Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Darthjaye]

I think he is. Anybody disagree?

I know there's been a lot of answers here by now, and my vote would have to be NG. He's tortured people and not worried about their health too much, but done it for the greater good. He seems to break the rules at the drop of a hat, but not for breaking the rules sake, but more for getting the job done when he feels it's hanging up his or anyone else's accomplishing the task at hand. He ignores his superiors almost repeatedly, but always in getting the job done and not for the sake of spite at command or law. He is concerned about those directly on his team. I think NG covers him pretty well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

Well, by definition, we only see Jack on a few days out of his life but, by the same token, they're the days where his moral compass is actually most put to the test. By that standard, his pattern sure ain't lawful good, because it sure isn't the rare occasion that he does something evil.

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.

Very true.

 

[delericho]

This thread is bizarre and a little scary to me.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

A willingness to let evil go by unchallenged is to be complicit in that evil oneself.

The "good men" cited are, per D&D alignment, Neutral.

In the ideal world, the paladin would have acted long ago to prevent the evil wizard from getting to the point where he has to make the choice given. However, in the theoretical worst-case scenario, it is possible that the paladin finds himself with two options: torture the innocent family of the wizard, or allow a portal to the Abyss be opened, releasing a horde of demons that the paladin has no hope of stopping.

Rejecting the question because "there are always other options" or even positing other solutions is akin to Kirk reprogramming the Kobayashi Maru simulator to 'win' - it allows you to feel like you've won, but means you've not faced the no-win situation. The interest in the example is not 'how do you win', it's 'how do you choose to lose'.

Do you maintain your morals, and allow the world to be swallowed in darkness, or do you compromise your morals? And, once you've made your choice, what do you do next?

 

[prosfilaes]

Rejecting the question because "there are always other options" or even positing other solutions is akin to Kirk reprogramming the Kobayashi Maru simulator to 'win' - it allows you to feel like you've won, but means you've not faced the no-win situation. The interest in the example is not 'how do you win', it's 'how do you choose to lose'.

And the answer is that some people don't choose to lose. Some people will reprogram the simulator rather than lose. You always have another choice, no matter how much of a long shot it is, and some people's answer is to try that long shot rather than accept the lose-lose situation.

 

[delericho]

And the answer is that some people don't choose to lose. Some people will reprogram the simulator rather than lose. You always have another choice, no matter how much of a long shot it is, and some people's answer is to try that long shot rather than accept the lose-lose situation.

One of the issues raised by Star Trek II is that Kirk couldn't keep running from the no-win situation. He reprogrammed the simulator to cheat, he cheated death again and again, but in the end, he reached the point where he had to face it, and it hurt.

To switch to another example, Buffy faced the exact question being asked here: sacrifice Dawn, or allow a portal to be opened that would swallow the world. Her answer was to allow the portal to be opened (although it would have been interesting to see if the decision was the same if it was anyone else who's life was on the line).

There are options, contingencies, and cheats. You can try whatever long-shots you want, no matter the odds.

But the question remains: once you've tried everything else, and you come down to only the two options, which do you go for? It is a valid question, albeit a viciously unfair one to have to deal with an a non-theoretical situation. (It's also worth noting that answering the question in a theoretical sense is only of limited value anyway - what you do when the real situation arises might be completely different anyway.)

You don't have to answer. But refusing to answer, or rejecting the situation outright, is not the same as answering the question.

 

[Felon]

I think there's a little too much emphasis in this thread on particular actions being good or evil, and thus reflecting directly upon a person's nature (i.e. that person's alignment). What about a person's reactions? Jack is clearly disturbed and remorseful about a lot of the choices he makes. If I shoot you in the knee and I'm remorseful about it, does that indicate a different alignment than a person who kneecaps you and laughs his head off about it?

 

[delericho]

I think there's a little too much emphasis in this thread on particular actions being good or evil, and thus reflecting directly upon a person's nature (i.e. that person's alignment).

In D&D alignment, a character's alignment has to be defined by his actions. The DM cannot know what was in a player's thoughts when he had his character act a particular way, and very few of us are ever completely honest about our full motivations for our actions. So, it really has to be about the actions.

What about a person's reactions? Jack is clearly disturbed and remorseful about a lot of the choices he makes.

I don't recall seeing any remorse. I see Jack quite often blaming his victims for "forcing me to do this", or words to that effect. This is rationalisation - he's trying to transfer the blame, and hence the guilt, of his actions onto others. Psychologically, Jack is not at all well.

If I shoot you in the knee and I'm remorseful about it, does that indicate a different alignment than a person who kneecaps you and laughs his head off about it?

It's a difference between a 'small' Evil and a 'big' Evil. Whether you are remorseful or laughing, I still can't walk.

 

[Eosin the Red]

I'd say Neutral Good, right alongside Batman and James Bond. All of them pretty much the epotime of NG.

 

[sword-dancer]

I know there's been a lot of answers here by now, and my vote would have to be NG. He's tortured people and not worried about their health too much, but done it for the greater good.

This Excuse could come from may torturers in the last century or in these decade.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In D&D alignment, a character's alignment has to be defined by his actions. The DM cannot know what was in a player's thoughts when he had his character act a particular way, and very few of us are ever completely honest about our full motivations for our actions. So, it really has to be about the actions.

I don't recall seeing any remorse. I see Jack quite often blaming his victims for "forcing me to do this", or words to that effect. This is rationalisation - he's trying to transfer the blame, and hence the guilt, of his actions onto others. Psychologically, Jack is not at all well.

How else should he show that he doesn't like what he does? How can he show remorse? Should he cry from time to time (IIRC, he did at the end of one season)? He is usually trying to comfort or help his victims - in the case of the terrorist where he staged the murder of his kids, he did explain to him that it was all a trick in the end, so that the man would feel better. He asked for help for Hendersons wife.
And certainly he is transfering the blame to others - if he had only himself to blame, that would mean he didn't do what was neccessary, but what he purely wanted (and possibly enjoyed) to do.

It's a difference between a 'small' Evil and a 'big' Evil. Whether you are remorseful or laughing, I still can't walk.

It might still be different. You can't walk, but if I am remoreseful, you might have some kind of pity or sympathy for me.
If I laugh, you will probably just hate or despise me. That is also a considerable effect.