Is Jack Bauer LG?

[delericho]

How else should he show that he doesn't like what he does? How can he show remorse?

Not doing it again would be a good start. Jack Bauer regularly uses torture.

(Actually, I really don't like the fact that CTU now have torturers on-staff. When Section had them in Nikita it was excuable based on Section being clearly identified as both being Evil and being the "bad guys". In CTU, neither is true - we're supposed to accept CTU as the 'good guys'.)

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

Yeah, that kind of "remorse" is, quite frankly, serial killer creepy as far as I'm concerned.

A thought that has been edging about my mind in this discussion - a lot of folks describe Jack's actions as being for the "greater good", and it seems he is always working against the clock to save people. But they are his people. Since we are playing hypotheticals, what if a rogue agent from with loyalty to America was staging an equivelently massive purely civilian attack on an unfriendly country? What if it was (since we're all hypothetical no-win here) actually sactioned by the government? Would Jack shoot an innocent person to save "countless lives" or only "countless american lives"? I don't know the answer or if its been addressed in the show at all, but as long as his greater good lines up specificly with his national or personal loyalties, I am skeptical of it's defensive value. It makes him more lawful, not more good IMO.

What if a chaotic wizard was going to open a portal to Celestia and bring hordes of solars down on a drow civilization?

 

[delericho]

Since we are playing hypotheticals, what if a rogue agent from with loyalty to America was staging an equivelently massive purely civilian attack on an unfriendly country? What if it was (since we're all hypothetical no-win here) actually sactioned by the government?

I doubt it's possible ever to know, since I can't see any situation where even a UK equivalent of CTU would give Jack the sort of leeway he gets in 24 (of course, in reality I can't see a real US CTU doing so either). If your strongest allies wouldn't do so, who would?

Actually, IIRC the first season hinged on a revenge plot for an assassination mission that Jack led under the sanction of David Palmer. Although the target was a real monster (we're led to believe), I'm not sure I can get behind assassination as being other than an evil action either.

Would Jack shoot an innocent person to save "countless lives" or only "countless american lives"? I don't know the answer or if its been addressed in the show at all,

I don't believe it has. I suspect that the answer is probably 'yes', but only assuming that the action doesn't actively harm American interests. Of course, most of the second season followed Jack's attempts to find proof three small nations didn't attack the US, thus saving the US from invading. I don't think the projected US losses were too great in that instance, although I might be wrong.

but as long as his greater good lines up specificly with his national or personal loyalties, I am skeptical of it's defensive value. It makes him more lawful, not more good IMO.

What if a chaotic wizard was going to open a portal to Celestia and bring hordes of solars down on a drow civilization?

I have a problem picturing a ravening horde of Celestials standing ready to lay waste to a drow city in that manner

Actually, for a slightly different example I don't, but that's hitting on one of the more uncomfortable aspects of my religion, so fortunately I can't comment here.

 

[Falkus]

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.

Sympathy? For a man who just shot me in the knee? I wouldn't care whether you were laughing or crying, I'd be trying to get a hold of a gun of my own to shoot you in the knee.

 

[jsaving]

Good characters "protect innocent life," according to the core rules. They don't necessarily protect all life, they don't necessarily refuse to torture any life, they just do their best to protect innocent life. By that standard Jack Bauer has to be considered Good. Clearly some of the posters here don't see him as mirroring their own alignment or their own conception of Good, but he does match the PH conception of it.

Lawful characters "keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties." Bauer certainly doesn't respect authority or honor tradition -- he does what it takes to follow his conscience no matter who he has to disobey in so doing. Which partially matches the core rules' view of Chaotic characters, who are defined as people who "follow their consciences" and "resent being told what to do."

Is he an Exalted character as James Wyatt defined the term in BoED? No, because Wyatt sees torture as always wrong no matter how evil the being you are torturing or how many lives you might save by committing the torture. But he makes clear he is NOT talking about whether someone is Good or Evil -- it's perfectly OK for someone to flunk the Exalted test while still having a Good alignment. All that means is that you aren't (or in this case, Bauer isn't) among the small subset of Good-aligned people who are Exalted.

Does his repeated disobedience of authority make him Chaotic? Not necessarily, because he does generally keep his word once it is given. Recall Henderson's words to Bauer in the last episode -- "I want you to give me your word because it's the only way I can trust you" (or something to that effect). Not that he always keeps his word, but he generally does, and is genuinely conflicted in the rare instances when he breaks it. So in this respect he's more Lawful than Chaotic.

I'd call him a non-Exalted CG character with NG tendencies (or maybe NG with CG tendencies).

 

[Klaus]

Regarding the "paladin must kill innocent woman to prevent apocalypse" discussion, I think I've found a honorable way out: tell the woman why she needs to die, what would happen if she doesn't, reassure her that her sacrifice will not be in vain and that her family will be looked after by the paladin. She will probably refuse, but there is the odd chance that she will think of protecting her children from the apocalypse and give the paladin permission to slay her for the greater good. Remorse abounds, but no loss of paladin status.

 

[delericho]

Clearly some of the posters here don't see him as mirroring their own alignment or their own conception of Good, but he does match the PH conception of it.

I'm not convinced I agree with your argument, but the text I've quoted above is a crucial point, I think. In my opinion, D&D alignment as written suffers from two things:

1) There have been too many writers, with too many interpretations, for there to be a clear standard for alignment discussions.

2) D&D suffers from "team-shirt" alignments far too often. If Good vs Evil were as simple as the US vs. the Nazis, it would be nice and easy. Sadly, that is a caricature of anything resembling real ethics and morality.

I first had massive problems with alignment as written way back with the "Dragonlance Adventures" hardback, in which the Kingpriest of Istar was described as instituting concentration camps for goblins and other 'evil' races, and then was listed with an LG alignment (IIRC, IDHTBIFOM).

It was at that point that I ditched any notion of D&D alignments as written. We still use alignment, but define Good as, well, Good, Evil as Evil, and so forth. Who decides which is which? Well, me. I'm the DM, after all

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Good characters "protect innocent life," according to the core rules. They don't necessarily protect all life, they don't necessarily refuse to torture any life, they just do their best to protect innocent life. By that standard Jack Bauer has to be considered Good. Clearly some of the posters here don't see him as mirroring their own alignment or their own conception of Good, but he does match the PH conception of it.

Let's hear it for selective quoting! According to the core rules, Good also "implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." By that full standard, and coincidentally my own conception of good, Jack not only doesn't "have to" be considered good, is arguable whether he can be.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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?

OK, here's the thing, though: Star Trek was a pretty black and white show, much more than real life or (hopefully) most D&D games. There is NEVER a no-win situation. There are situations, as I've already stipulated, where the other choices are very, very, very hard, but there are always other choices.

I appreciate the interesting moral dilemma you pose -- it's what Buffy was about for several seasons, for instance -- but in terms of absolutes, it's bunk. Using that as an apology for Jack choosing torture instead of another option -- in fact, concocting a non-existant no-win scenario he wasn't faced with in the show -- is also bunk.

And your point also ignores that this is systemic and repeated by Jack Bauer. No one is faced with no-win scenarios over and over and over again, even if they actually did exist and even if we did allow that he chose the way he did because the first time appeared to be a no-win scenario.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

Right alongside the enraged (semi-psychotic) vigilante who assaults the police when needed and subverts the system at a whim and the hired assassin?

Chaotic Good and Neutral Evil on those two, IMO.