Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

I get that, but are you saying that torture becomes a non-evil act in that circumstance? To me, it's an evil act, even if it's a non-evil motivation for doing it? (Which I don't stipulate, but think is a separate point of contention.)

 

[Klaus]

IIRC, there's a spell or psionic power that causes wracking pain on the target. The text says using that spell repeatedly is cause for sliding one's alignment over to evil.

 

[Thotas]

Going waaay back to someone's comment about Buffy making a different choice for someone other than Dawn: end of Season Two. She blocked a hell-portal by shoving Angel through it, even as she saw him gain his good-guy status again. Guilt and shame then caused her to leave town with no intention of ever seeing her friends again.

Which of course, may be why with the situation she found herself in with Dawn was handled that way; Buffy saying to herself, "No. Never again."

 

[Felon]

I get that, but are you saying that torture becomes a non-evil act in that circumstance? To me, it's an evil act, even if it's a non-evil motivation for doing it? (Which I don't stipulate, but think is a separate point of contention.)

I condemn the act as wrong, but I do not think that act in that circumstance defines a person's character (alignment), because, in the cold light of rationality, there is no decent alternative. However, it is an act which makes that person corrupted. They are compromised. A good person in haunted by such deeds, and I think Jack is decidedly one weary guy who is sick of his job. That's one thing I see a lot of folks not getting. He isn't some ultra-lawful lapdog who loves what he's doing for a living. He wanted to stay out, but his conscience sucked him back in, reluctantly.

As you're aware, with a non-fictional human being, there's a natural talent for adaptation that's somewhat horrible. Torturing or killing someone is unthinkable for most people--but if they can manage to do it once, boy, is it ever easier to pull off the next time. Bauer may well start torturing and killing so casually that I might well deem him evil eventually, but being a fictional character I think he will always be stuck in a situation where there really is no other resort.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I'm going to put forth a radical theory here:

Jack Bauer is Lawful Evil. The actions he takes--no matter what the motivations might be--can only qualify as evil in D&D's definitions.

I agree - the man is a complete thug. . .

 

[Felon]

IIRC, there's a spell or psionic power that causes wracking pain on the target. The text says using that spell repeatedly is cause for sliding one's alignment over to evil.

Is it scorching ray? Fireball? Magic missile? Implosion? Lightning bolt? Cone of cold? Melf's acid arrow? I bet they all sting just a li'l bit.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I condemn the act as wrong, but I do not think that act in that circumstance defines a person's character (alignment), because, in the cold light of rationality, there is no decent alternative. However, it is an act which makes that person corrupted. They are compromised. A good person in haunted by such deeds, and I think Jack is decidedly one weary guy who is sick of his job. That's one thing I see a lot of folks not getting. He isn't some ultra-lawful lapdog who loves what he's doing for a living. He wanted to stay out, but his conscience sucked him back in, reluctantly.

I don't think having a conscience is evidence of being a good person. There are plenty of people whom most people could not describe as good people in real life who are haunted by the horrors they've participated in. Guilt alone does not absolve them of being awful people, especially the ones (like Jack) who did such things repeatedly, even if you accept the -- to me, not terribly strong -- contention that he had no choice but to commit these acts.

I also think there are actions that cannot be described as good, no matter what the justification. (There are enough of them in real world history that they don't need to be invoked here and brush up against the politics rule.) You cannot have a good rape. You cannot have a good child molestation. You cannot have a good torture. Now, someone may attempt to justify these actions, with results depending on the justification and the audience, but the fundemental act is one that only an evil person would casually contemplate (and maybe not even then).

If that's true -- that there are acts of pure evil -- then it follows that someone commiting X number of them must also be evil. I think our only real debate is the value of X. I happen to think X=1.

As you're aware, with a non-fictional human being, there's a natural talent for adaptation that's somewhat horrible. Torturing or killing someone is unthinkable for most people--but if they can manage to do it once, boy, is it ever easier to pull off the next time. Bauer may well start torturing and killing so casually that I might well deem him evil eventually, but being a fictional character I think he will always be stuck in a situation where there really is no other resort.

He's already engaged in a pattern of torture and violence towards innocents. At what point do you draw the line?

 

[Felon]

I don't think having a conscience is evidence of being a good person. There are plenty of people whom most people could not describe as good people in real life who are haunted by the horrors they've participated in. Guilt alone does not absolve them of being awful people, especially the ones (like Jack) who did such things repeatedly, even if you accept the -- to me, not terribly strong -- contention that he had no choice but to commit these acts.

I notice you using the word "absolve" there. The connotation serves to confirm what I've already asserted--that those who wish to label Bauer as evil are attempting to levy judgment against him for doing something that they find distasteful. it is not an objective classification, but rather a moral condemnation. The purpose of the D&D alignment system is the former, not the latter.

You assert that the contention that Bauer has no choice but to torture is "not terribly strong". The alternative is to take no stringent actions and simply allow thousands to die. I think it takes a lot more character to do something I detest to help others than it is to step back and do nothing to avert an atrocity because I dare not compromise my precious code of ethics.

I also think there are actions that cannot be described as good, no matter what the justification. (There are enough of them in real world history that they don't need to be invoked here and brush up against the politics rule.) You cannot have a good rape. You cannot have a good child molestation. You cannot have a good torture.

A casual perusal of my previous post would indicate that I agree that certain acts are categorically wrong. But that's the sin, not the sinner. Again, the PHB's section on the alignment system spends more time discussing alignment as the result of beliefs and motivations than as the result of specific actions.

If that's true -- that there are acts of pure evil -- then it follows that someone commiting X number of them must also be evil. I think our only real debate is the value of X. I happen to think X=1.

He's already engaged in a pattern of torture and violence towards innocents. At what point do you draw the line?

I draw the line where Bauer starts to commit these ugly deeds for the sake of expediency rather than urgency. The distinction between the two is significant to appreciate; Jack does not lie, hurt, or kill because it's the easiest way to achieve his goals, rather he does so because he's out of viable options.

 

[Darthjaye]

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

Problem with your answer is you don't really submit a good one of your own. Your just posting to belittle someone else's statement and not offer a good alternative. The excuse has undoubtably been used by people we hold in high regard throughout history. So using just the one category "torturers" in your response tells me your taking a shot at me personally for my posting. Try to keep it polite next time in a response.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Yes, to some the lines are clearly black and white. Others see shades of grey. That JB is willing to risk his life, family, his sanity, everything for other people, shows he is a good person. I don't see how that can even be disputed. Breaking some bones to gain information may be an evil act, but doesn't make a character evil. He did it, got the information needed to save a lot of lives, and didn't sit there rubbing his hands together, gleefully laughing while doing it.