Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Evilhalfling]

This thread made more since when I finally realized it was Jack Bauer not Jack Burton.

since I dont wach 24 it took a while.
Jack Burton is obviously CG.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm really confused here. This is the man who at least once a season has to run away from his own co-workers because what he's doing is more important than following procedure. He's the guy who seems to think, "Why the hell won't you idiots drop protocol for 10 minutes and help me save the world?!" Certainly not lawful.

He tries to protect the innocent. He is opposed to those who harm the innocent. That seems good.

He does not try to make profit off of others' suffering. He tries to stop people from profiting off the suffering of others. That seems to definitely not be evil.


In my games, even the ones where I do try to stress morality, if someone is trying to kill you, you're okay to kill them back in self defense. In that line of thinking, someone who tried to kill you and who you took alive is benefiting from your mercy.

Is torture worse than death?

A good-aligned character in D&D is certainly allowed to kill evil creatures. A good-aligned character is allowed to loot and mutilate the bodies of dead evil creatures. He's allowed to use mind control to force a person to do his bidding, which is about the closest parallel I can find to torture in typical game sessions.

So yeah, the torture is unpleasant, but his overall intentions are good. He sure as hell isn't going to be a paladin, but I peg him as strongly Neutral Good.

 

[Klaus]

Killing evil people is good in D&D, of course it depends somewhat on the circumstances.

Bye
Thanee

Not really. Killing is a neutral act in D&D. The *reason* for killing has more bearing than the act itself.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I mean, he shot a guy's wife in the leg to get the guy to give him info...not exactly the action of a "good" person.

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

 

[hexgrid]

I'd say Jack Bauer is lawful, because (with some exceptions) he values the well being of society over the well being the individual. This is why he doesn't have a problem with torture- the rights of person he's torturing are superseded by his desire to protect the larger population.

I wouldn't call him either good or evil, though- the goodness or evilness of an act are not relevant to him. And as the opposite of good, evil should indicate an actual desire to commit evil acts, not just indifference to it.

So I'd go with Lawful Neutral.

 

[delericho]

He tries to protect the innocent. He is opposed to those who harm the innocent. That seems good.

True. Sadly, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

He does not try to make profit off of others' suffering. He tries to stop people from profiting off the suffering of others. That seems to definitely not be evil.

Well, except that gaining information useful to complete his mission is profitting. And his use of torture, therefore, is profitting from the suffering of others.

Recently, Jack shot a woman he knew to be innocent of wrongdoing in the leg, in an attempt to prize information out of her husband. That does not square up with a Good alignment.

In my games, even the ones where I do try to stress morality, if someone is trying to kill you, you're okay to kill them back in self defense. In that line of thinking, someone who tried to kill you and who you took alive is benefiting from your mercy.

Mine, too. But, once you've taken them alive, disarmed them and tied them up, and done whatever else is deemed necessary to ensure they are no longer a threat, then the "self defence" argument does not apply. At which point, a Good character cannot simply kill them out of hand (although the administration of justice may require the same, depending on the context - killing a mass-murderer is a different consideration from killing a soldier who happens to be on the other side).

Is torture worse than death?

That's debatable. However, you could ask "is murdering one person worse than murdering hundreds?" Presumably, the answer is "no", but it doesn't follow that the murder of one is not an evil act. The same applies to torture.

A good-aligned character in D&D is certainly allowed to kill evil creatures.

That should really depend on the context. However, I've already posted about the Baatezu general problem in this thread.

A good-aligned character is allowed to loot and mutilate the bodies of dead evil creatures.

Loot, yes. I've seen no permission for mutilation.

He's allowed to use mind control to force a person to do his bidding, which is about the closest parallel I can find to torture in typical game sessions.

Again, that really has to depend on the context. A Good character should not be going into town, enchanting ranom townsfolk, and compelling their actions. Doing the same to opponents in the heat of battle is another matter. What's more, there is a question about the suffering caused by this enchantment - if you use an enchantment spell to force information out of an opponent, the opponent is not harmed by your actions. The same is not true of torture.

So yeah, the torture is unpleasant, but his overall intentions are good. He sure as hell isn't going to be a paladin, but I peg him as strongly Neutral Good.

Many villains regard their actions as being good, act "for the greater good", or have good intentions. It is their actions that make them Evil. The same is true of Jack Bauer.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I wouldn't call him either good or evil, though- the goodness or evilness of an act are not relevant to him. And as the opposite of good, evil should indicate an actual desire to commit evil acts, not just indifference to it.

Except that by the SRD ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

Intent to do evil is not required to take evil actions or even to be evil.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

True. Sadly, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.




Recently, Jack shot a woman he knew to be innocent of wrongdoing in the leg, in an attempt to prize information out of her husband. That does not square up with a Good alignment.

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.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

almost like the L5R concept of how the Scorpion Clan is allowed to do dishonorable things that need to be done so that others won't have to compromise their honor.

Can someone expand on this reference? Its an idea I've contemplated for a royal assassin type in the past....

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

Not torturing innocent people is evil. Now I've heard it all.