Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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?

Why would they? What the heck are they going to do, sew you up and apologize if you do?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Your scenario might be contrived, but it's a common example for moral dilemnas and problems.
Maybe the "solution" is that whatever you decide, and whatever the specific circumstances were, there is no "good" or morally correct decision. It doesn't mean you are evil, it means you did something between good and evil. It is a grey area.
That is actually something supported with the D&D alignment system - beyond good and evil, neutral is an actual option.

 

[delericho]

Another character that would be difficult to characterize in D&D's alignment scheme would be Londo Molari of Babylon 5.

Londo is a study in alignment change. He starts off as CG, switches to CN at the end of the first season, drifts towards LE failrly quickly as both he, his house and his empire gain in power and prestige, moves back towards LN as the Shadow War comes to an end, struggles very hard back towards Good (probably without actually getting there), and then is forced back of LE by the Drakh (although most of that is with the compulsion of his Keeper, so may well not count).

 

[delericho]

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?

Well, your example gives the paladin an out - threatening the family is just about acceptable. Inflicting harm on the (innocent) family is not, nor is torturing the wizard by making him think the paladin is killing his family (cf the Jack Bauer incident with the staged execution). Assuming that only actually inflicting evil will get the desired results...

A paladin could go either way. He can take a principled stand, allow the gate to be opened, and heroically die defending those innocents he's just failed, or he can inflict evil on the family, and prevent the gate from opening. Doing so loses him his paladin status.

This is a classic no-win situation for the paladin. But, like the Kobayashi Maru, it's not about 'winning', but rather in how you choose to lose.

 

[delericho]

But then again, I could see myself doing something similar in his place so perhaps I'm not the best judge.

One of things that I find most fascinating about the show is that, given the same resources and capabilities, and placed in the same situation, I would probably make exactly the same decisions Jack does. In virtually all cases, I see the things that he does as necessary. But I still think they're evil.

 

[green slime]

Well, your example gives the paladin an out - threatening the family is just about acceptable. Inflicting harm on the (innocent) family is not, nor is torturing the wizard by making him think the paladin is killing his family (cf the Jack Bauer incident with the staged execution). Assuming that only actually inflicting evil will get the desired results...

A paladin could go either way. He can take a principled stand, allow the gate to be opened, and heroically die defending those innocents he's just failed, or he can inflict evil on the family, and prevent the gate from opening. Doing so loses him his paladin status.

This is a classic no-win situation for the paladin. But, like the Kobayashi Maru, it's not about 'winning', but rather in how you choose to lose.

There are even more solutions: The paladin could meet the family, show them the evil ways of the nasty wizard, and convince them to join him in confronting the wizard about his intentions. Perhaps even to the point of standing with the paladin by the gate just before the planned opening. This would actually see the paladin winning, IMO.

And Jack Bauer is LE.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There are even more solutions: The paladin could meet the family, show them the evil ways of the nasty wizard, and convince them to join him in confronting the wizard about his intentions. Perhaps even to the point of standing with the paladin by the gate just before the planned opening. This would actually see the paladin winning, IMO.

Only if the time constraints allow meeting the family and discussing the evil ways of the nasty wizard. Imagine the Paladin only has a telepathic bond to the groups wizard, who is outside the familiys home and has a Fireball prepared (but no Teleports or Plane Shifts), and the Paladin himself is imprisoned by the evil Wizard.
The wizard might also not listen to his family (in the time), even if the Paladin could convince and bring them to him. And it is also possible that the Wizard could convince the familiy otherwise (possibly making them evil, too, but that doesn't justify torture, as we decided before)
That's essentially the situation Jack was in when he shot Hendersons wife - he could have explained everything to her (in fact I think he did), but she couldn't convince Henderson.

Well, your example gives the paladin an out - threatening the family is just about acceptable. Inflicting harm on the (innocent) family is not, nor is torturing the wizard by making him think the paladin is killing his family (cf the Jack Bauer incident with the staged execution). Assuming that only actually inflicting evil will get the desired results...

A paladin could go either way. He can take a principled stand, allow the gate to be opened, and heroically die defending those innocents he's just failed, or he can inflict evil on the family, and prevent the gate from opening. Doing so loses him his paladin status.

This is a classic no-win situation for the paladin. But, like the Kobayashi Maru, it's not about 'winning', but rather in how you choose to lose.

You are certainly correct, but I think you must be careful with this: You can choose to lose anyway you like, you still lose - there is no right solution.
You can't argue that it is better to torture the wizard or hurt his familiy, or that it's better to kill those innocents. It is never a "good" decision.

One of things that I find most fascinating about the show is that, given the same resources and capabilities, and placed in the same situation, I would probably make exactly the same decisions Jack does. In virtually all cases, I see the things that he does as necessary. But I still think they're evil.

I think we three (you, me and Jack ) would all be the Paladin giving up his Code of Conduct and hurt the wizards family to avoid the greater evil. And I think most would do so.
Maybe it is one of the examples of the "incompleteness"-theorem (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem) applied for moral instead of mathematics. It is not possible to "prove" which course of action is correct.

 

[delericho]

You are certainly correct, but I think you must be careful with this: You can choose to lose anyway you like, you still lose - there is no right solution.
You can't argue that it is better to torture the wizard or hurt his familiy, or that it's better to kill those innocents. It is never a "good" decision.

Well... I would argue that we don't carry moral responsibility for the actions of others, only of ourselves. Since the paladin isn't opening the portal, and isn't killing those people, the choice is between not acting to stop it (Neutral, as inaction always is), or torturing the family (Evil). This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that the 'right' thing to do is allow the slaughter of millions.

It is only the extreme consequences of that eventuality that would make me choose otherwise, at a cost of my moral high ground.

Of course, I might also be wrong; I'm not so arrogant as to think I have an absolute understanding of morality

I think we three (you, me and Jack ) would all be the Paladin giving up his Code of Conduct and hurt the wizards family to avoid the greater evil.

Indeed.

Maybe it is one of the examples of the "incompleteness"-theorem (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem) applied for moral instead of mathematics. It is not possible to "prove" which course of action is correct.

Sounds about right.

 

[Hand of Evil]

This thread is as good as figuring out Robin Hood's aligniment.

 

[delericho]

This thread is as good as figuring out Robin Hood's aligniment.

Robin Hood?

Classically Chaotic Good. The Kevin Costner incarnation was closer to Neutral Good.

Why?

Good: "Rob from the rich, and give to the poor". Bear in mind that "the rich" are cruel usurpers who were opressively taxing the people, and generally in possession of a great many things they had no right to. Also, Robin does not engage in murder, torture, or any of the other "big evil" acts.

(Of course, the above ignores the historical reality that Prince John was a much better king than Richard the Lionheart, and that the real Robin Hood was probably nothing more than a common brigand.)

Chaotic: Although Robin is fighting to replace one order with another (John with Richard), he is also shown as being prone to impulsive behaviour, is keen on derring-do (often to excess), and has no patience for heirarchy.

All this is less clear in the KC version, hence the Neutral tag.