Is Jack Bauer LG?

[Hellcow]

I won't say very succinctly put...

Being succinct is not one of my strengths. Fear me, for I am the Mad Overwriter.

 

[Felon]

Right, how abut the leg-shooting incident?

Jack has apprehended Christopher Henderson and his wife. He knows the wife is innocent. So, he orders CH to give him the information to help him track down the nerve agent. CH refuses. Jack shoots the wife in the leg, and then threatens to cripple her for life unless CH relents. CH still refuses.

At this point, Jack drags CH in to CTU for further torture. The wife goes for medical treatment.

CTU fail to break CH, who later escapes. Jack still locates the missing nerve agent before it is released. (Chloe cracks CH's computer, and they follow a lead.)

Given the outcome, the torture was clearly not required, nor did it need to be Jack's first recourse.

Delericho, note that you were responding to a post which asked the Jack-bashers to "give a couple of examples of other actions that might have been taken instead of torture".

I can't help but notice that you did not actually do that. You simply described the torture and then posited that since things eventually panned out, the torture was unnecessary.

Although new leads frequently pop up from out of the blue in 24, suggesting that Jack should just do nothing and wait for one to materialize is not providing a valid alternative. By this logic, Jack should have killed Henderson in cold blood to prevent him from later killing Tony (something he also had no way of knowing would happen).

 

[Felon]

So, it all comes back to your view on evil. Mine is that evil is a part of human nature and a part of our world, not something that can be excised... because if it was reserved for truly extreme and horrible cases, a world with the ability to detect evil would take action to eliminate it. Following these principles, I would make Jack evil... a good man who has fallen into evil, but who is still bound by his loyalty to his nation and family, and by his personal integrity. An evil person serving a good cause, and who only engages in evil actions because he feels those actions are necessary. Essentially, I believe that both good and evil people can be heroes... or, for that matter, villains. Alignment shapes your methods, but does not automatically define your loyalty or your goals.

I can't help but notice that those who wish to label Jack as evil eventually wind up equivocating until evil is painted in a favorable light (although unlike Keith, many don't seem to realize that's what they're doing).

SO, evil characters can possess a conscience, exhibiting remorse and restraint. They can be selfless and heroic, endangering themselves in order to protect innocent lives (of strangers no less).

It becomes rather pointless to condemn someone as evil when evil can contain virtually all of the qualities of being good. The good person is apparently the person who has never truly been stuck in a Jack-Bauer no-win scenario.

 

[Hellcow]

I can't help but notice that those who wish to label Jack as evil eventually wind up painting evil in a favorable light (although unlike Keith, many don't seem to realize that's what they're doing).

I don't see evil in a favorable light. I see it as an ugly, unpleasant thing, generally opposed to altruism and empathy. I feel that evil generally requires the person in question to be willing to ignore the pain and suffering of others, and generally to be willing to cause pain and suffering to others. I believe that an evil person can serve a good cause, and help bring about a greater good in the world... but that doesn't change the fact that he does so by repeatedly employing methods a good person will find utterly repugnant. And yes, I am suggesting that a good person who is forced to perform such actions repeatedly will be forced to drift away from good alignment, forcing himself to numb his empathy for others.

Looking back to the barbarian warriors, There's a vast differents between the barbarian who glories in the pain he inflicts on his foes and the warrior who fights only to protect his helpless people, who seeks to bring down his foes as quickly and cleanly as possible, and who will, if given the chance, spare a downed enemy. They can both serve a good cause, if they fight a foe threatening innocent lives. That doesn't make the evil barbarian in any way a paragon of ideal behavior. He's a monster. It just happens that he's fighting worse monsters, and not doing harm to others.

With that said, my point all along is that evil is a spectrum, and we're back to Hannibal Lecter and Jack... or, for that matter, Miles Papazian and Jack. I may consider Jack evil, but it's an entirely different level of evil than Lecter. And I feel that having this spectrum is vital to allow mystery in the world, to leave some sense of uncertainty as to just how bad evil is.

Jack's not Lecter. But he surely isn't Mother Teresa. He may have a conscience. But he's willing to engage in acts that go against his conscience, over and over and over. A good person faced with a Jack Bauer no-win situation may take the same actions as Jack, stooping to evil methods. Or he may hesitate, and in the process lose the battle. Note that what I said above is that people often try to stop Jack from engaging in ruthless actions, even though he gets results... that there are others who AREN'T willing to do what he does, even when it is a no-win situation. It's all a matter of sacrifices you're willing to make, and not everyone will be willing to make sacrifices.

With that said: by saying that good people can do evil, and evil people can do good, I AM, quite intentionally, downplaying the role of alignment. I am saying that you can have evil heroes and good villains. What I'm saying is that in my campaign, alignment tells you about what they may be comfortable with: anyone can change under duress. If a man's evil, you know there's a far better chance he WILL be comfortable with torture, and won't hesitate to employ it. If he's good, you know he's only going to resort to such tools in the most desperate moments, if at all. But in Eberron, at least, that tells you nothing about the cause he's aligned with.

In many ways, it would have served the setting to remove alignment completely, but alignment is a deeply integrated part of D&D. Instead, Eberron encourages DMs to stretch alignment beyond simple black and white, and to make players think about motivations and behavior beyond just "He's evil! Kill him!"

I will raise one more point. I'm saying that it's possible for an evil person to serve a greater good. I'm not saying that's the norm. In my mind, the majority of evil people are repugnant. They lack empathy for others and in one form or another are driven by a desire for personal gain or satisfaction with no regard for the suffering it may cause others. Again, evil, by and large, is unpleasant... though there's still a big difference between the slumlord and the baby-killer. However, while this may be typical, you can still have the Jack Bauer or King Kaius - the evil person whose intentions are noble, but whose methods are brutal.

So if someone detects as evil, you should tread cautiously; odds are that the guy's a selfish bastard, at the very least. But you can't automatically assume he's a serial killer, or that he serves an evil cause. He might be promoting a noble cause, in a very unpleasant way. (Again, of course, this is merely in my campaign... though it is the style suggested in Chapter Nine of the Eberron Campaign Setting.)

And there I go being all succinct again. I'd better go back to lurking if I expect to meet any of my deadlines...

It becomes pretty pointless to condemn someone as evil when evil can contain virtually all of the qualities of being good.

Last thought: this is precisely my point - in Eberron, at least, you can't condemn someone for "being evil". You can condemn someone for performing evil acts. Evil-aligned people are more likely to perform evil acts than good-aligned people. But not all will, and as in the case of the barbarian, even then they may perform these acts in service of a good cause. If all evil people are assured of being criminals and endangering society, I don't see how a world with the magical sophistication of Eberron or such a high density of PC-class people as Forgotten Realms would allow it to exist within an urban population - hence, I feel that the definition of evil as alignment needs to be broadened... and that society will be concerned with actions.

 

[Ace]

The book was "A Secret Atlas" by Michael Stackpole. It's a thinly veiled fantasy based off of some of the ideas from the book "The Year China Discovered the World", I think. The characters are basically European, but they use all kinds of Chinese words, have these massive ships, etc.

It was pretty good. The sequel, Cartomancy, was just released, but I'll wait for it in paperback.

Banshee

Thanks

 

[Hussar]

Last thought: this is precisely my point - in Eberron, at least, you can't condemn someone for "being evil". You can condemn someone for performing evil acts. Evil-aligned people are more likely to perform evil acts than good-aligned people. But not all will, and as in the case of the barbarian, even then they may perform these acts in service of a good cause. If all evil people are assured of being criminals and endangering society, I don't see how a world with the magical sophistication of Eberron or such a high density of PC-class people as Forgotten Realms would allow it to exist within an urban population - hence, I feel that the definition of evil as alignment needs to be broadened... and that society will be concerned with actions

I like that take on alignment. Fits well within my views. Thanks.

It's interesting to me though. Most people can agree on the Law/Chaos axis. With a couple of exceptions, people have stated that he is either chaotic or neutral. The problem comes in with Good/Evil. Something that should always be remembered though is that an anti-hero, which Jack is, is EVIL. That's the entire point. Elric doesn't save princesses because he's a nice guy, he saves people DESPITE his nature.

Jack has willingly performed heinous acts numerous times. And, has shown no reluctance or remorse in doing them again. Are they the "right" thing to do? Quite probably. But, the trick is, right =/= good.

 

[Drowbane]

Nah, I'm just one of those annoying Eberron fanboys. In my next post, I'll tell you all about why magic robots are the k3wl3st.

Ahh, pepsi through the nose... it burns!

 

[delericho]

Delericho, note that you were responding to a post which asked the Jack-bashers to "give a couple of examples of other actions that might have been taken instead of torture".

I can't help but notice that you did not actually do that. You simply described the torture and then posited that since things eventually panned out, the torture was unnecessary.

Although new leads frequently pop up from out of the blue in 24, suggesting that Jack should just do nothing and wait for one to materialize is not providing a valid alternative. By this logic, Jack should have killed Henderson in cold blood to prevent him from later killing Tony (something he also had no way of knowing would happen).

The alternative is to forego the (unnecessary) leg-shooting and do what Jack did once it became apparent that the torture of the innocent was useless - namely take CH in for interrogation at CTU, and have Chloe work on his laptop.

Clearly, those options were available to Jack. He chose not to use them until the quick and easy torture method failed him. He didn't choose torture of the innocent because it was the only option available to him. He used it as his first recourse, and then looked for other options when that failed him.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Well, I am posting again, darn it!
As to the policeman who tortured/threatened the piece of crap child kidnapper/murdered. He obviously was CG, like JB. He understood that a life was on the line, and did what was necessary for saving a life. Yeah, he could have spent 3 days researching the kidnapper/murders room, asking question, etc., but to what effect? I think had he not tortured/threatened the piece o' crap, he would have demonstrated evil by doing nothing for fear of the law. As I said before, I think Monte's Political thread touches on these things nicely. It all depends on your view on life, politics, and religion. I think by not sometimes sacrificing yourself and your morals, for fear of law, is just as evil as standing there watching the crime, and doing nothing. Just my opinion.

 

[delericho]

I'm going to preface this post by saying that 'torture' includes physical, mental and emotional tortures, but that I don't consider the 'threat of torture' to be in the same league, or even to be Evil (as I do torture).

For the purpose of this reply, therefore, I'm going to addressing the 'torture' part of the quote below, rather than the 'threat of torture' part. I'm replying selectively because what I have to say only applies to part of what is quoted, not because I haven't read the quoted post.

That said...

I think had he not tortured/threatened the piece o' crap, he would have demonstrated evil by doing nothing for fear of the law.

I am extremely uncomfortable with any suggestion that not torturing someone could be considered Evil. There are two general and one specific reason for this:

1) Inaction is Neutral.
2) A person carries moral responsibility only for his own actions. If the policeman does nothing, he does not kill the victim - the murderer does. Consequently, the murderer is Evil; the policeman is not.

3) In this specific case, there is no suggestion that the policeman would be 'doing nothing'. There are plenty of avenues of inquiry that he could and would have been following, without resorting to the quick and easy route of torturing the murderer. Granted, they probably would not have been as effective, but that's far from saying they don't exist.

As I said before, I think Monte's Political thread touches on these things nicely. It all depends on your view on life, politics, and religion. I think by not sometimes sacrificing yourself and your morals, for fear of law, is just as evil as standing there watching the crime, and doing nothing. Just my opinion.

Firstly, I disagree with the "just as evil" part quoted, for the reasons I've given above. Additionally, I would point out that in the metaphysical battle between Good and Evil, the forces of Evil win just as surely if they corrupt all the forces of Good (by forcing them to become Evil to stop them) as they do by wiping them out.

And, since it bears repeating, a single Evil act in a lifetime of otherwise Good behaviour does not make a character Evil - it makes a Good character human. But a character who routinely makes use of Evil methods, especially where alternatives exist and are ignored for expediency, cannot be considered Good.