Is Jack Bauer LG?
- Thread starter loki44
- Start date
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Whizbang Dustyboots said:
I have to wonder how effective such training can be. If you stun someone's nerve endings (so they don't feel pain) and then cut them open and show them their own pancreas, won't they still talk?
Nyarlathotep
Explorer
The thing with Jack Bauer is that he's put into a series of impossible* scenarios over the course of a very short time span. The D&D equivilent would be something along the lines of:
An evil wizard is planning to open a gate to the Abyss in the kingdom's capitol by the end of the day. He's taken measures to ensure that he won't/can't divulge how to stop the gate from opening against his will by magical means and he won't break under torture. The only leverage against this wizard is his family, who he loves dearly. A paladin attempting to stop the gate from opening is confronted with the choice of either A) threatening (and maybe even hurting his family) to stop the gate from opening, or B) respecting the sanctity of other persons and letting a gate to the Abyss open, resulting in the deaths of thousands (or more).
What's the paladin to do in a case like this?
Personally, I'd say Jack is probably either LN or TN. In season 1 I think you could make the arguement that he's LG, perhaps even a paladin, but there is a definate "fall from grace". In season 2 he's much closer to LN (generally operating under orders from President Palmer), Season 3 - 5 is probably TN. He does feel remorse and guilt for his actions (example: in Season 2, when he fakes the execution of Sayid's family, he tells Sayid how much he despises him for making him do this), but will take whatever actions are necessary to ensure the safety of thousands, no matter the cost to himself.
In any case I think he's a fascinating character/
*In both the "that would never happen" sense and the "there is no right choice to be made here" sense.
An evil wizard is planning to open a gate to the Abyss in the kingdom's capitol by the end of the day. He's taken measures to ensure that he won't/can't divulge how to stop the gate from opening against his will by magical means and he won't break under torture. The only leverage against this wizard is his family, who he loves dearly. A paladin attempting to stop the gate from opening is confronted with the choice of either A) threatening (and maybe even hurting his family) to stop the gate from opening, or B) respecting the sanctity of other persons and letting a gate to the Abyss open, resulting in the deaths of thousands (or more).
What's the paladin to do in a case like this?
Personally, I'd say Jack is probably either LN or TN. In season 1 I think you could make the arguement that he's LG, perhaps even a paladin, but there is a definate "fall from grace". In season 2 he's much closer to LN (generally operating under orders from President Palmer), Season 3 - 5 is probably TN. He does feel remorse and guilt for his actions (example: in Season 2, when he fakes the execution of Sayid's family, he tells Sayid how much he despises him for making him do this), but will take whatever actions are necessary to ensure the safety of thousands, no matter the cost to himself.
In any case I think he's a fascinating character/
*In both the "that would never happen" sense and the "there is no right choice to be made here" sense.
catsclaw227
First Post
Hellcow said:
This reminds me of Cersi Lannister from the George RR Martin books. She is evil, but she does things in defense of her family and to establish peace (under her rule, at any cost).
Thotas
First Post
Kahuna, I'm no L5R expert, and I am summarizing what I do know here. With that caveat and apologies upfront for any error, let me tell you more. In the early history of Rokugan, the country was divided into clans. Each clan was given a job, and was exempted or given latitude in regard to customs and traditions when it was needed to make those jobs easier. For example, the Crab clan guards a wall which protects the country from The Shadowlands, a virtual Hell on Earth full of demons and corrupted creatures who would be happy to overrun the world. Since they live on the front lines, the Crabs are rough. They're loud, brash, uncouth and sometimes lacking in personal hygiene -- the half orcs of their world. If a Lion clan member behaved this way, they'd be social outcasts. But in a Crab, it's not only tolerated, it's some what expected. Now, with the Scorpions, it was determined early on that that in politics, situations get complicated, and there are times when necessity requires actions that no one wants to do or even have some one else do. For a historical example, early in the history of Hitler's rise to power, there was a failed assassination attempt on him involving a bomb planted in a briefcase. We generally disaprove of assassination, but we also generally agree that a lot of horrible things that happened in history might have been averted if that bomb had succeeded. Had Germany a Scorpion clan at the time, they'd have been the ones who planted that bomb.
As far a Jack, Nyarlathotep has got it pretty well decribed. It's pretty easy to call it when someone's choosing between good and evil, but as I said earlier, Jack's GM is a RB (sorry about the pizza milk), and his choices are seldom so clear-cut. Take for example, the oft-cited shooting of the wife's leg to get her husband to talk. Everyone's saying it's awful, and yes, they're right. In fact, it's even worse than that because what hasn't been brought up yet is that the woman was not just some stranger Jack was using as a pawn. He'd known her for years, and they were good friends. The shooting happened in her living room where Jack had been invited to sit down because it was so good to see an old friend after so many years. But just as it makes it worse that he shot a friend, it raises the point that he clearly didn't want to do it. Again, as mentioned earlier, the scenario provides a context that makes a difference. It wasn't a nuke in Yankee Stadium, but it was nerve gas and (if I recall correctly) at that point the location was the information Jack was looking for. Jack makes a lot of hard decisions, it's the thing that makes the show interesting. He once put a gun to a fellow agent's head and pulled the trigger to prove he was on the bad guy's side and not blow his cover. Turned out the gun was empty and it was all a test, but Jack was ready to kill the guy, I'm sure on the principle that if he didn't do it, they'd both be killed any way and the mission would fail. Oh yeah, one more complication -- the agent he had to shoot was also his daughter's boyfriend.
Back in the 70's Clint Eastwood played a character named Inspector Harry Callahan, nick-named "Dirty Harry". There was a lot of criticism of how violent that character was, but it always seemed to me that those critics all missed that Harry (especially in the earlier movies) had a real distaste for the violence he was so good at. There was a true sense of "why are you idiots making me do this to you?". I see the same in Jack. He loathes the kinds of things he does to get the job done, but when he sees that need, he doesn't hesitate for a moment. Jack certainly works with and is respected by people who are Lawful and/or Good. On Monday's episode, Aaron Peirce is bound to a chair, blood covering the lower half of his face and when offered a sweet deal for his silence, he looked into the face of the most powerful man in the world and said, basiclly, "I don't approve of anything you've said or done, and it is my job and my duty to see that you pay for all that you've done wrong and I will do that job and that duty to the best of my ability" -- that's paladin talk, and he supports Jack and trusts him implicitly.
As far a Jack, Nyarlathotep has got it pretty well decribed. It's pretty easy to call it when someone's choosing between good and evil, but as I said earlier, Jack's GM is a RB (sorry about the pizza milk), and his choices are seldom so clear-cut. Take for example, the oft-cited shooting of the wife's leg to get her husband to talk. Everyone's saying it's awful, and yes, they're right. In fact, it's even worse than that because what hasn't been brought up yet is that the woman was not just some stranger Jack was using as a pawn. He'd known her for years, and they were good friends. The shooting happened in her living room where Jack had been invited to sit down because it was so good to see an old friend after so many years. But just as it makes it worse that he shot a friend, it raises the point that he clearly didn't want to do it. Again, as mentioned earlier, the scenario provides a context that makes a difference. It wasn't a nuke in Yankee Stadium, but it was nerve gas and (if I recall correctly) at that point the location was the information Jack was looking for. Jack makes a lot of hard decisions, it's the thing that makes the show interesting. He once put a gun to a fellow agent's head and pulled the trigger to prove he was on the bad guy's side and not blow his cover. Turned out the gun was empty and it was all a test, but Jack was ready to kill the guy, I'm sure on the principle that if he didn't do it, they'd both be killed any way and the mission would fail. Oh yeah, one more complication -- the agent he had to shoot was also his daughter's boyfriend.
Back in the 70's Clint Eastwood played a character named Inspector Harry Callahan, nick-named "Dirty Harry". There was a lot of criticism of how violent that character was, but it always seemed to me that those critics all missed that Harry (especially in the earlier movies) had a real distaste for the violence he was so good at. There was a true sense of "why are you idiots making me do this to you?". I see the same in Jack. He loathes the kinds of things he does to get the job done, but when he sees that need, he doesn't hesitate for a moment. Jack certainly works with and is respected by people who are Lawful and/or Good. On Monday's episode, Aaron Peirce is bound to a chair, blood covering the lower half of his face and when offered a sweet deal for his silence, he looked into the face of the most powerful man in the world and said, basiclly, "I don't approve of anything you've said or done, and it is my job and my duty to see that you pay for all that you've done wrong and I will do that job and that duty to the best of my ability" -- that's paladin talk, and he supports Jack and trusts him implicitly.
ruleslawyer
Registered User
This also raises an important point about alignment. To paraphrase Kermit, "It's not easy being good." In D&D, strong morality offers tangible benefits: the ability to smite evil, or turn undead, or gain exalted feats. Those benefits have to come with some balancing penalty. There are certain situations in which rough justice simply won't cut it; principle must triumph over expediency. Otherwise, there's nothing really difficult about being Good. Okay, true, so 3e does provide tangible benefits for being of other alignments as well (Good no longer holds the monopoly on overpowered classes like the 1e paladin and ranger), but the fact remains that if alignment is to have ANY effect on the game, it needs to be at least somewhat proscriptive in intent; not in the sense that "you can't do that, you're [x alignment]," but in the sense that "you can't do that and continue to be [x alignment]."
IOW, principles are not truly held until they are tested and found sufficient. That's why people die for them, give their wealth, lives, and careers for them, and even sacrifice family and friends for them. A Good character who undertakes Evil acts because it's "necessary" is not going to be Good for long. All too often, saying that it's okay to temporarily abandon one's principles because otherwise, their objective will be thwarted, is simply an ends-means justification.
IOW, principles are not truly held until they are tested and found sufficient. That's why people die for them, give their wealth, lives, and careers for them, and even sacrifice family and friends for them. A Good character who undertakes Evil acts because it's "necessary" is not going to be Good for long. All too often, saying that it's okay to temporarily abandon one's principles because otherwise, their objective will be thwarted, is simply an ends-means justification.
Nyarlathotep
Explorer
ruleslawyer said:
Good points in your post, but I can see where "good" actions that you are willing to sacrifice all for can easily end in an "evil" result. If you never compromise your principles and beliefs and others die because of it, isn't that evil even if your intentions were good?
I've come to the conclusion that alignment is one of the sacred cows of D&D that should be turned into hamburger and then into a fine chili, eaten and forgotten about. Too often it has no effect or is used to screw players (I'd hate to play a paladiin under most circumstances). There are some campaigns where that is not the case, but I believe they are few and far between.
You know a number of years ago I was watching that horrid "Dragnet" movie they made with Tom Hanks and Dan Ackroyd and there's this scene where Tom is torturing a gang member for information and it's played for laughs and what not, but it did give me an insight as to the difference between torture in a lot of movies and TV shows and reality.
In a lot of media, you are presented with a situation where you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that the good guy is good and the bad guy is bad and in a lot of media, this is used as kind of a free pass for the good guy to do pretty much any horrible thing to the bad guy since there is no question of which is which. And usually there is some sort of "Extreme" situation where something awful is going to happen if they don't get the information, which often is used as sort of a double justification.
In reality the problem is that if you permit things like torture, you INVARIABLY wind up with people doing the torture who enjoy it or have no qualms about using it. If you permit people to act like monsters, you will invariably wind up with monsters.
Lost actually has dealt with this issue fairly realistically. Sayeed knows that in many ways he is a monster and capable of doing monsterous things. Also they've denied the audience the certainty of who is good and who isn't, which makes the scenes of torture as unpleasant and questionable as they ought to be, not the smug "I'm good, you're bad and therefore I can do anything I want to you." of trash like Dragnet.
In a lot of media, you are presented with a situation where you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that the good guy is good and the bad guy is bad and in a lot of media, this is used as kind of a free pass for the good guy to do pretty much any horrible thing to the bad guy since there is no question of which is which. And usually there is some sort of "Extreme" situation where something awful is going to happen if they don't get the information, which often is used as sort of a double justification.
In reality the problem is that if you permit things like torture, you INVARIABLY wind up with people doing the torture who enjoy it or have no qualms about using it. If you permit people to act like monsters, you will invariably wind up with monsters.
Lost actually has dealt with this issue fairly realistically. Sayeed knows that in many ways he is a monster and capable of doing monsterous things. Also they've denied the audience the certainty of who is good and who isn't, which makes the scenes of torture as unpleasant and questionable as they ought to be, not the smug "I'm good, you're bad and therefore I can do anything I want to you." of trash like Dragnet.
Not a fan of the show.
Having seen the entire first season on DVD (thank you wife), I know that Jack is former Delta Force. Knowing that I know that there is not a chance in all of the Nine Planes of Heck that Jack is a Good alignment.
Having seen the show I can't believe that anyone would consider him as such, but everyone views the alignment system differently. As a GM if one of my Players was playing a LG character and played him like Jack- nah, straight to LE. Let the Player play the character with a Code of Honor or Conduct as it were.
Something else- I love the character. Fantastic character actually.
Having seen the entire first season on DVD (thank you wife), I know that Jack is former Delta Force. Knowing that I know that there is not a chance in all of the Nine Planes of Heck that Jack is a Good alignment.
Having seen the show I can't believe that anyone would consider him as such, but everyone views the alignment system differently. As a GM if one of my Players was playing a LG character and played him like Jack- nah, straight to LE. Let the Player play the character with a Code of Honor or Conduct as it were.
Something else- I love the character. Fantastic character actually.
JVisgaitis
Explorer
Thotas said:
Hehehe... Funny stuff. I would probably assign his as LN. He's definitely reliable and honorable in his adherence to his own code. Then again, people use alignment as such a crutch he could easily fit into quite a few. Man, I hate these debates...
