Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Banshee16]

I have skimmed over most of the messages but I think Jack is CG. He clearly breaks the law, and does whatever he thinks is best (ala Robin Hood sort of way) and he repeats this over and over. He clearly has a "good heart", he's doing it for the right reasons.

Just because he works for the Gov't (aka the law) does not make him lawful.

Just my 2cp.

I'd contest that if he's working for the government, he's probably lawful. But it doesn't necessarily make him good

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

I think the most interesting character are (true) neutral ones. Not the Old Faith Druidic policies, thought that can be interesting. I believe the vast majority of real people are mostly neutral on all points. They may always follow the law, but then go over the speed limit when it suits them. I think the same can be said of good and evil. Most folks just aren't that dedicated to one code of living. It's too difficult.

And yet the variety amongst people really varies. A good case in point: Jason Bourne in the bourne books (and movies). I think he's a pretty complex character who cannot automatically be assumed as good intended. But I don't think he does evil actions more than killing in self-defense. It makes for a more interesting character.

One of the interesting things about Jason Bourne is that he's not *actually* a murderer. He pretended to be, in order to accomplish specific goals, but he was just laying claim to crimes perpetrated by someone else. When he lost his memory, and got it back, he thought he actually was an assassin, but that was a falsehood.

The movies are different...in the movies he actually *is* a government assassin. And I think that takes an interesting element away from the character. He was a more sympathetic character in the books where he was taking on all the guilt for assumed crimes that he never actually carried out.

IMO, Jack Bauer actually is the guy Jason Bourne mistakenly thought he himself was, if that makes any sense.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

No, it's FTL. Jack never has to do any of the attrocities he commits. He does them because they're easy and, frankly, despite his empty protestations to the contrary, he pursues them with a great deal of imaginative glee. The staging of the executions of children especially involved a great deal of effort and imagination that could have easily been turned to come up with another solution, had he been so inclined.

Even in the shallow world of 24, there is never only a single solution to a problem. If people enjoy the vicarious thrill of watching Jack torture and murder, fine, but that doesn't make him a Good person in the D&D sense even so.

Whizbang, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think I am getting a little confused about your point though. Your quote regarding standing by and letting evil actions occur without doing anything is as bad as perpetrating them seemed to conflict (to me) with this statement, where you point out that Jack isn't good, because he murders and kills. Unless among all the posts, I've missed something you've said.

What I was getting at was the idea that committing evil acts to either punish or stop someone who's evil doesn't make one good. It might generate a good end result, but then we're right back into the question of whether the ends justify the means.

Banshee

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Your quote regarding standing by and letting evil actions occur without doing anything is as bad as perpetrating them seemed to conflict (to me) with this statement, where you point out that Jack isn't good, because he murders and kills. Unless among all the posts, I've missed something you've said.

No, but why is that in conflict? There's always other options. That Jack chooses the torture option and the murder of innocents option and the violation of civil rights options does not mean that he was forced into that circumstance, far from it. And, given that the original question was whether he was Lawful Good, I submit that an actual Lawful Good character (Superman is always good for these examples) would have found a different option than the one Jack keeps pretending he's forced into doing.

What I was getting at was the idea that committing evil acts to either punish or stop someone who's evil doesn't make one good. It might generate a good end result, but then we're right back into the question of whether the ends justify the means.

I agree, and no, it doesn't, especially in core D&D, which is an absolutist universe where Good and Evil have concrete meanings and even ZIP codes.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

If people enjoy the vicarious thrill of watching Jack torture and murder, fine, but that doesn't make him a Good person in the D&D sense even so.

That's a bit harsh.

Fortunately I eat puppies for breakfast and kittens for dinner so I'm not too offended

There's always other options. That Jack chooses the torture option and the murder of innocents option and the violation of civil rights options does not mean that he was forced into that circumstance, far from it.

I think there are situations where you don't have other options available. In my contrived example of the wizard opening a gate to the Abyss, what if the wizard's family supports his goals and won't help to talk him out of it? What if there are no other feasible ways to stop this wizard aside from threatening or even doing harm to his family? Are there times when you must act evil to do good?

To the OP's question, no Jack isn't LG (although he could have been at one point in time), but I sure can't beleive that he is NE as you posited (unless you were talking about James Bond, with James Brown being CN).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That's a bit harsh.

Fortunately I eat puppies for breakfast and kittens for dinner so I'm not too offended

I didn't mean to offend. I get a vicarious thrill watching action movies and I, say, greatly enjoy the Sopranos and the Shield and root for the protagonists, but I'm never fooled into thinking that Tony Soprano isn't Neutral Evil or that Vic Mackey isn't (at best) Chaotic Neutral. Liking someone and thinking they're a "good guy" doesn't have to go hand-in-hand. Heck, just look at how people vote.

I think there are situations where you don't have other options available. In my contrived example of the wizard opening a gate to the Abyss, what if the wizard's family supports his goals and won't help to talk him out of it? What if there are no other feasible ways to stop this wizard aside from threatening or even doing harm to his family?

Especially in D&D, where there are ample forms of magic (and psionics, so those folks don't get left out) to compel someone to do something, starting with humble level 1 spells, there's always a feasible way. I reject the question, even if it's allowed that it's contrived.

This is especially true when extrapolated out towards a more realistic scenario in 24 (although it's at least as fantastic as anything in D&D, IMO). Although CTI seems to have some problems with basic Internet security ("it's going to take me 15 minutes to open a socket!"), the team is capable of near-miraculous feats in a relatively short period of time. The aforementioned faked-up executions took a great deal of time and resources to put together. Given time, resources and ample imagination, Jack did not choose the only option, he chose the option he wanted to do. There's no figleaf of necessity he can hide behind when we discuss this evil act. (Man, I should copyright "figleaf of necessity." That's good. )

Are there times when you must act evil to do good?

There are times when it's the easiest course available and the alternative is very, very, very difficult. But it's never the only option.

To the OP's question, no Jack isn't LG (although he could have been at one point in time), but I sure can't beleive that he is NE as you posited (unless you were talking about James Bond, with James Brown being CN).

Yeah, it's 007 as NE and the Godfather of Soul being CN. I think Jack Bauer is, at best, right around True Neutral, but he mostly gives his DM a headache, I think.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Regarding the "Paladin must commit an evil act to stop an even evilier act":

If the Paladin is a True Hero, he'll suck it up, perform the evil deed, lose his paladin status (one evil deed isn't enough to change his alignment from LG), prevent the apocalypse, feel reeeeally bad about himself, seek atonement for his actions and be haunted by the worst thing he ever did in his life. And then soak up in roleplaying XP.

There is a reason for the term Pyrric Victory (where you win, but you feel like you've lost).

Would he also get roleplaying XP if he refused to committ the evil act to stop eviller act, on the basis that you can't do the right thing by evil deeds?

Because man, if I were playing the paladin in that scenario I'd be tempted beyond belief to just refuse outright and see if the DM would actually bring on the apocolypse or if the DM would prove my character right by having there be some alternative way of stopping the apocolypse.

 

[Banshee16]

What if there are no other feasible ways to stop this wizard aside from threatening or even doing harm to his family? Are there times when you must act evil to do good?

That's the rub...possibly there may be situations where one must act evil to do good...but it's still evil.

Banshee

 

[Glyfair]

And, given that the original question was whether he was Lawful Good, I submit that an actual Lawful Good character (Superman is always good for these examples) would have found a different option than the one Jack keeps pretending he's forced into doing.

I'll submit that a LAWFUL GOOD character would have, however a lawful good character might not have. He might have tried, but wouldn't necesarily have tried hard.

Now, this is about a pattern of behavior. IMO, a lawful good character can commit an evil act and not become evil (or even neutral). He might even be able to do it regularly, but not often, and still be good. If he does an evil deed once for every one hundred good acts (assuming the acts are equivalent in scale), than I consider that character good. He might not be "paladin good," but he's still good.

I think there are often a lot of double standards when it comes to alignment judgments among D&D players. Often a single questionable act will cause a character to fall from good (especially paladins), but evil characters are given a lot of latitude in performing the occasional good act.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Honestly, I think the Good/Evil thing is the easier of the two to peg. Jack is, IMO, generally Neutral with respect for Good and Evil. He'll do whatever will get the job done quickly, regardless of whether it is good or evil. Whoever described him as Apathetic nailed it. I don't believe that Jack takes pleasure in doing the evil acts he does... he's not sadistic by any means. It's just that good and evil don't matter to him when he needs to protect his country and save many lives.

With regards to Lawful/Chaos, I think I'd have to put him at Neutral or Chaotic. Jack has repeatedly demonstrated Chaotic behavior throughout every season. If it was all for his allegience for his country, that only makes him less Chaotic, it doesn't make him Lawful. Neutral with Chaotic tendancies tends to fit him best, I think. He'll play with the team as long as it follows his view of how things should be done. Even when he goes off on his own, it's for a common goal, usually.

I think True Neutral describes Bauer the best.

I've found this entire thread interesting as well because through this you really get the idea that alignment really is subjective.