Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Felon]

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 disagree. Reactions can be observed and noted. If a DM knows a player is in a virtual no-win situation, then it hardly makes sense for the DM to pigeon-hole a character as evil for making a tough choice, while dismissing the agony the character's going through while making it; the reason the choice is agonizing is because he's not evil. The character has no good options, so the only thing that separates the good character from the bad is his disgust and remorse.

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.

It's easy to judge someone as insane when all of the behavior you're judging them by takes place under insane circumstances. In between the last couple of seasons, Jack seemed content to live his life humbly and peacefully. He's not acting out psychotic fantasies in his free time; he's not bumping off homeless people and hookers and saying they deserved it. he's darn near self-actualized. Given the choice, Jack would rather not shoot someone in the kneecap to get information out of them. OTOH, a sadistic, genuinely ruthless person would not require the rationalization.

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

And that's terrible, but labeling a character as evil isn't some form of retribution. Your limp versus a thousand people's lives...It's a tough choice for a good person to make, but from a purely rational standpoint, it's pretty cut-and-dried.

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

And some of them would have a valid argument, and some wouldn't.

 

[Felon]

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.

If you're committing adultery to stop terrorists from setting off a nuclear device in LA...
Or releasing a flesh-eating virus...
Or flooding a city with nerve gas....

Then you're definitely acting under mitigating circumstances. Your wife will probably still kill ya, but many people will appreciate you acting for the good of the nation.

If Whizbang stops having sex, the terrorists win!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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?

At the end of the day, James Bond's job is to kill people. Not rescue them, not resolve situations as best he can, not even to gain intelligence generally. He's an assassin working for the Queen of England. Even if he doesn't have the DMG Assassin PrC, the fact that he willingly and enthusiastically sets out to murder perfect strangers without any real intention to look for alternatives (and soldiers, as a rule, would rather their enemies surrender) or openess to them.

Wanting to keep beautiful women he will likely have sex with alive and intact isn't good, it's pragmatic.

The seductions, incidentally, are more evil than they appear to be: While recreation is obviously a part of it, he's also turning these women into traitors. Now, it may be a traitor to SMERSH or SPECTRE but it could also be to America or the Soviet Union or another country. In none of these cases is being a convicted traitor a good career plan and it's often a very, very short one. So, for his own purposes, not only does he kill, but he also knowingly causes those who help him come to harm. In the Roger Moore era, many of them escaped with him at the end -- although the fallout from fleeing your country or sinister organization is rarely over once you are picked up by MI-6 -- but even then, it was usually just the final one in the chain of women.

Now, granted, all of the movie actors haven't been as evil as the novel's original version. But even Roger Moore at his campiest is still an assassin whose ultimate mission boils down to "go into this place, find the head guy and put a bullet in his brain."

 

[jasper]

Neutral evil
Follow his own code and gets the mission done. He evil so you don’t have to be, you should thank him for being a bad guy for our side and he is employed by a good government. Just like James Bond is evil. They both look good, get the beautiful women and look cool while doing it.

 

[jsaving]

But killing per se isn't an evil act in D&D. It can be Good, or Neutral, or Evil, depending on the extent to which it protects innocents from harm.

Endangering the lives of non-innocents also isn't an evil act per se in D&D. It can be Good, or Neutral, or Evil, depending on the extent to which it enables one to protect innocents from harm.

It is true that the assassin PrC has an evil alignment restriction, but this is because D&D assassins kill for selfish gain, indeed must kill for that reason if they are to enter the PrC in the first place. Bond does it because his country tells him that his actions will preserve order and save innocent lives, which would appear to be a LG motivation rather than an Evil one.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Bond does it because his country tells him that his actions will preserve order and save innocent lives, which would appear to be a LG motivation rather than an Evil one.

Preservation of the status quo is lawful, not good. And he's undertaken a number of missions that never were about saving lives, but merely about preserving the status quo.

 

[Veander]

Bauer's alignment?

He sways between Lawful neutral and True Neutral. He's loyal, but his loyalty is more to his own concept of how the job should be done than to any sort of higher standards. He has no problems with shooting or torturing people, which is evil, but hes self-sacrificing to the point of almost getting himself killed in an exploding building so he could save a friend, which is good. Hence, he is mostly neutral.

Hmm, so people in the military or in combat are evil? I would wager the Bauer character knows killing is wrong, but doing it in the line of duty against enemies of the country is a different situation. If think if someone is doing something that they truly feel is for the good of something like a country, they are are good. The line is crossed when they have no remorse for their enemy's death. Maybe not at the time, but in general most Vietnam vets I have met realized that killing was wrong. Killing in the name of one's country is different. Heck, Bauer ignored a direct order from the president to let some gas go off in a mall. He has a moral compass and it points to NOT killing innocents.

And it's clear he's lawful. Sure he doesn't always follow the rules placed on him in his job, but he also works in a job where subterfuge and deception play a heavy role. So he's often second-guessing everything for a godo reason. I'd say he's just one falvor of Lawful Good or LAwful Neutral. Torture is one of those methods that I think many would have a problem with doing and while it's not obviously evil in Bauer's case, it clearly isn't good.

 

[Toras]

I honestly think that Jack started as LN (Duty) PreSeason1 -> LG (Family) in Season 1 (As he didn't really torture anyone physically then)

He fell to LN with the Death of his wife, and to TN as the System continued to fail him. He pretty much remains there for the rest of time (only seen through Disk 2 of Season 4).

That seems to cover the range, but while I would say some of his acts are evil, I wouldn't define him as a Evil Person. He's gotten close, but he's not quite there.

And while I will admit there are usually a better way, it generally does have longer odds and since he doesn't have the infallibity shield that some of the more clearly good characters have, he can and might fail. Can he take the chance when lives are on the line?

It comes from a divergent thought on the nature of good and evil. But that's a much larger debate.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd say he's just one falvor of Lawful Good or LAwful Neutral. Torture is one of those methods that I think many would have a problem with doing and while it's not obviously evil in Bauer's case, it clearly isn't good.

I'm sorry, I missed how torture isn't obviously evil.

Again, I get the feeling that people are resisting the notion that someone likable may be evil, by the strict (and not reflective of real world shades of gray) D&D alignment system.

 

[Felon]

I'm sorry, I missed how torture isn't obviously evil.

Unfortunately, yes you have.

The circumstances under which Jack makes the decision to torture are, by the show's design, incredibly harsh and uncomprising. Those decisions are not motivated by sadism or personal gain, but by the prospect of preventing death on a massive scale. That's not some weird, incomprehensible personal code or Robocop-like set of hardwired directives in effect, that's just a guy in a lousy situation.

Again, I get the feeling that people are resisting the notion that someone likable may be evil, by the strict (and not reflective of real world shades of gray) D&D alignment system.

I don't particularly like Jack, and even cutting him slack for certain acts, I still think he should be in prison many times over, along with the rest of the CTU--if not for the on-screen actions they take for the sake of immediacy, then for the sort of things they do the other 364 days of the year (no doubt they have Bill-of-Rights toilet paper in their restrooms). However, I can understand why he does what he does. Most of the folks calling Jack evil are clearly doing so as a form of moral condemnation rather than as an objective assessment of what his beliefs and motivations are (and indeed, beliefs and motivations are what the alignment system dwells on for the most part, not particular actions).