Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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?

OK, let's say I cheat on my wife, but I'm really sorry about it.

And then I do it again.

And again.

And again.

At what point does my wife club me to death with a fireplace poker, even though I'm clearly disturbed and remorseful about my adultery?

If it had been a one-time instance of Jack performing a grossly evil act, that would be one thing. But we passed one-time a long, long time ago.

 

[iwatt]

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.

Actually, in the second Bourne book we learn that David Webb (the real identity of Jason Bourne) was a CIA operative in Vietnam before the whole Jackal-hunting thing started. IIRC his job was infiltration/assasination and demolition.

Still, your point is valid.

Basically the remakes only connection to the books is: "Guy wakes up from a coma with amnesia and discovers* he is an assasin".

As a character, the Charlton Heston version (much closer to Ludlum's original work) of Bourne is more interesting tan the Matt Damon version. The action scenes though, are better in the remake.

 

[iwatt]

Just to add some fuel on the flames:

I think he's extermely Lawful.

IMO, Lawful doesn't mean following the laws as much as sticking strictly to a preselected set of rules. Bauer only commanding protocol is "save the maximum amount of american lives". If he can get things done without breaking the laws he'll do it. But in his eyes, anything that get's in his way (family, friends, due process, morality) must take second place.

I'd peg him as Lawful Neutral because although he continuosly does evil acts, he's also the character in the series who has sacrificed the most as well.

 

[painandgreed]

My thougths on all this even though I don't know the character or show involved:

1) As with every D&D alignment issue, it all depends on the DM. Good and Evil may be objective in the game, but what consitutes good or evil, even when trying to follow the loose guidelines in the RAW, is still subjective to each individual DM interpretations.

2) Just because somebody is good, doesn't mean they couldn't preform an evil act, even repeatedly. All good characters aren't perfect, then they would be exalted. Most people have their moral lapses and it woudl still be possbile for their good acts to outweigh their evil ones. Again, it's up to the DM.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Jack is definitely altruistic. Multiple times, he has been willing to sacrifice himself. (Think of when Nina asked for a presedential pardon for killing him at a later point) . The end of the last episode was a exception, but - in that case, there weren't lives at stake. It was just a political issue and it could probably have been resolved in a lot better way (and it was).
He always puts his life on the line.

he also has a respect for life and dignity of sentient beings. In the current season, he was against the decision to allow the terrorists to use the Sentox nerve gas in the shopping mall. He was ordered otherwise, but ultimately, he managed to reduce the casulties.

Still, the rest of his behaviour doesn't make him good. He probably would like to be a good person, but the decisions and actions he take make that impossible.

If law means following a outward authority (be it laws or superiors), he definitely isn't lawful. If it would also allow a personal code, I think he might be, he is definitely uncompromising. (He wasn't willing to let the president go with his actions, as Heller wanted to. Nor was he happy with the impeachment against the president, though he could accept that, since the end result would be the same.)

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.

No real person is faced with no-win scenarios over and over again, but Jack is. That's part of the concept of the show.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No real person is faced with no-win scenarios over and over again, but Jack is. That's part of the concept of the show.

No, its not. His no-win situations can always be solved in other ways, especially as he spends so much freaking time and resources with his "only possible" solution. Devoting even a large fraction of those resources to finding another solution would invariably find one.

The show's concept is to show a protagonist doing these awful things, so we know how awesome he is.

 

[delericho]

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.

Oops, I think perhaps you misunderstood my intent. I'm definately of the opinion that Jack is at best Neutral, and probably NE. The "Evil Wizard portal" thing was a bit of topic drift, where there was postulated a theoretical no-win situation.

As you noted, it was interesting but not very realistic. Sadly, most of the real-world no-win situations are (a) very complicated and (b) very political, so not possible to discuss here.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

But you can always try to reprogram the simulator. You can always deny that the options you see are the end-all and be-all of the problem. You can always remember that the people who gave you all this crap about the portal and what will stop it didn't have nuclear weapons at their disposal. You may be wrong, but denial is always an option.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

CG for Batman, I see. NE for James Bond? I have a hard time with that one. Bond does things his own way (chaotic tendencies), but believes strongly in Queen and Country and tries to follow orders (lawful tendencies), he has a strong sense of justice and protects the weak (particularly the weak and pretty), and is constantly surrendering to villains who threaten innocent people (collectively good tendencies), but is also ruthless in getting what he wants... except that he's not really evil about it. Is seducing someone to get information evil? I can't recall Bond ever doing anything particularly evil. Reckless, careless, amoral, yes. But evil?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, its not. His no-win situations can always be solved in other ways, especially as he spends so much freaking time and resources with his "only possible" solution. Devoting even a large fraction of those resources to finding another solution would invariably find one.

Maybe it's because of the quick pace of the show, but I rarely see real alternatives. But that mgith be because he never bothers to look for one. I think he is usually taking the quickest and direct path, because everything else might cause dangerous delays.

I still think he is neutral, and I must admit I doubt that further discussion will change my mind. But as long as I don't find any new arguments for this position, I will probably be unable to contribute anything further for others making up their mind.

The show's concept is to show a protagonist doing these awful things, so we know how awesome he is.

I wouldn't disagree with you there.
Maybe we need a new alignment for Jack: "True Awesome". (Or "Awesome Stupid"? ... er... no. )