Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 2829622" data-attributes="member: 7883">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</blockquote>

Verification