kill things could serve a good cause, if he happens to be on the right path; he's fighting a war against demons, and if he wasn't killing the demons, they'd kill innocents. The result is good. But he himself is a very disturbed and evil man.

I see Jack in the same way. He fights the good fight. The world may need him. His methods may be necessary. But that doesn't make him good. Again, in Eberron, you can have the evil king who wants peace; it's all about what he's prepared to do to get it. I think many spies and spymasters will be neutral at best or evil, simply because of what needs to be done to do their jobs efficiently.

But, that's just my opinion, and one I've gone into far too much detail about on other threads... and one that has more bearing on Eberron than core D&D rules, anyway. So I'll shut up now and go back to lurking.

Well said. That's kind of what I was getting at, though it's interesting to see the Eberron analogy, because in many ways it's correct. Even the ECS points out that in a good priesthood you could have an evil priest who's supporting his order's goals, but has ceased being actually provided with spells by his own Power, but instead by another, darker one.

Jack's a bit like a rabid dog. A rabid dog isn't a good thing. But a rabid dog on a pole that allows it to be controlled, and being used to track down serial killers? It's a bad thing being put to a good purpose.

Maybe, given the opportunity to relax, and get out of that career, and these situations he keeps ending up in, Jack might eventually drive back towards good. Maybe he'll eventually do something that will shock even him, and it will send him into such a crisis of faith that he questions what he's been doing to date, and changes his MO.

In the D&D system, I could also see the flipside....what about an evil king, who's LE. He believes in the good of the many over the one, bending his own laws to accomplish his goals, etc. But he's got his chief minister who's actually "good", and he uses this minister because the minister implements policies that keep the overall populace happy, and paying their taxes as a result. Meanwhile the king doesn't care if they're happy, but he does care if they become unhappy enough to revolt, because then he has to spend money he's been saving up to put the revolt down. Dragonlance is another setting where I could see this happening. In many of the novels you've got evil and good characters working together. Wouldn't work in Forgotten Realms, I think.

Banshee

 

[Felon]

How the hell can anyone even suggest Bauer is lawful? He cares nothing for the law. He breaks the law, he breaks the rules, he breaks his word...Lawful is right out.

Now, let's think about whether he's neutral or chaotic. Can Jack work within the rules? Does he respect anyone in a position of authority? Does he believe individual freedoms sometimes have to take a back seat to the greater good? Sure he does. So he's not chaotic either.

Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..

Seems to sum up Jack pretty well. If you're still not convinced, let's take a quick look at CG:

Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Is Jack a "rebel"? Yeah, I know he breaks the rules, but rules-flouting does not a rebel make. For 24 hours he may wind up running amok and answering to no one, but the other 364 days out of the year, Jack actually worked for the Counter-Terrorism Unit, commitnng various crimes against personal freedoms and civil liberties. Simply put, a chaotic good person couldn't with the CTU to begin with. Such a person would be vehemently opposed to the things they do in the name of national security.

Bottome line, it's gotta be NG.

 

[Felon]

Don't go back to lurking, Keith. You have good insights, and you should push heavily to get Eberron's ideas of alignment put into a more 'core' book at some point.

Agreed. Keith, you have way too much to contribute to be a lurker.

But yeah, Jack is certainly not as good as he was in earlier seasons. And I think I've been convinced by Keith that he's evil, but working toward good goals.

Nah, Jack is a good person trying to do a very tough job. He is not motivated by malice towards others or personal gain. Despite his willingness to torture and maim, he does not view people as commodities to be casually disposed of. For instance, when he shoots Henderson's wife, he doesn't just say "well, that's what you get for marrying a scumbag, lady". He goes out of his way to make it a flesh wound, and makes sure she gets medical attention. When he breaks his word to the German agent and doesn't hold up his end of the deal, he doesn't just say "haha, sucker". He calls the guy up and apologizes.

It's small consolation for his victims, but Jack has palpable feelings of guilt and anguish about the stuff he does. Remorse is one of the things that evil people have no truck with.

 

[sword-dancer]

I don't watch the show, so maybe there's more to it than you just described, but "staging fake executions of children" isn't anything like what I consider to be torture.

What else is torture then , i consider everyone to do such a thing depraved rotten to the core or absolutly amoral psychotic.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What is the torture, i consider everyone to do such a thing depraved rotten to the core or absolutly amoral psychotic.

It's also worth noting the US military explicitly trains soldiers to withstand such sort of psychological warfare and considers such a thing to be torture.

 

[sword-dancer]

Is torture worse than death?

According to the UN Stautes, the Constitution of my country, the geneva conventions, including christian ´morals and the accepted moral and ethics etc it is a crime, to the military law in germany a soldier who does this does a crime, even if ordered it will not be valid in court or reduce his punishment, quite contrary it would be a violation not to stop the torturer with all acceptable means, which includes 7,62mm straight through the torturers head if necessary IMO .

If it`s worse than death?
Murder or self defense?