Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Harmon]

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...

Agree completely.

 

[Thotas]

Another character that would be difficult to characterize in D&D's alignment scheme would be Londo Molari of Babylon 5. Londo did horribly evil things for obstensibly good reasons, felt guilty repented them but didn't stop cold turkey. He promoted large scale chaos with the goal of promoting a supreme rule of law. Some of the problems he caused were'nt intentional, just cases of incomplete knowledge and/or very poor judgement. Yet it doesn't seem right to call him Neutral, because one thing he always did was take a side.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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?

In a world in which principles and beliefs have tangible meaning, perhaps not. Moral issues do not always have straightforwardly utilitarian solutions, and often, the surest way to corrupt morality is to offer such a solution. An example might be as follows: Suppose that you *know* the only way to prevent the deaths of one million innocent people is to kill one innocent. Now say it's 100 innocents (precision bombing, say). Now say it's 1000 people (carpet bombing). Now say it's one million minus one (nuclear preemptive). Which is the morally correct solution?

Okay, super-contrived example, but it's late. I don't doubt that there are situations in which a compromise of principles and beliefs is truly necessary, but that's a matter of wisdom, not alignment. This, of course, is where morality gets complicated. I don't know that any of us in the real world have figured out the answers to some of those questions, and that, IMHO, is the point. Alignment is there in order to complicate things. Heroic sagas that make it easy to know and do the right thing would be kinda boring, wouldn't they? Even stories in which the heroes are supposedly morality-resistant (pulp and noir stuff ranging from Conan to The Shootist to Chinatown) find those heroes doing the right thing even when it's not so convenient or predictable for them to do so.

My point is that alignment simply offers a way to make tangible some of the heroic elements without which it's all too easy to engage in MMORPG-style killing things and taking their stuff. Alignment, and especially being good, offers serious role-playing dilemmas and character conflict, which, handled well, can make for excellent RPing. It shouldn't be taken as a "crutch" for DMs or a raison d'etre for players, but an aspirational element. Putting down "Lawful Good" on your character sheet should be a statement that you to WANT to uphold the highest ideals of Law, Justice, Mercy, and Benevolence, and that an essential part of your PC's life mission will be to do those things... unless he changes his mind.

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.

To a certain extent, I do agree, but not entirely. I've dispensed with alignment in favor of a virtue and corruption token system (I play Iron Heroes), but I do miss certain elements that alignment adds to the game. I've had great games featuring alignment issues aplenty.

 

[Ds Da Man]

He's willing to give his life to defend country, family, friend. He's put into situations where he has 24 hours to generally save the lives of thousands of people, and some of you think he's evil because he may torture a scumbag to stop the mass loss of life? I don't see it. I believe the CG fits Jack to a tee. He operates within laws that fit his belief which is overall good. I don't think torturing a murderer to find out where a child is buried alive or starving is evil.

 

[Banshee16]

He's willing to give his life to defend country, family, friend. He's put into situations where he has 24 hours to generally save the lives of thousands of people, and some of you think he's evil because he may torture a scumbag to stop the mass loss of life? I don't see it. I believe the CG fits Jack to a tee. He operates within laws that fit his belief which is overall good. I don't think torturing a murderer to find out where a child is buried alive or starving is evil.

test

 

[Ace]

Is torture worse than death?

QUOTE]

Depends on if you quantify sadism as a form of torture as well. I just finished a book which was the first in a trilogy, in which a villain, who is a spy, tricked the heroine of the story, drugged her, and kept her alive with drugs or something (magic?) and forced her to watch as he disemboweled her, and took her entire body apart while she was still aware, forcing her to watch the whole process in a mirror until she died.

Look at a sample like that......I would say that would have been worse than death, as she would have suffered immense physical and emotional pain before she died. A clean death would have been kinder for the character.

Thankfully the book was a fiction. Aside from that scene, it was actually a pretty good book. But that scene at the end was quite repugnant. In some ways it was worse than the "Red Wedding" in George RR Martin's books.

Banshee

What book? I'd be curiou to read something that awful

Oh On topic -- jack is Lawful Evil

Lawful becuase of his desire to protect the USA evil because torture in D&D is always EVIL according to the book of vile darkness

It is permissibale for evil people to be decent, likeable and interesting. It doesn't make em less evil though

 

[Gumby]

So, Gregory House, M.D.....


Chaotic Neutral or what?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

Other problems with "fantasy torture" (and I use fantasy not as the genre but for the standard fictional situations where torture is employed and justified):

1) the BAD guy rarely denies having the knowlege needed or will even smugly flaunt it to the hero. In the real world there is always the chance (sometimes a good chance) that you are torturing some schmoe who you got a lead on due to general distrustworthyness or a personal feud, or wrong place/wrong time. This is why torture is mostly used to get confessions, which are then used to make everyone feel better, rather than information.

2) Mr GOOD guy torturer has an infalible Sense Motive check, or even more commonly, the BAD guy never bothers to lie, just spills his guts imediately and truthfully once he "breaks" making us all feel better that the torture was distateful but effective (and allowing us to look down our noses at those who won't dirty their hands to get the job done.)

If you want to judge these men from within their carefully constructed fantasy worlds, they don't have to be evil. Of course the same thing could be said of just about any evil act from the real world. What I find more interesting is how we (as a media producing and consuming culture) so consistently create and accept these complicated fantasies to justify our sadistic GOOD guys.

 

[prosfilaes]

So, Gregory House, M.D.....


Chaotic Neutral or what?

Yeah. No question about the chaotic part; when authority has to threaten you to do your job and you go head to head with the owner of the hospital really just because, you're chaotic.

Good versus evil is harder, but he's more interested in solving the problem than helping people. He's been "unavailable" for consulation when it didn't suit him, and would rather watch TV than work in the clinic. Combine that with a casual attitude towards other's rights, and I'd definetly call him neutral.

 

[Bront]

Jack is definately Lawful. He is methodical, organized in his throughts, and has a fairly strict personal code.

Good... well, I'm inclined to say Neutral. He is generaly thinking of the greater good (a good trait), but willing to do anything for the greater good (including evil actions). And it's not isolated.

Neutral is the blending of good and evil, which seems to show him fairly well.

I find it interesting to see if he's changed. I felt in the 1st season, he was Lawful Good, but he's strayed more neutral since then.