Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Toras]

I would peg Jack as NG with a tendency to slide TN when under extreme stress. He does have a tendency to use torture when in reality other techniques would be more effective. But then again this is movie logic.

Assuming that his techniques work in the world he lives in (despite their proven in effectiveness for anything but third party effect in ours.) and the situations in which he finds himself, he is making extremely difficult choices.

In D&D, other options are often available. But not always, and while I might yank a Paladin's powers for what he does, I wouldn't slide the alignment and it would be a minor atonement comparitively.

But then again, I could see myself doing something similar in his place so perhaps I'm not the best judge.

 

[loki44]

In comparison, Sayid, the ex-Republican Guard torturer on Lost, actually is quite moral and there's no blithely done violence on that show.

Didn't he almost gouge out Sawyer's eye with a big ol' Rambo knife while he was tied up just to get information out of him? Apart from that, I agree with you. (I only casually watch both shows.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Didn't he almost gouge out Sawyer's eye with a big ol' Rambo knife while he was tied up just to get information out of him? Apart from that, I agree with you. (I only casually watch both shows.)

In comparison to Bauer, he does so with regret, reluctance and deep guilt. It's all very matter-of-fact with Jack, in comparison.

I'm not sure that I'd say Sayid is a good person, but he's significantly more moral than Jack, in that at least he truly cares that he's done bad things in his life.

 

[Zerovoid]

I would say Jack is Chaotic Neutral.

Jack constantly breaks laws, lies, and disobeys orders. Very unlawful behavior.
Also, they never use search warrents or anything at CTU, and go through people's personal files at will. Disregarding the US Constitution's 4th amendment can't be very lawful.
And for a recent example of Jack breaking his word, there is his interaction with the geman intelligence agent recently, which ends with the other agent saying, "Now I know exactly what your word is worth."
(Although putting the good of society above the individual is also very lawful, as other people have pointed out. Too many conflicts in the DnD alignment system, but I think Chaotic wins out here.)

He does too many evil things to be considered good, but he's never done them with evil intentions. That makes him Neutral on the Good-Evil axis to me.

Don't forget, in addition to shooting that woman in the leg, he was willing to put an innocent girl into a building full of some sort of biological weapon in season 3 in order to get her father to cooperate.

It always works out in the show, but I think in the real world someone who operated the way Jack does would probably do more harm than good.

 

[Banshee16]

Damn, I'm glad I don't watch this show.... Not the kind of "hero" who I have any interest in.

He's an interesting character.....but really, I think when it comes down to it, he's an example of a neutral, or possibly evil character doing bad things for the good of the state. Sort of like the "Agent" in Serenity. The "Agent" is far worse.....at his heart, I don't think Jack is a "bad" person, whereas the Agent admitted he was a monster who indiscriminately killed innocents. But he does things we define as "bad" to serve the cause of the state....keeping in mind that the state isn't necessarily "good". He does it so that other people don't have to.

The first season Jack was more along the lines of what I'd term "good". But every season, he seems to have strayed further and further from that....to the point where he's got some prisoner, and is shouting at him, about to rupture his eyeball with a sharp object, unless the guy fesses up the info Jack needs. However, if the forces of "good", are willing to do that, they're crossing a line that makes one question if they're "good" anymore.

Maybe this is simply part of the "good doesn't mean stupid"......but it all depends on one's personal definition of good, etc. The Law doesn't always equate with good, or evil....it's been written to try and support "good", but doesn't always necessarily do so.

According to my personal definition, Jack is no longer good. He's ventured into neutrality, and, in some cases, what we'd classify as evil. Does that make him an anti-hero? Or is there another term for that? However, because he's generally decent, once you get him out of a "save the world" scenario, I suspect he's neutral. He follows law, or doesn't, depending on whether the law impedes him from doing what he feels he needs to do, or doesn't. He generally believes in not harming innocents, the freedom of people to live without fear etc. while at the at the same time he has harmed innocents to pursue his goals.

I think if he consistently hurt innocents more often, we'd have to definitely call him evil. However, two seasons back, he only pretended to kill the terrorist's children in front of his eyes. A horrible form of psychological torture, but he didn't cross the line into actually doing it.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Is torture worse than death?

QUOTE]

Depends on if you quantify sadism as a form of torture as well. I just finished a book which was the first in a trilogy, in which a villain, who is a spy, tricked the heroine of the story, drugged her, and kept her alive with drugs or something (magic?) and forced her to watch as he disemboweled her, and took her entire body apart while she was still aware, forcing her to watch the whole process in a mirror until she died.

Look at a sample like that......I would say that would have been worse than death, as she would have suffered immense physical and emotional pain before she died. A clean death would have been kinder for the character.

Thankfully the book was a fiction. Aside from that scene, it was actually a pretty good book. But that scene at the end was quite repugnant. In some ways it was worse than the "Red Wedding" in George RR Martin's books.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

I didn't see this episode, so I'm taking it out of context, but suppose for instance, the woman's husband had information of the whereabouts of a nuclear bomb hidden somewhere in Yankee Stadium during game 7 of the playoffs against Boston. Not getting that information because of your "morals" is an evil act. By the lawful (the good of the many) standpoint, he is justified in shooting her, her kids, her cat, and her neighbor's goat if it will stop the above catastrophe, whether directly or indirectly.

I'd call him Lawful NEutral, but I can see where some might infer him as lawful good.

In that case it's only lawful, if the law expressly says an agent has the right to murder innocents to secure information possessed by bad people, and which is needed to prevent more horrible acts from occurring. Hopefully that *isn't* in the law. Not being an American, I have no idea what the law says on that regard.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

In comparison to Bauer, he does so with regret, reluctance and deep guilt. It's all very matter-of-fact with Jack, in comparison.

I'm not sure that I'd say Sayid is a good person, but he's significantly more moral than Jack, in that at least he truly cares that he's done bad things in his life.

That's the difference. Sayid knows it's wrong, and any time that he's done it, he is taken by remorse afterwards, and spends episodes feeling guilty about it. Jack, on the other hand, justifies it to himself as necessary for the good of the state, and then just jumps right back to using it again, the next time he needs information. For Jack, it's a standard tactic, whereas with Sayid, it's generally the exception.

Banshee

 

[Balord]

Chaotic Good.

He fights to protect the innocent people of the world and those he loves. If he happens to break a few laws to do so, he doesn't hesitate. If he has to put his own life on the line to help uphold the greater good, so be it. He's far from evil, and far from lawful.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's the difference. Sayid knows it's wrong, and any time that he's done it, he is taken by remorse afterwards, and spends episodes feeling guilty about it. Jack, on the other hand, justifies it to himself as necessary for the good of the state, and then just jumps right back to using it again, the next time he needs information. For Jack, it's a standard tactic, whereas with Sayid, it's generally the exception.

Banshee

On the other hand, Sayid isn't usually responsible to end terrorist threats directed at the United States, and he usually has more time to think about his actions afterwards.

While Lost's timeline isn't exactly fast-moving, it is still considerably more extensive than that of a 24 season. Lost gives its characters a lot more time to explain their feelings and thoughts.

In 24, all these things happen in 24 hours. There is no time for Jack to feel guilty or reevaluate his ethics. And we never see him on his day after, or in any other non-stressful enviroment.

But: We know that he isn't actually any longer in regular service for CTU. In the beginning of at least 2 seasons (including this one), he wasn't working anywhere near CTU or the government. In another season, he was working in a more political/administrative position, far away from being a field agent. He essentially broke down at the end of at least one season.

I think it indicates that Jack has a lot of emotional or moral problems with the things he did than it appears during the regular 24 hours.