Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
24: Day 7: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM/Season 7-Eps#!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4627944" data-attributes="member: 22424"><p>Sure, I get that. But the thing is, they had an opportunity to explore some conflicting ideals there - Jack's belief that he had to do "whatever it takes" vs the FBI's insistence that they do things by the book, even when it's not convenient. There's the potential for some interesting storytelling there, especially when either the FBI refuse to torture, and something bad happens as a result or Jack engages in torture, and is later proven wrong.</p><p></p><p>Instead, the writers had the FBI agents talk up their principles, in fact explicitly stating that they'd apply "even when it's not convenient", and then casting them aside the instant those principles become inconvenient. It wasn't even a matter of a character coming to the conclusion that she'd been wrong, or that the consequences were so high that she had no choice - the character broke procedure literally at the very first opportunity.</p><p></p><p>And the victim of this torture? This wasn't some known terrorist that was known to have information that was immediately valuable. This was a contact whom Jack thought <em>might</em> have some information about the location of a <em>suspected</em> terrorist who <em>might</em> be involved in a threat that thus far had cost exactly zero lives! This wasn't even someone they suspected might be himself involved, and they had no evidence of current wrong-doing on the part of this individual.</p><p></p><p>Basically, I don't get it: why go to the bother of getting rid of CTU and replacing it with a unit of the FBI, complete with a "new George" (actually, "new Ryan Chapelle" might be a better description), "new Nina", "new Tony" and "new Chloe", if this new unit is functionally identical to the old CTU? The one distinction were the supposed principles that they followed, but those got discarded immediately. They've even got the obligatory "mole in the new-CTU" subplot going on!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="delericho, post: 4627944, member: 22424"] Sure, I get that. But the thing is, they had an opportunity to explore some conflicting ideals there - Jack's belief that he had to do "whatever it takes" vs the FBI's insistence that they do things by the book, even when it's not convenient. There's the potential for some interesting storytelling there, especially when either the FBI refuse to torture, and something bad happens as a result or Jack engages in torture, and is later proven wrong. Instead, the writers had the FBI agents talk up their principles, in fact explicitly stating that they'd apply "even when it's not convenient", and then casting them aside the instant those principles become inconvenient. It wasn't even a matter of a character coming to the conclusion that she'd been wrong, or that the consequences were so high that she had no choice - the character broke procedure literally at the very first opportunity. And the victim of this torture? This wasn't some known terrorist that was known to have information that was immediately valuable. This was a contact whom Jack thought [i]might[/i] have some information about the location of a [i]suspected[/i] terrorist who [i]might[/i] be involved in a threat that thus far had cost exactly zero lives! This wasn't even someone they suspected might be himself involved, and they had no evidence of current wrong-doing on the part of this individual. Basically, I don't get it: why go to the bother of getting rid of CTU and replacing it with a unit of the FBI, complete with a "new George" (actually, "new Ryan Chapelle" might be a better description), "new Nina", "new Tony" and "new Chloe", if this new unit is functionally identical to the old CTU? The one distinction were the supposed principles that they followed, but those got discarded immediately. They've even got the obligatory "mole in the new-CTU" subplot going on! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
24: Day 7: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM/Season 7-Eps#!
Top
