# Is Jack Bauer LG?



## loki44 (May 16, 2006)

I think he is.  Anybody disagree?


----------



## Alzrius (May 16, 2006)

From what I understand, Jack Bauer doesn't even blink at torturing captured enemies for information, and tends to skirt a very close line on the legality of his actions, claiming they're for the greater good of defending the nation.

I'd have a hard time seeing Lawful Good, given all of that. I'd see him as more Lawful Neutral, or maybe even just Neutral.


----------



## 3d6 (May 16, 2006)

I think he's neutral as well. He's far to willing to torture people to qualify as "good".


----------



## loki44 (May 16, 2006)

But he tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need and speaks out against injustice.  He also hates to see the guilty go unpunished, though not at the expense of the other ideals.  Yes, his actions border on torture at times, but only to further the ends of law and goodness.  He's definitely not neutral since he serves an "order", nor is he chaotic for the same resaon.  It's a tough call, but if I had to assign an alignment to that NPC it would have to be LG.  I'm not comfortable with that though, so somebody please convince me otherwise.


----------



## Ds Da Man (May 16, 2006)

Definately CG. He has his own moral code, and steps out of line any time the greater good needs it. He doesn't care about law, he cares about life, and his country.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 16, 2006)

The ends justifying the means is _not_ Lawful Good. He's not by any means Lawful and I wouldn't even go so far as to say he's even Good. One can be committed to a cause (such as the security of a nation and its citizens) without being inherently good.

And "bordering" on torture? Staging fake executions of children to force people to talk isn't bordering on anything, it's torture.


----------



## Klaus (May 16, 2006)

I've seen Jack Bauer lie through his teeth. I've seen him bully about, opress and mislead the people he work with. He's far from methodic, and rely quite a bit on spur-of-the-moment decisions (as befits a 24-hour storyline).

He's Neutral at best. If he were a d20 Modern character, his allegiance would be USA, Kim Bauer, CTU. Not Law, Good, Chaos or Evil.


----------



## Falkus (May 16, 2006)

> Yes, his actions border on torture at times, but only to further the ends of law and goodness.




An evil act done to support a good one is still an evil act.


----------



## Agent Oracle (May 16, 2006)

Bauer's alignment?

He sways between Lawful neutral and True Neutral.  He's loyal, but his loyalty is more to his own concept of how the job should be done than to any sort of higher standards.  He has no problems with shooting or torturing people, which is evil, but hes self-sacrificing to the point of almost getting himself killed in an exploding building so he could save a friend, which is good.  Hence, he is mostly neutral.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 16, 2006)

This is one reason why I prefer D20 Modern - more appropriate alignments.

There is no magic in 24. This means there are no supernatural forces based around good and evil.

Instead, I would use the D20 Modern allegiance system - Jack Bauer would have an allegiance to the United States. He will do literally anything to protect it. After that allegiance (meaning less important) might come allegiances like law or good. IMO, his allegiances to law and good are not strong enough to count as allegiances, so I would just give him an allegiance to the United States, and maybe to his closest allies as well.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 16, 2006)

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.

But then why does he try to protect people? Why does he keep his word (when he can)?

Quite simply, the "Lawful" alignment implies order, but it also (often) implies adherence to a code. Jack Bauer is an evil guy whose personal code happens to follow most of the precepts of "good."

Weird, I know.  But I'm quite serious. Nowhere do the alignment rules define what a personal code can or cannot consist of.


----------



## Nomad4life (May 16, 2006)

Jack Bauer exists beyond the ridiculous confines of a painfully artificial “alignment” system.

Actually, Jack Bauer is a good example of why everyone should abandon such systems altogether.


----------



## gunter uxbridge (May 16, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




Here here...LE fits Jack perfectly.

Will we ever again hear the immortal words, "Get me a hack-saw!"

heh....


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 16, 2006)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Jack Bauer exists beyond the ridiculous confines of a painfully artificial “alignment” system.




Of course he does. Most fictional characters can't be accurately modeled in D&D. Doesn't mean we should stop trying to figure out how to get close.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 16, 2006)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Jack Bauer exists beyond the ridiculous confines of a painfully artificial “alignment” system.
> 
> Actually, Jack Bauer is a good example of why everyone should abandon such systems altogether.




Quoted for truth.  And a good example of why we (still) have pointless arguments at our game table about whether an act is lawful, chaotic, good or evil.


----------



## Thotas (May 16, 2006)

I've thought about this question ... he seems to want both Law and Good, but often seems to have to choose between them.  Sometimes it also seems like he's willing to be a personally bad for an impersonal good, 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.

I'm not sure what alignment to assign to Jack, but his DM is a true rat bastard.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 16, 2006)

Thotas said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what alignment to assign to Jack, but his DM is a true rat bastard.




OMG - i just blew milk and pizza out my nose.


----------



## Glyfair (May 16, 2006)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Jack Bauer exists beyond the ridiculous confines of a painfully artificial “alignment” system.
> 
> Actually, Jack Bauer is a good example of why everyone should abandon such systems altogether.



Well, if you see them as confines, I agree.  I think most people would have less problems with them if they saw them as tendancies (more like Gygax's graph in the early Dragon magazines).

What alignment is "X" have a tendancy for people to pick on one or two inconsistancies and assuming they define the alignment.  If a character would be a perfect lawful good alignment, but has one or two traits that are clearly chaotic neutral, that doesn't mean the character isn't lawful good.  It just means that aren't as extreme lawful good as those who don't have those extreme quirks.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 16, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



Works for me. In fact, I'm hoping to sweet-talk a DM here in the play-by-post board into letting me play just such a paladin/blackguard in the Shackled City campaign.


----------



## Harmon (May 16, 2006)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> OMG - i just blew milk and pizza out my nose.




Now that is disgusting- pizza and milk, that is gross.


----------



## Vegepygmy (May 16, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> And "bordering" on torture? Staging fake executions of children to force people to talk isn't bordering on anything, it's torture.



I don't watch the show, so maybe there's more to it than you just described, but "staging fake executions of children" isn't anything _like_ what I consider to be torture.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 16, 2006)

loki44 said:
			
		

> But he tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need and speaks out against injustice.  He also hates to see the guilty go unpunished, though not at the expense of the other ideals.  Yes, his actions border on torture at times, but only to further the ends of law and goodness.  He's definitely not neutral since he serves an "order", nor is he chaotic for the same resaon.  It's a tough call, but if I had to assign an alignment to that NPC it would have to be LG.  I'm not comfortable with that though, so somebody please convince me otherwise.




He serves good, but uses bad means to do so.  Heck, he could be evil for all we know?  Depends on whether you view torture as evil.  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..

I'd say neutral.  Just because he's neutral doesn't mean he can't follow the law....it means he'll follow it when he wants, and ignore it when it doesn't suit his purposes..

Banshee


----------



## Thunderfoot (May 16, 2006)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> I don't watch the show, so maybe there's more to it than you just described, but "staging fake executions of children" isn't anything _like_ what I consider to be torture.



True - that isn't torture - that's colusion or coersion


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 16, 2006)

Collusion is cooperation - when you collude with a criminal, you're helping him out.

So it is coercion - but torture is just a violent form of coercion. So there's no real distinction.


----------



## Drowbane (May 16, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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 with the blood-sucking-rodent.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 16, 2006)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> I don't watch the show, so maybe there's more to it than you just described, but "staging fake executions of children" isn't anything _like_ what I consider to be torture.



Really? Are you a parent?

If you saw someone shoot one of your children in the head, and then told you the rest of your bound and helpless family was next, what would you consider it? A prank?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 16, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> But then why does he try to protect people? Why does he keep his word (when he can)?
> 
> Quite simply, the "Lawful" alignment implies order, but it also (often) implies adherence to a code. Jack Bauer is an evil guy whose personal code happens to follow most of the precepts of "good."



This is the same sensible reasoning underlying the fact that most spymasters and secret police chiefs in Eberron are Lawful Evil (and, more rarely, Lawful Neutral).

It's perfectly possible to believe in a set of good moral principles so much that you're willing to be immoral in upholding them.

No one said people can't be hypocrites, after all.


----------



## Corsair (May 16, 2006)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> This is the same sensible reasoning underlying the fact that most spymasters and secret police chiefs in Eberron are Lawful Evil (and, more rarely, Lawful Neutral).
> 
> It's perfectly possible to believe in a set of good moral principles so much that you're willing to be immoral in upholding them.
> 
> No one said people can't be hypocrites, after all.




"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

-Attributed to George Orwell


----------



## delericho (May 16, 2006)

Jack Bauer is neither Lawful nor Good. As others have mentioned, he regularly makes use of torture to accomplish his goals, which precludes a Good alignment. He also consistently shows a disregard for authority in his actions, which precludes a Lawful alignment. Having a personal code does not, in itself, make one either Lawful or Good.

Jack is clearly on the right side - those deplorable acts he engages in are generally absolutely necessary. However, doing evil in a good cause does not make those acts good.

Jack is a complex character. I'd place his alignment as Neutral, perhaps Neutral Evil.


----------



## glass (May 16, 2006)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> I don't watch the show, so maybe there's more to it than you just described, but "staging fake executions of children" isn't anything _like_ what I consider to be torture.



Do you have children?


glass.


----------



## Hawken (May 16, 2006)

I'd say he is NE. 

The ends never justify the means. Acting on the idea that they do is evil.

Torture, physical & psychological (staging executions, etc.), is evil.

It's not that he's done those things once, but continues to do so or has no problem doing so that makes him evil, regardless of his motivation or goal. 

As for the Neutral aspect, he does have respect for the law, but only in general. It doesn't apply to him and he has no compunction against breaking the law. Neutral and Chaotic beings can still follow laws, but they are more likely to discard them when necessary. He is not so selfish or concerned about individuals or the self to be entirely chaotic either. There is a balance in him between law and chaos that lands him more in the middle.


----------



## Elephant (May 16, 2006)

loki44 said:
			
		

> I think he is.  Anybody disagree?




Frell, no.  The one example I can give is when he circumvented proper search procedure in the first season by getting one of his coworkers to spy on his daughter just because she was out late.

I'm thinking of the scene where he asked one of his co-workers if she could pull up a list of Internet passwords linked with a particular phone number, and she said "Sure, if you have a warrant."

There's no WAY a LG type would so blithely disregard the laws governing him.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 16, 2006)

Corsair said:
			
		

> "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."



Absolutely.


----------



## Thanee (May 16, 2006)

He is Neutral in D&D terms, I'd say, with tendencies towards Chaotic and Good.

Lawful doesn't fit at all, IMHO.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## delericho (May 16, 2006)

Corsair said:
			
		

> "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."




While I agree with the sentiment expressed in the quote, I don't believe that the "rough men" referred to are therefore Good. Evil done to safeguard a good way of life remains evil.

(Something I find fascinating about the villain in Serenity is precisely that he's aware that he does Evil, and yet he chooses to do it anyway, on the grounds that it is necessary for what he regards as a Good society to survive.)


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 16, 2006)

Define the laws/code/belief he follows?  Does he act the same way every time?  

His actions are evil; tourture, killing in cold blood, etc., but then that is how I define evil in my games, it does not mean it is evil in everyone elses games.


----------



## Thanee (May 16, 2006)

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

Bye
Thanee


----------



## MarkB (May 16, 2006)

One thing to bear in mind is that we have absolutely no idea what a typical day in the life of Jack Bauer is like.

If I had to give him a D&D alignment, I'd say he's Neutral Good, but very pragmatic, and can be driven to take evil acts in the defense of other peoples' lives.


----------



## delericho (May 16, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Killing evil people is good in D&D,




True. Which is one of the problems with the alignment system as written, since it means that a Baatezu general in the Blood War, who spends his existence slaying evil creatures, is Good by definition.


----------



## Estlor (May 16, 2006)

From the D20 Modern perspective, I'd probably give him allegiances to USA, Kim Bauer, Law, and CTU in that order.  Law has to be in there somewhere.  He's willing to disregard it "for the greater good" when necessary, but (without spoiling this season to people not watching or not caught up) he's still got a line that, if crossed by someone else, prompts him to say, "That was wrong," and, "Justice needs to be served!"

Then again, I can't decide if he was upset because it involved terrorists threatening US citizens or because it involved his friends being hurt.  Probably the latter.  Which means in D&D I'd make him Neutral with strong Evil leanings or perhaps Neutral Apathetic.


----------



## Evilhalfling (May 16, 2006)

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 (May 16, 2006)

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 (May 16, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

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 (May 16, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

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





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 (May 16, 2006)

Thotas said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## delericho (May 16, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> 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.




You're not too far off the mark.



> Not getting that information because of your "morals" is an evil act.




Not true. Setting off the bomb is an evil act. Not acting to stop it is Neutral. Shooting the woman was clearly an Evil act. It was _necessary_, but still Evil.



> 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.




"The good of the many" is definately a Lawful Evil way of thinking. That said, Jack has a habit of disregarding authority, breaking orders, and general insubordination. A character who acts lawful some of the time and chaotic at others isn't lawful.


----------



## loki44 (May 16, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Jack Bauer is Lawful Evil.




This actually makes some sense.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 16, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> "The good of the many" is definately a Lawful Evil way of thinking. That said, Jack has a habit of disregarding authority, breaking orders, and general insubordination. A character who acts lawful some of the time and chaotic at others isn't lawful.



I think habit is not entirely correct, that would indicate chaotic. 
I think neutral in regard to law is correct. 
He is breaking the law and ignoring authority if he has to do it. But he always tries to follow the law first, and even takes some risks (for himself and the mission) to follow the law or his orders, but sometimes he can't.

I think a similar stance can be taken towards evil/good.
He is definitely trying to achieve good ends, but he is using evil acts to do so.
But he doesn't torture because he likes it or because he doesn't care that it hurts his victims.
The incident with the terrorist that he threatened and faked to kill his son is a good example - he later explains him that he didn't actually kill him, and that he had to do it to get the information. He didn't have to do it.
Thus I think he is also neutral in regard to the evil/good-axis. 

So, Jack Baur is neutral. 

His "neutrality" might be compared to that of a neutral Druid. A Druids concern is Nature, Jacks is the USA. They commit the acts neccessary to protect it.

In D20 Modern terms, he probably has an alligiance to USA and his Family*. 
I think that also underlines the concept of neutral - most neutral characters probably feel a loyality to their family and their country (or the general area they live in).


*Today, that might only be Kim Bauer, but I think it might even be a wider group, including people like Chloe, Ex-President Palmer, Michelle, Tony and Audry.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 16, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Is torture worse than death?



In our world, it'll get you indicted for war crimes, and it's enough to bump you up to capital murder if you do it to someone you later kill in most states. I'd take that as a global "yes."



> 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.



Of course, he also uses torture when there's more viable alternatives available, especially, as a member of the intelligence community (to the extent that anyone on 24 is intelligent), he should know that all the pros know that torture just makes people say what they think you want to hear, not the truth. It's been discredited by the "good guys" for decades and only has come back into fashion because of civilian appointees who don't know or don't care. (Got that from a CIA operative.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 16, 2006)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

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



I gave up on it for similar reasons. In comparison, Sayid, the ex-Republican Guard torturer on Lost, actually is quite moral and there's no blithely done violence on that show.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 16, 2006)

For what it's worth, while his organization may be lawful, no one in it seems to really be. His former boss, George Mason, once had his own son arrested so he could get a chance to talk to him, instead of, you know, picking up the phone or shooting him an e-mail, saying why it was important to talk.


----------



## Gryffyn (May 16, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> There is no magic in 24.




Chloe O'Brien performs feats of magic every episode, though.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 16, 2006)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Actually, Jack Bauer is a good example of why everyone should abandon such systems altogether.




So people should abandon something they find useful just because you, personally, don't like it?

Sounds Lawful Evil to me.


----------



## drothgery (May 16, 2006)

We really don't know anything about what Jack's like when not under extreme pressure (at least from waht I've seen -- the first three seasons of DVDs). Under extreme pressure (assasination of a presidential candidate, nuclear bombs about to go off in LA, deadly viruses about to be released in LA), Jack's willing to use means that are definitely D&D evil (most notably torture). On the days the show takes place, he acts borderline LN/LE in pursuit of LG/NG goals. I'm not sure how much this says about regular-day Jack, though.


----------



## Klaus (May 16, 2006)

I only watched Seasons 1-3 of 24, and therefore stated that Jack was LN or N, leaving LE for "Man on Fire"'s Creasy (sp).


----------



## Toras (May 16, 2006)

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 (May 16, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

loki44 said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

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 (May 16, 2006)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Is torture worse than death?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Banshee16 (May 16, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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 (May 16, 2006)

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 (May 16, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 16, 2006)

Balord said:
			
		

> 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.



I agree with you.  He's a vigilante who just happens to work in law enforcement.  I don't know what his morals or justifications are (it sounds like he's unemotional so good/evil is hard to determine), but his actions break the law repeatedly.

He'd be a hell of a paladin, but the number of atonements would be a pain.


----------



## Voadam (May 16, 2006)

I'd have to see his character sheet to tell you.


----------



## Derren (May 16, 2006)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I agree with you.  He's a vigilante who just happens to work in law enforcement.  I don't know what his morals or justifications are (it sounds like he's unemotional so good/evil is hard to determine), but his actions break the law repeatedly.
> 
> He'd be a hell of a paladin, but the number of atonements would be a pain.




Paladin? Never. This guy tortures, cheats and breakes the law regulary. He is TN at best and certainly not LG. An I don't buy the "outside the show he is certainly a nice guy" explanation. How someone acts under stress shows his true character and Jacks true character is TN.

And even if he feels remorse, then why does he torture again in the next season (and mostly even worse then in the season before?). No, this guy does so many evil acts in the name of the greater good that he can't be good himself.


----------



## Count_Zero (May 16, 2006)

I would classify Jack Bauer, in the D&D alignment system, as either Chaotic Good, or Neutral Evil. Definitly not Chaotic Evil and definitly not Lawful.


----------



## Asmo (May 16, 2006)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Now that is disgusting- pizza and milk, that is gross.




Hear, hear!!

Asmo


----------



## Banshee16 (May 16, 2006)

Derren said:
			
		

> Paladin? Never. This guy tortures, cheats and breakes the law regulary. He is TN at best and certainly not LG. An I don't buy the "outside the show he is certainly a nice guy" explanation. How someone acts under stress shows his true character and Jacks true character is TN.
> 
> And even if he feels remorse, then why does he torture again in the next season (and mostly even worse then in the season before?). No, this guy does so many evil acts in the name of the greater good that he can't be good himself.




Exactly.  That's what I'm getting at.  He's "tainted" by what he's done.  He's not a hero in the classic sense of the word.  I'd actually venture to say that Jack displays sociopathic tendencies.  He's got a disturbing ability to justify away the results of his actions on others, and appears, in the heat of the moment, to not harbour guilt over what he's done.  Most people aren't like that.  I'd also be thinking that those factors in how he acts may be "bad", from a "normal social adjustment" perspective, but serve his government very well when channeled towards a certain purpose (ie. hunting down and apprehending terrorists).

It's pretty evident, even from the first season that everything wasn't perfect in the Bauer household at the beginning.  It seems that his job and his personalilty were causing difficulties with respect to being in "normal" life before all these crises started occurring.  At least that's what I remember.  It seems like every season he goes further and further across the line, displaying more and more vicious behaviour....even the way he talks.  I'm not sure if this is because the writers are needing to find more effective ways of shocking us, or whether this is an evolution of the character.

I wonder sometimes, now that the show has been extended, whether Jack will gradually devolve from who he was in the first season, to a rather nasty individual by the end, and the series ends when he finally has to be "retired", or something like that.

In any case, in the first season, I think he might have been classified as NG or CG even....but by now, he's more like true neutral.  If he doesn't find ways to reign it in, he's in danger of drifting to evil.  The most horrible actions of history were in many cases committed by people who were telling themselves they had a specific reason, and were doing good, as they defined it.  That's another discussion, though..

Banshee


----------



## CF (May 16, 2006)

Jack Bauer can't be LG because Chuck Norris said so.


----------



## NexH (May 16, 2006)

For what I have seen (I only watched one complete season) he seems to be a "Baatorian" kind of LE, perhaps appropiate to Avernus.


----------



## Hellcow (May 16, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Jack Bauer is an evil guy whose personal code happens to follow most of the precepts of "good."



I agree, and this is essentially the approach we tried to take with Eberron - highlighting that alignment is a spectrum, that evil people can serve good causes, and for that matter, good people can serve a greater evil. Hannibal Lecter and Jack Bauer can both be evil, even though one's a serial killer and the other is, at the end of the day, a hero. I'd have no problem dropping Jack into Eberron as an evil-aligned Dark Lantern. This, in turn, means that _detect evil_ is no longer the automatic "find the villain" tool. It tells you a person's nature - what methods he is willing to employ to _accomplish_ his goals, what sort of actions he just won't take. But it doesn't tell you what his goals are. CTU may serve the greater good, but Jack is certainly willing to use methods which are, in D&D terms, evil in order to achieve his noble ends.

(As a side note, I found it amusing when someone recently said to him "I know you won't break your word..." when, a few episodes earlier, we saw him do just that.)

I agree that the D20M allegiance system is a better choice for him, and conveniently enough, he's set in more of a D20 Modern world than a traditional fantasy world. But at least in Eberron, our goal was to divorce alignment from allegiance - to say that an evil person can be truly loyal to a noble cause, and can promote a greater good with evil actions - and that's where I'd put Jack.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> The most horrible actions of history were in many cases committed by people who were telling themselves they had a specific reason, and were doing good, as they defined it.



Exactly.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> the series ends when he finally has to be "retired", or something like that.



Personally, I think the final season will open with Jack waking up on a mysterious island, in a village populated entirely by previously "missing" CTU agents. Beware the giant beachball!


----------



## Agent Oracle (May 16, 2006)

Gryffyn said:
			
		

> Chloe O'Brien performs feats of magic every episode, though.




Yes, only Chole could defrost every refridgerator in America by remote control.


----------



## Shadowbane2 (May 16, 2006)

I'd say LN. Some of his actions can be rather down right eveil, though it's always for the greater good.


----------



## Hellcow (May 16, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Is torture worse than death?



It depends. In my opinion, yes. A good person can kill evil people, but I expect them to do it quickly and cleanly. They should not take joy in the suffering of others, nor should they kill if it can be avoided without placing innocents in danger. 

If torture involves a slow, systematic infliction of physical and psychological damage on another being with the potential of causing permanent maiming or psychological damage, I think it's worse than a pitched battle against a group of evil (or, for that matter, good) creatures who, if left unopposed, will kill innocents. 

Now, I believe that there's a strong pulp tradition of heroes being willing to rough up a suspect to get him to talk. In my mind, it's all about the extent of the injury you're willing to cause, whether you will employ violence if other options are available, and who suffers. Punching the goon to get him to talk? Fine. Punching his wife in front of him? Now you're not so good in my book. 

In Eberron (which I realize is *not* the topic of conversation, so my apologies) I see alignment as flexible. A good person can do something terrible if he absolutely has to. If the only way to save the universe is to eat the bad guy's children until he confesses, you may be forced to do that; you shouldn't have to say "I can't do that, I'm good." But it should be a traumatic experience for the good person as well as the victim, and something he hopes he'll never have to do again. If it's something he's comfortable with... if he carries around a bib in his pocket for baby-eating... he's evil. And I agree with the idea that the more you do it, the easier it is to justify it as acceptable... making it easy for good to slip into evil. 

D&D is based around violence and death. But I don't think that a good person is justified in bloodthirsty slaughter, even if the victims are evil. A CG barbarian may fight with rage in his heart, but in my opinion, if he's CG, he should be fighting in the defense of others... not simply because he loves killing things. Meanwhile, the bloodthirsty, sociopathic barbarian who truly only loves to kill things could serve a good cause, if he happens to be on the right path; he's fighting a war against demons, and if he wasn't killing the demons, they'd kill innocents. The result is good. But he himself is a very disturbed and evil man. 

I see Jack in the same way. He fights the good fight. The world may need him. His methods may be necessary. But that doesn't make him good. Again, in Eberron, you can have the evil king who wants peace; it's all about what he's prepared to do to get it. I think many spies and spymasters will be neutral at best or evil, simply because of what needs to be done to do their jobs efficiently. 

But, that's just my opinion, and one I've gone into far too much detail about on other threads... and one that has more bearing on Eberron than core D&D rules, anyway. So I'll shut up now and go back to lurking.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 16, 2006)

Don't go back to lurking, Keith. You have good insights, and you should push heavily to get Eberron's ideas of alignment put into a more 'core' book at some point. However, I'm afraid of turning this thread into something about 4e. That _would_ be torture.

Anyway, earlier when I brought up torture, I was thinking of Jack Bauer's style of roughing up a badguy and threatening things he cherishes because it's the fastest way to get answers, even though it probably shouldn't work. When you've got 5 minutes to save the world, and you have the option of taking 2 minutes on a cruel act that might pull it off, or taking an hour to arrange a presidential pardon, well, I'd go with the 2 minute cruel act.

But yeah, Jack is certainly not as good as he was in earlier seasons. And I think I've been convinced by Keith that he's evil, but working toward good goals.

In other news, I just started playing in an Eberron campaign last night. *grin*


----------



## Alzrius (May 16, 2006)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

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




I can't expand on the direct reference, but the idea there seems to be thematically drawn from Kanjincho, a very popular kabuki play.

The play is about the famous figure Minamoto no Yoshitsune, who is fleeing, along with his faithful sohei (warrior monk) Benkei, assassins from his brother Minamoto no Yoritomo.

When the pair comes upon a holding of Yoritomo's that they must pass, they try to disguise themselves. So refined is Yoshitsune, however, that the soldiers quickly realize who is attempting to pass through their checkpoint. Desperate, Benkei, still in disguise, attempts to convince the soldiers that this person cannot be Yoshitsune, and to prove it, beats him. The soldiers let the pair pass.

The reason they let the pair pass, however, was not because they were convinced of the deception - indeed, they all saw through it. However, to strike your lord is the height of dishonor; it is the worst shame. That Benkei was willing to make such a sacrifice for his liege awed them so greatly that they couldn't bring themselves to arrest the two.

This is largely the same principle for the Scorpion Clan in L5R, I suspect; you dishonor yourself so that that which you serve may proceed smoothly.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 16, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> It depends. In my opinion, yes. A good person can kill evil people, but I expect them to do it quickly and cleanly. They should not take joy in the suffering of others, nor should they kill if it can be avoided without placing innocents in danger.
> 
> If torture involves a slow, systematic infliction of physical and psychological damage on another being with the potential of causing permanent maiming or psychological damage, I think it's worse than a pitched battle against a group of evil (or, for that matter, good) creatures who, if left unopposed, will kill innocents.
> 
> ...




Well said.  That's kind of what I was getting at, though it's interesting to see the Eberron analogy, because in many ways it's correct.  Even the ECS points out that in a good priesthood you could have an evil priest who's supporting his order's goals, but has ceased being actually provided with spells by his own Power, but instead by another, darker one.

Jack's a bit like a rabid dog.  A rabid dog isn't a good thing.  But a rabid dog on a pole that allows it to be controlled, and being used to track down serial killers?  It's a bad thing being put to a good purpose.

Maybe, given the opportunity to relax, and get out of that career, and these situations he keeps ending up in, Jack might eventually drive back towards good.  Maybe he'll eventually do something that will shock even him, and it will send him into such a crisis of faith that he questions what he's been doing to date, and changes his MO.

In the D&D system, I could also see the flipside....what about an evil king, who's LE.  He believes in the good of the many over the one, bending his own laws to accomplish his goals, etc.  But he's got his chief minister who's actually "good", and he uses this minister because the minister implements policies that keep the overall populace happy, and paying their taxes as a result.  Meanwhile the king doesn't care if they're  happy, but he does care if they become unhappy enough to revolt, because then he has to spend money he's been saving up to put the revolt down.  Dragonlance is another setting where I could see this happening.  In many of the novels you've got evil and good characters working together.  Wouldn't work in Forgotten Realms, I think.

Banshee


----------



## Felon (May 16, 2006)

How the hell can anyone even suggest Bauer is lawful? He cares nothing for the law. He breaks the law, he breaks the rules, he breaks his word...Lawful is right out.

Now, let's think about whether he's neutral or chaotic. Can Jack work within the rules? Does he respect anyone in a position of authority? Does he believe individual freedoms sometimes have to take a back seat to the greater good? Sure he does. So he's not chaotic either.



> *Neutral Good, “Benefactor”:* A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..




Seems to sum up Jack pretty well. If you're still not convinced, let's take a quick look at CG:



> *Chaotic Good, “Rebel”:* A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.




Is Jack a "rebel"? Yeah, I know he breaks the rules, but rules-flouting does not a rebel make. For 24 hours he may wind up running amok and answering to no one, but the other 364 days out of the year, Jack actually worked for the Counter-Terrorism Unit, commitnng various crimes against personal freedoms and civil liberties. Simply put, a chaotic good person couldn't with the CTU to begin with. Such a person would be vehemently opposed to the things they do in the name of national security.

Bottome line, it's gotta be NG.


----------



## Felon (May 17, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Don't go back to lurking, Keith. You have good insights, and you should push heavily to get Eberron's ideas of alignment put into a more 'core' book at some point.




Agreed. Keith, you have way too much to contribute to be a lurker.



> But yeah, Jack is certainly not as good as he was in earlier seasons. And I think I've been convinced by Keith that he's evil, but working toward good goals.




Nah, Jack is a good person trying to do a very tough job. He is not motivated by malice towards others or personal gain. Despite his willingness to torture and maim, he does not view people as commodities to be casually disposed of. For instance, when he shoots Henderson's wife, he doesn't just say "well, that's what you get for marrying a scumbag, lady". He goes out of his way to make it a flesh wound, and makes sure she gets medical attention. When he breaks his word to the German agent and doesn't hold up his end of the deal, he doesn't just say "haha, sucker". He calls the guy up and apologizes.

It's small consolation for his victims, but Jack has palpable feelings of guilt and anguish about the stuff he does. Remorse is one of the things that evil people have no truck with.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 17, 2006)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> I don't watch the show, so maybe there's more to it than you just described, but "staging fake executions of children" isn't anything _like_ what I consider to be torture.




What else  is  torture then , i consider everyone to do such a thing depraved rotten to the core or absolutly amoral psychotic.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 17, 2006)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> What is the torture, i consider everyone to do such a thing depraved rotten to the core or absolutly amoral psychotic.



It's also worth noting the US military explicitly trains soldiers to withstand such sort of psychological warfare and considers such a thing to be torture.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 17, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Is torture worse than death?



According to the UN Stautes, the Constitution of my country, the geneva conventions, including christian ´morals and the accepted moral and ethics etc it is a crime, to the military law in germany a soldier who does this does a crime, even if ordered it will not be valid in court or reduce his punishment, quite contrary it would be a violation not  to stop the torturer with all acceptable means, which includes 7,62mm straight through the torturers head if necessary IMO .

If it`s worse than death?
Murder or self defense?


----------



## Falkus (May 17, 2006)

> Bottome line, it's gotta be NG.




The mantra of the ends justifying the means is not something that goes along with any good alignment; C, N or L.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 17, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's also worth noting the US military explicitly trains soldiers to withstand such sort of psychological warfare and considers such a thing to be torture.




I have to wonder how effective such training can be. If you stun someone's nerve endings (so they don't feel pain) and then cut them open and show them their own pancreas, won't they still talk?


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 17, 2006)

The thing with Jack Bauer is that he's put into a series of impossible* scenarios over the course of a very short time span. The D&D equivilent would be something along the lines of:

An evil wizard is planning to open a gate to the Abyss in the kingdom's capitol by the end of the day. He's taken measures to ensure that he won't/can't divulge how to stop the gate from opening against his will by magical means and he won't break under torture. The only leverage against this wizard is his family, who he loves dearly. A paladin attempting to stop the gate from opening is confronted with the choice of either A) threatening (and maybe even hurting his family) to stop the gate from opening, or B) respecting the sanctity of other persons and letting a gate to the Abyss open, resulting in the deaths of thousands (or more).

What's the paladin to do in a case like this?

Personally, I'd say Jack is probably either LN or TN. In season 1 I think you could make the arguement that he's LG, perhaps even a paladin, but there is a definate "fall from grace". In season 2 he's much closer to LN (generally operating under orders from President Palmer), Season 3 - 5 is probably TN. He does feel remorse and guilt for his actions (example: in Season 2, when he fakes the execution of Sayid's family, he tells Sayid how much he despises him for making him do this), but will take whatever actions are necessary to ensure the safety of thousands, no matter the cost to himself. 

In any case I think he's a fascinating character/

*In both the "that would never happen" sense and the "there is no right choice to be made here" sense.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 17, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> His methods may be necessary. But that doesn't make him good. Again, in Eberron, you can have the evil king who wants peace; it's all about what he's prepared to do to get it.




This reminds me of Cersi Lannister from the George RR Martin books.  She is evil, but she does things in defense of her family and to establish peace (under her rule, at any cost).


----------



## Thotas (May 17, 2006)

Kahuna, I'm no L5R expert, and I am summarizing what I do know here.  With that caveat and apologies upfront for any error, let me tell you more.  In the early history of Rokugan, the country was divided into clans.  Each clan was given a job, and was exempted or given latitude in regard to customs and traditions when it was needed to make those jobs easier.  For example, the Crab clan guards a wall which protects the country from The Shadowlands, a virtual Hell on Earth full of demons and corrupted creatures who would be happy to overrun the world.  Since they live on the front lines, the Crabs are rough.  They're loud, brash, uncouth and sometimes lacking in personal hygiene -- the half orcs of their world.  If a Lion clan member behaved this way, they'd be social outcasts.  But in a Crab, it's not only tolerated, it's some what expected.  Now, with the Scorpions, it was determined early on that that in politics, situations get complicated, and there are times when necessity requires actions that no one wants to do or even have some one else do.  For a historical example, early in the history of Hitler's rise to power, there was a failed assassination attempt on him involving a bomb planted in a briefcase.  We generally disaprove of assassination, but we also generally agree that a lot of horrible things that happened in history might have been averted if that bomb had succeeded.  Had Germany a Scorpion clan at the time, they'd have been the ones who planted that bomb.  

As far a Jack, Nyarlathotep has got it pretty well decribed.  It's pretty easy to call it when someone's choosing between good and evil, but as I said earlier, Jack's GM is a RB (sorry about the pizza milk), and his choices are seldom so clear-cut.  Take for example, the oft-cited shooting of the wife's leg to get her husband to talk.  Everyone's saying it's awful, and yes, they're right.  In fact, it's even worse than that because what hasn't been brought up yet is that the woman was not just some stranger Jack was using as a pawn.  He'd known her for years, and they were good friends.  The shooting happened in her living room where Jack had been invited to sit down because it was so good to see an old friend after so many years.  But just as it makes it worse that he shot a friend, it raises the point that he clearly didn't want to do it.  Again, as mentioned earlier, the scenario provides a context that makes a difference.  It wasn't a nuke in Yankee Stadium, but it was nerve gas  and (if I recall correctly) at that point the location was the information Jack was looking for.  Jack makes a lot of hard decisions, it's the thing that makes the show interesting.  He once put a gun to a fellow agent's head and pulled the trigger to prove he was on the bad guy's side and not blow his cover.  Turned out the gun was empty and it was all a test, but Jack was ready to kill the guy, I'm sure on the principle that if he didn't do it, they'd both be killed any way and the mission would fail.  Oh yeah, one more complication -- the agent he had to shoot was also his daughter's boyfriend. 

Back in the 70's Clint Eastwood played a character named Inspector Harry Callahan, nick-named "Dirty Harry".  There was a lot of criticism of how violent that character was, but it always seemed to me that those critics all missed that Harry (especially in the earlier movies) had a real distaste for the violence he was so good at.  There was a true sense of "why are you idiots making me do this to you?".   I see the same in Jack.  He loathes the kinds of things he does to get the job done, but when he sees that need, he doesn't hesitate for a moment.  Jack certainly works with and is respected by people who are Lawful and/or Good.  On Monday's episode, Aaron Peirce is bound to a chair, blood covering the lower half of his face and when offered a sweet deal for his silence, he looked into the face of the most powerful man in the world and said, basiclly, "I don't approve of anything you've said or done, and it is my job and my duty to see that you pay for all that you've done wrong and I will do that job and that duty to the best of my ability" -- that's paladin talk, and he supports Jack and trusts him implicitly.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 17, 2006)

This also raises an important point about alignment. To paraphrase Kermit, "It's not easy being good." In D&D, strong morality offers tangible benefits: the ability to smite evil, or turn undead, or gain exalted feats. Those benefits have to come with some balancing penalty. There are certain situations in which rough justice simply won't cut it; principle must triumph over expediency. Otherwise, there's nothing really difficult about being Good. Okay, true, so 3e does provide tangible benefits for being of other alignments as well (Good no longer holds the monopoly on overpowered classes like the 1e paladin and ranger), but the fact remains that if alignment is to have ANY effect on the game, it needs to be at least somewhat proscriptive in intent; not in the sense that "you can't do that, you're [x alignment]," but in the sense that "you can't do that and continue to be [x alignment]."

IOW, principles are not truly held until they are tested and found sufficient. That's why people die for them, give their wealth, lives, and careers for them, and even sacrifice family and friends for them. A Good character who undertakes Evil acts because it's "necessary" is not going to be Good for long. All too often, saying that it's okay to temporarily abandon one's principles because otherwise, their objective will be thwarted, is simply an ends-means justification.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 17, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> All too often, saying that it's okay to temporarily abandon one's principles because otherwise, their objective will be thwarted, is simply an ends-means justification.




Good points in your post, but I can see where "good" actions that you are willing to sacrifice all for can easily end in an "evil" result. If you never compromise your principles and beliefs and others die because of it, isn't that evil even if your intentions were good? 

I've come to the conclusion that alignment is one of the sacred cows of D&D that should be turned into hamburger and then into a fine chili, eaten and forgotten about. Too often it has no effect or is used to screw players (I'd hate to play a paladiin under most circumstances). There are some campaigns where that is not the case, but I believe they are few and far between.


----------



## Rackhir (May 17, 2006)

You know a number of years ago I was watching that horrid "Dragnet" movie they made with Tom Hanks and Dan Ackroyd and there's this scene where Tom is torturing a gang member for information and it's played for laughs and what not, but it did give me an insight as to the difference between torture in a lot of movies and TV shows and reality. 

In a lot of media, you are presented with a situation where you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that the good guy is good and the bad guy is bad and in a lot of media, this is used as kind of a free pass for the good guy to do pretty much any horrible thing to the bad guy since there is no question of which is which. And usually there is some sort of "Extreme" situation where something awful is going to happen if they don't get the information, which often is used as sort of a double justification.

In reality the problem is that if you permit things like torture, you INVARIABLY wind up with people doing the torture who enjoy it or have no qualms about using it. If you permit people to act like monsters, you will invariably wind up with monsters.

Lost actually has dealt with this issue fairly realistically. Sayeed knows that in many ways he is a monster and capable of doing monsterous things. Also they've denied the audience the certainty of who is good and who isn't, which makes the scenes of torture as unpleasant and questionable as they ought to be, not the smug "I'm good, you're bad and therefore I can do anything I want to you." of trash like Dragnet.


----------



## Harmon (May 17, 2006)

Not a fan of the show.

Having seen the entire first season on DVD (thank you wife), I know that Jack is former Delta Force.  Knowing that I know that there is not a chance in all of the Nine Planes of Heck that Jack is a Good alignment.  

Having seen the show I can't believe that anyone would consider him as such, but everyone views the alignment system differently.  As a GM if one of my Players was playing a LG character and played him like Jack- nah, straight to LE.  Let the Player play the character with a Code of Honor or Conduct as it were.

Something else- I love the character.  Fantastic character actually.


----------



## JVisgaitis (May 17, 2006)

Thotas said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what alignment to assign to Jack, but his DM is a true rat bastard.




Hehehe... Funny stuff. I would probably assign his as LN. He's definitely reliable and honorable in his adherence to his own code. Then again, people use alignment as such a crutch he could easily fit into quite a few. Man, I hate these debates...


----------



## Harmon (May 17, 2006)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Hehehe... Funny stuff. I would probably assign his as LN. He's definitely reliable and honorable in his adherence to his own code. Then again, people use alignment as such a crutch he could easily fit into quite a few. Man, I hate these debates...




Agree completely.


----------



## Thotas (May 17, 2006)

Another character that would be difficult to characterize in D&D's alignment scheme would be Londo Molari of Babylon 5.  Londo did horribly evil things for obstensibly good reasons, felt guilty repented them but didn't stop cold turkey.  He promoted large scale chaos with the goal of promoting a supreme rule of law.  Some of the problems he caused were'nt intentional, just cases of incomplete knowledge and/or very poor judgement.  Yet it doesn't seem right to call him Neutral, because one thing he always did was take a side.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 17, 2006)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> Good points in your post, but I can see where "good" actions that you are willing to sacrifice all for can easily end in an "evil" result. If you never compromise your principles and beliefs and others die because of it, isn't that evil even if your intentions were good?



In a world in which principles and beliefs have tangible meaning, perhaps not. Moral issues do not always have straightforwardly utilitarian solutions, and often, the surest way to corrupt morality is to offer such a solution. An example might be as follows: Suppose that you *know* the only way to prevent the deaths of one million innocent people is to kill one innocent. Now say it's 100 innocents (precision bombing, say). Now say it's 1000 people (carpet bombing). Now say it's one million minus one (nuclear preemptive). Which is the morally correct solution? 

Okay, super-contrived example, but it's late.   I don't doubt that there are situations in which a compromise of principles and beliefs is _truly_ necessary, but that's a matter of wisdom, not alignment. This, of course, is where morality gets complicated. I don't know that any of us in the real world have figured out the answers to some of those questions, and that, IMHO, is the point. Alignment is there in _order_ to complicate things. Heroic sagas that make it easy to know and do the right thing would be kinda boring, wouldn't they? Even stories in which the heroes are supposedly morality-resistant (pulp and noir stuff ranging from _Conan_ to _The Shootist_ to _Chinatown_) find those heroes doing the right thing even when it's not so convenient or predictable for them to do so. 

My point is that alignment simply offers a way to make tangible some of the heroic elements without which it's all too easy to engage in MMORPG-style killing things and taking their stuff. Alignment, and especially being good, offers serious role-playing dilemmas and character conflict, which, handled well, can make for excellent RPing. It shouldn't be taken as a "crutch" for DMs or a raison d'etre for players, but an aspirational element. Putting down "Lawful Good" on your character sheet should be a statement that you to WANT to uphold the highest ideals of Law, Justice, Mercy, and Benevolence, and that an essential part of your PC's life mission will be to do those things... unless he changes his mind.


> _I've come to the conclusion that alignment is one of the sacred cows of D&D that should be turned into hamburger and then into a fine chili, eaten and forgotten about. Too often it has no effect or is used to screw players (I'd hate to play a paladiin under most circumstances). There are some campaigns where that is not the case, but I believe they are few and far between._



To a certain extent, I do agree, but not entirely. I've dispensed with alignment in favor of a virtue and corruption token system (I play Iron Heroes), but I do miss certain elements that alignment adds to the game. I've had great games featuring alignment issues aplenty.


----------



## Ds Da Man (May 17, 2006)

He's willing to give his life to defend country, family, friend. He's put into situations where he has 24 hours to generally save the lives of thousands of people, and some of you think he's evil because he may torture a scumbag to stop the mass loss of life? I don't see it. I believe the CG fits Jack to a tee. He operates within laws that fit his belief which is overall good. I don't think torturing a murderer to find out where a child is buried alive or starving is evil.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 17, 2006)

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> He's willing to give his life to defend country, family, friend. He's put into situations where he has 24 hours to generally save the lives of thousands of people, and some of you think he's evil because he may torture a scumbag to stop the mass loss of life? I don't see it. I believe the CG fits Jack to a tee. He operates within laws that fit his belief which is overall good. I don't think torturing a murderer to find out where a child is buried alive or starving is evil.




test


----------



## Ace (May 17, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> RangerWickett said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gumby (May 17, 2006)

So, Gregory House, M.D.....


Chaotic Neutral or what?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 17, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> In a lot of media, you are presented with a situation where you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that the good guy is good and the bad guy is bad and in a lot of media, this is used as kind of a free pass for the good guy to do pretty much any horrible thing to the bad guy since there is no question of which is which. And usually there is some sort of "Extreme" situation where something awful is going to happen if they don't get the information, which often is used as sort of a double justification.



Other problems with "fantasy torture" (and I use fantasy not as the genre but for the standard fictional situations where torture is employed and justified): 

1) the BAD guy rarely denies having the knowlege needed or will even smugly flaunt it to the hero. In the real world there is always the chance (sometimes a good chance) that you are torturing some schmoe who you got a lead on due to general distrustworthyness or a personal feud, or wrong place/wrong time. This is why torture is mostly used to get confessions, which are then used to make everyone feel better, rather than information.

2) Mr GOOD guy torturer has an infalible Sense Motive check, or even more commonly, the BAD guy never bothers to lie, just spills his guts imediately and truthfully once he "breaks" making us all feel better that the torture was distateful but effective (and allowing us to look down our noses at those who won't dirty their hands to get the job done.) 

If you want to judge these men from within their carefully constructed fantasy worlds, they don't have to be evil. Of course the same thing could be said of just about any evil act from the real world. What I find more interesting is how we (as a media producing and consuming culture) so consistently create and accept these complicated fantasies to justify our sadistic GOOD guys.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 17, 2006)

Gumby said:
			
		

> So, Gregory House, M.D.....
> 
> 
> Chaotic Neutral or what?




Yeah. No question about the chaotic part; when authority has to threaten you to do your job and you go head to head with the owner of the hospital really just because, you're chaotic.

Good versus evil is harder, but he's more interested in solving the problem than helping people. He's been "unavailable" for consulation when it didn't suit him, and would rather watch TV than work in the clinic. Combine that with a casual attitude towards other's rights, and I'd definetly call him neutral.


----------



## Bront (May 17, 2006)

Jack is definately Lawful.  He is methodical, organized in his throughts, and has a fairly strict personal code.

Good... well, I'm inclined to say Neutral.  He is generaly thinking of the greater good (a good trait), but willing to do anything for the greater good (including evil actions).  And it's not isolated.

Neutral is the blending of good and evil, which seems to show him fairly well.

I find it interesting to see if he's changed.  I felt in the 1st season, he was Lawful Good, but he's strayed more neutral since then.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 17, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I have to wonder how effective such training can be. If you stun someone's nerve endings (so they don't feel pain) and then cut them open and show them their own pancreas, won't they still talk?



Why would they? What the heck are they going to do, sew you up and apologize if you do?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 17, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> In a world in which principles and beliefs have tangible meaning, perhaps not. Moral issues do not always have straightforwardly utilitarian solutions, and often, the surest way to corrupt morality is to offer such a solution. An example might be as follows: Suppose that you *know* the only way to prevent the deaths of one million innocent people is to kill one innocent. Now say it's 100 innocents (precision bombing, say). Now say it's 1000 people (carpet bombing). Now say it's one million minus one (nuclear preemptive). Which is the morally correct solution?
> 
> Okay, super-contrived example, but it's late.   I don't doubt that there are situations in which a compromise of principles and beliefs is _truly_ necessary, but that's a matter of wisdom, not alignment. This, of course, is where morality gets complicated. I don't know that any of us in the real world have figured out the answers to some of those questions, and that, IMHO, is the point.



Your scenario might be contrived, but it's a common example for moral dilemnas and problems.
Maybe the "solution" is that whatever you decide, and whatever the specific circumstances were, there is no "good" or morally correct decision. It doesn't mean you are evil, it means you did something between good and evil. It is a grey area. 
That is actually something supported with the D&D alignment system - beyond good and evil, neutral is an actual option.


----------



## delericho (May 17, 2006)

Thotas said:
			
		

> Another character that would be difficult to characterize in D&D's alignment scheme would be Londo Molari of Babylon 5.




Londo is a study in alignment change. He starts off as CG, switches to CN at the end of the first season, drifts towards LE failrly quickly as both he, his house and his empire gain in power and prestige, moves back towards LN as the Shadow War comes to an end, struggles very hard back towards Good (probably without actually getting there), and then is forced back of LE by the Drakh (although most of that is with the compulsion of his Keeper, so may well not count).


----------



## delericho (May 17, 2006)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> An evil wizard is planning to open a gate to the Abyss in the kingdom's capitol by the end of the day. He's taken measures to ensure that he won't/can't divulge how to stop the gate from opening against his will by magical means and he won't break under torture. The only leverage against this wizard is his family, who he loves dearly. A paladin attempting to stop the gate from opening is confronted with the choice of either A) threatening (and maybe even hurting his family) to stop the gate from opening, or B) respecting the sanctity of other persons and letting a gate to the Abyss open, resulting in the deaths of thousands (or more).
> 
> What's the paladin to do in a case like this?




Well, your example gives the paladin an out - threatening the family is just about acceptable. Inflicting harm on the (innocent) family is not, nor is torturing the wizard by making him think the paladin is killing his family (cf the Jack Bauer incident with the staged execution). Assuming that only actually inflicting evil will get the desired results...

A paladin could go either way. He can take a principled stand, allow the gate to be opened, and heroically die defending those innocents he's just failed, or he can inflict evil on the family, and prevent the gate from opening. Doing so loses him his paladin status.

This is a classic no-win situation for the paladin. But, like the Kobayashi Maru, it's not about 'winning', but rather in how you choose to lose.


----------



## delericho (May 17, 2006)

Toras said:
			
		

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




One of things that I find most fascinating about the show is that, given the same resources and capabilities, and placed in the same situation, I would probably make exactly the same decisions Jack does. In virtually all cases, I see the things that he does as necessary. But I _still_ think they're evil.


----------



## green slime (May 17, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Well, your example gives the paladin an out - threatening the family is just about acceptable. Inflicting harm on the (innocent) family is not, nor is torturing the wizard by making him think the paladin is killing his family (cf the Jack Bauer incident with the staged execution). Assuming that only actually inflicting evil will get the desired results...
> 
> A paladin could go either way. He can take a principled stand, allow the gate to be opened, and heroically die defending those innocents he's just failed, or he can inflict evil on the family, and prevent the gate from opening. Doing so loses him his paladin status.
> 
> This is a classic no-win situation for the paladin. But, like the Kobayashi Maru, it's not about 'winning', but rather in how you choose to lose.




There are even more solutions: The paladin could meet the family, show them the evil ways of the nasty wizard, and convince them to join him in confronting the wizard about his intentions. Perhaps even to the point of standing with the paladin by the gate just before the planned opening. This would actually see the paladin winning, IMO.

And Jack Bauer is LE.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 17, 2006)

> There are even more solutions: The paladin could meet the family, show them the evil ways of the nasty wizard, and convince them to join him in confronting the wizard about his intentions. Perhaps even to the point of standing with the paladin by the gate just before the planned opening. This would actually see the paladin winning, IMO.



Only if the time constraints allow meeting the family and discussing the evil ways of the nasty wizard. Imagine the Paladin only has a telepathic bond to the groups wizard, who is outside the familiys home and has a Fireball prepared (but no Teleports or Plane Shifts), and the Paladin himself is imprisoned by the evil Wizard. 
The wizard might also not listen to his family (in the time), even if the Paladin could convince and bring them to him. And it is also possible that the Wizard could convince the familiy otherwise (possibly making them evil, too, but that doesn't justify torture, as we decided before)
That's essentially the situation Jack was in when he shot Hendersons wife - he could have explained everything to her (in fact I think he did), but she couldn't convince Henderson.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> Well, your example gives the paladin an out - threatening the family is just about acceptable. Inflicting harm on the (innocent) family is not, nor is torturing the wizard by making him think the paladin is killing his family (cf the Jack Bauer incident with the staged execution). Assuming that only actually inflicting evil will get the desired results...
> 
> A paladin could go either way. He can take a principled stand, allow the gate to be opened, and heroically die defending those innocents he's just failed, or he can inflict evil on the family, and prevent the gate from opening. Doing so loses him his paladin status.
> 
> This is a classic no-win situation for the paladin. But, like the Kobayashi Maru, it's not about 'winning', but rather in how you choose to lose.



You are certainly correct, but I think you must be careful with this: You can choose to lose anyway you like, you still lose - there is no right solution. 
You can't argue that it is better to torture the wizard or hurt his familiy, or that it's better to kill those innocents. It is never a "good" decision. 



> One of things that I find most fascinating about the show is that, given the same resources and capabilities, and placed in the same situation, I would probably make exactly the same decisions Jack does. In virtually all cases, I see the things that he does as necessary. But I still think they're evil.




I think we three (you, me and Jack  ) would all be the Paladin giving up his Code of Conduct and hurt the wizards family to avoid the greater evil. And I think most would do so. 
Maybe it is one of the examples of the "incompleteness"-theorem (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem) applied for moral instead of mathematics. It is not possible to "prove" which course of action is correct.


----------



## delericho (May 17, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You are certainly correct, but I think you must be careful with this: You can choose to lose anyway you like, you still lose - there is no right solution.
> You can't argue that it is better to torture the wizard or hurt his familiy, or that it's better to kill those innocents. It is never a "good" decision.




Well... I would argue that we don't carry moral responsibility for the actions of others, only of ourselves. Since the paladin isn't opening the portal, and isn't killing those people, the choice is between not acting to stop it (Neutral, as inaction always is), or torturing the family (Evil). This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that the 'right' thing to do is allow the slaughter of millions.

It is only the extreme consequences of that eventuality that would make me choose otherwise, at a cost of my moral high ground.

Of course, I might also be wrong; I'm not so arrogant as to think I have an absolute understanding of morality 



> I think we three (you, me and Jack  ) would all be the Paladin giving up his Code of Conduct and hurt the wizards family to avoid the greater evil.




Indeed.



> Maybe it is one of the examples of the "incompleteness"-theorem (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem) applied for moral instead of mathematics. It is not possible to "prove" which course of action is correct.




Sounds about right.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 17, 2006)

This thread is as good as figuring out Robin Hood's aligniment.


----------



## delericho (May 17, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> This thread is as good as figuring out Robin Hood's aligniment.




Robin Hood?

Classically Chaotic Good. The Kevin Costner incarnation was closer to Neutral Good.

Why?

Good: "Rob from the rich, and give to the poor". Bear in mind that "the rich" are cruel usurpers who were opressively taxing the people, and generally in possession of a great many things they had no right to. Also, Robin does not engage in murder, torture, or any of the other "big evil" acts.

(Of course, the above ignores the historical reality that Prince John was a much better king than Richard the Lionheart, and that the real Robin Hood was probably nothing more than a common brigand.)

Chaotic: Although Robin is fighting to replace one order with another (John with Richard), he is also shown as being prone to impulsive behaviour, is keen on derring-do (often to excess), and has no patience for heirarchy.

All this is less clear in the KC version, hence the Neutral tag.


----------



## green slime (May 17, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Well... I would argue that we don't carry moral responsibility for the actions of others, only of ourselves. Since the paladin isn't opening the portal, and isn't killing those people, the choice is between not acting to stop it (Neutral, as inaction always is), or torturing the family (Evil). This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that the 'right' thing to do is allow the slaughter of millions.




While your premise is correct, your conclusion is false; there are other alternative routes you can take in order to deal with the opening of the gate. 

The choices are:
Aiding Wizard (Evil)
Torture Family (Evil)
Do Nothing (At best Neutral, but possibly Evil, if you inaction is due to your profitting from the situation arising)
Recruit Family to sway wizard (Good)
Convincing the Demons that it is all a Devilish trap, so they fear to enter the gate. (Difficult) 
Subverting the magic of the Gate so it connects to another plane. (Depends on the nature of the plane)
Defeating the demons as they enter, and closing the Gate by some method X.


----------



## delericho (May 17, 2006)

green slime said:
			
		

> While your premise is correct, your conclusion is false; there are other alternative routes you can take in order to deal with the opening of the gate.
> 
> The choices are:
> Aiding Wizard (Evil)
> ...




True. I was deliberately ignoring other options, because the problem only really works if it's an 'impossible' choice. The wise paladin would, of course, seek out other alternatives to the problem, and only consider the torture of innocents once all else had failed.

Actually, this reminds me of a very similar decision faced by Optimus Prime in the Transformers episode "The Ultimate Doom": The Decepticons have found a way to transport Cybertron to Earth, and it comes down to pressing a button to activate the bridge. Megatron informs Prime that _he_ must push the button, or Cybertron will be destroyed. Naturally, if Cybertron is transported, the gravitational forces will eventually tear the Earth apart.

Prime presses the button, and then spends his time trying to undo the damage he has caused.


----------



## Gothic_Demon (May 17, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Well... I would argue that we don't carry moral responsibility for the actions of others, only of ourselves. Since the paladin isn't opening the portal, and isn't killing those people, the choice is between not acting to stop it (Neutral, as inaction always is), or torturing the family (Evil). This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that the 'right' thing to do is allow the slaughter of millions.



I'd have to agree here, and add that a person should follow their own moral code, and work to prevent others offending it. Thus a good person should do good things and try to stop other people doing bad things. As long as the actions you take in stopping people doing bad things don't offend your moral code, then you're on your way.
If taking actions that do offend your moral code are the only way to stop the bad guy, then you can't stop it, you just have to pick up the pieces afterwards. Otherwise, it's not a moral code as you ignore it when you feel you need to.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 17, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Since the paladin isn't opening the portal, and isn't killing those people, the choice is between not acting to stop it (Neutral, as inaction always is)



This thread is bizarre and a little scary to me.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

A willingness to let evil go by unchallenged is to be complicit in that evil oneself.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 17, 2006)

Ace said:
			
		

> Banshee16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Banshee16 (May 17, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> One of things that I find most fascinating about the show is that, given the same resources and capabilities, and placed in the same situation, I would probably make exactly the same decisions Jack does. In virtually all cases, I see the things that he does as necessary. But I _still_ think they're evil.




Then you're being honest with yourself 

The danger is when people convince themselves they're doing good, because they're a good person, and they can't do evil.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (May 17, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> This thread is bizarre and a little scary to me.
> 
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
> 
> A willingness to let evil go by unchallenged is to be complicit in that evil oneself.




Two wrongs don't make a right...

So there 

If resorting to evil is the only way to stop evil, then it's not much of a solution.  The characters can all be evil together, and it will just be one big cruel campaign world.

Banshee


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 17, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Two wrongs don't make a right...
> 
> So there



I think you misread me.

I was objecting to the notion that doing nothing and allowing suffering to go on is ever going to be a moral answer, either in life or in a game.

<---- was in Bosnia in the 1990s



> If resorting to evil is the only way to stop evil, then it's not much of a solution.



There is _never_ just one solution to a problem.


----------



## green slime (May 17, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> <---- was in Bosnia in the 1990s




What were you doing there?


----------



## Nomad4life (May 17, 2006)

Wait a minute...  Jack’s alignment doesn’t really matter; his character has simply run out of sanity points.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 17, 2006)

green slime said:
			
		

> What were you doing there?



I'm a journalist.


----------



## Markn (May 17, 2006)

I have skimmed over most of the messages but I think Jack is CG.  He clearly breaks the law, and does whatever he thinks is best (ala Robin Hood sort of way) and he repeats this over and over.  He clearly has a "good heart", he's doing it for the right reasons.

Just because he works for the Gov't (aka the law) does not make him lawful.  

Just my 2cp.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 17, 2006)

Markn said:
			
		

> I have skimmed over most of the messages



And that's where I stopped reading!


----------



## Klaus (May 17, 2006)

Regarding the "Paladin must commit an evil act to stop an even evilier act":

If the Paladin is a True Hero, he'll suck it up, perform the evil deed, lose his paladin status (one evil deed isn't enough to change his alignment from LG), prevent the apocalypse, feel reeeeally bad about himself, seek atonement for his actions and be haunted by the worst thing he ever did in his life. And then soak up in roleplaying XP. 

There is a reason for the term Pyrric Victory (where you win, but you feel like you've lost).


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 17, 2006)

Actually, a _Pyrrhic_ victory is where you win nominally, but at so great a cost that winning isn't worth it. [From the Greek general Pyrrhus, who won victories against the Romans but at the cost of devastating his own army.]


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 17, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Regarding the "Paladin must commit an evil act to stop an even evilier act":
> 
> If the Paladin is a True Hero, he'll suck it up, perform the evil deed, lose his paladin status (one evil deed isn't enough to change his alignment from LG), prevent the apocalypse, feel reeeeally bad about himself, seek atonement for his actions and be haunted by the worst thing he ever did in his life. And then soak up in roleplaying XP.




FTW!

I think JB is very similar to this, but obviously he's strayed from LG a little while ago.....


----------



## loki44 (May 17, 2006)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> I think JB is very similar to this, but obviously he's strayed from LG a little while ago.....





"JB", hmmm, now that I think about it, Jack Bauer has a lot of similarities with James Bond in terms of how he goes about his business.  Bond just manages to have more fun in the process.  Not sure about James Brown...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 17, 2006)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> FTW!
> 
> I think JB is very similar to this, but obviously he's strayed from LG a little while ago.....



No, it's FTL. Jack never has to do any of the attrocities he commits. He does them because they're _easy_ and, frankly, despite his empty protestations to the contrary, he pursues them with a great deal of imaginative glee. The staging of the executions of children especially involved a great deal of effort and imagination that could have easily been turned to come up with another solution, had he been so inclined.

Even in the shallow world of 24, there is never only a single solution to a problem. If people enjoy the vicarious thrill of watching Jack torture and murder, fine, but that doesn't make him a Good person in the D&D sense even so.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 17, 2006)

loki44 said:
			
		

> "JB", hmmm, now that I think about it, Jack Bauer has a lot of similarities with James Bond in terms of how he goes about his business.  Bond just manages to have more fun in the process.  Not sure about James Brown...



Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral, respectively.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 17, 2006)

I think the most interesting character are (true) neutral ones.  Not the Old Faith Druidic policies, thought that can be interesting.  I believe the vast majority of real people are mostly neutral on all points.  They may always follow the law, but then go over the speed limit when it suits them.  I think the same can be said of good and evil.  Most folks just aren't that dedicated to one code of living.  It's too difficult.

And yet the variety amongst people really varies.  A good case in point: Jason Bourne in the bourne books (and movies).  I think he's a pretty complex character who cannot automatically be assumed as good intended.  But I don't think he does evil actions more than killing in self-defense.  It makes for a more interesting character.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 18, 2006)

Markn said:
			
		

> I have skimmed over most of the messages but I think Jack is CG.  He clearly breaks the law, and does whatever he thinks is best (ala Robin Hood sort of way) and he repeats this over and over.  He clearly has a "good heart", he's doing it for the right reasons.
> 
> Just because he works for the Gov't (aka the law) does not make him lawful.
> 
> Just my 2cp.




I'd contest that if he's working for the government, he's probably lawful.  But it doesn't necessarily make him good 

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (May 18, 2006)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I think the most interesting character are (true) neutral ones.  Not the Old Faith Druidic policies, thought that can be interesting.  I believe the vast majority of real people are mostly neutral on all points.  They may always follow the law, but then go over the speed limit when it suits them.  I think the same can be said of good and evil.  Most folks just aren't that dedicated to one code of living.  It's too difficult.
> 
> And yet the variety amongst people really varies.  A good case in point: Jason Bourne in the bourne books (and movies).  I think he's a pretty complex character who cannot automatically be assumed as good intended.  But I don't think he does evil actions more than killing in self-defense.  It makes for a more interesting character.




One of the interesting things about Jason Bourne is that he's not *actually* a murderer.  He pretended to be, in order to accomplish specific goals, but he was just laying claim to crimes perpetrated by someone else.  When he lost his memory, and got it back, he thought he actually was an assassin, but that was a falsehood.

The movies are different...in the movies he actually *is* a government assassin.  And I think that takes an interesting element away from the character.  He was a more sympathetic character in the books where he was taking on all the guilt for assumed crimes that he never actually carried out.

IMO, Jack Bauer actually is the guy Jason Bourne mistakenly thought he himself was, if that makes any sense.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (May 18, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> No, it's FTL. Jack never has to do any of the attrocities he commits. He does them because they're _easy_ and, frankly, despite his empty protestations to the contrary, he pursues them with a great deal of imaginative glee. The staging of the executions of children especially involved a great deal of effort and imagination that could have easily been turned to come up with another solution, had he been so inclined.
> 
> Even in the shallow world of 24, there is never only a single solution to a problem. If people enjoy the vicarious thrill of watching Jack torture and murder, fine, but that doesn't make him a Good person in the D&D sense even so.




Whizbang, sorry for the misunderstanding.  I think I am getting a little confused about your point though.  Your quote regarding standing by and letting evil actions occur without doing anything is as bad as perpetrating them seemed to conflict (to me) with this statement, where you point out that Jack isn't good, because he murders and kills.  Unless among all the posts, I've missed something you've said.

What I was getting at was the idea that committing evil acts to either punish or stop someone who's evil doesn't make one good.  It might generate a good end result, but then we're right back into the question of whether the ends justify the means.

Banshee


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 18, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Your quote regarding standing by and letting evil actions occur without doing anything is as bad as perpetrating them seemed to conflict (to me) with this statement, where you point out that Jack isn't good, because he murders and kills.  Unless among all the posts, I've missed something you've said.



No, but why is that in conflict? There's always other options. That Jack chooses the torture option and the murder of innocents option and the violation of civil rights options does not mean that he was forced into that circumstance, far from it. And, given that the original question was whether he was Lawful Good, I submit that an actual Lawful Good character (Superman is always good for these examples) would have found a different option than the one Jack keeps pretending he's forced into doing.



> What I was getting at was the idea that committing evil acts to either punish or stop someone who's evil doesn't make one good.  It might generate a good end result, but then we're right back into the question of whether the ends justify the means.



I agree, and no, it doesn't, especially in core D&D, which is an absolutist universe where Good and Evil have concrete meanings and even ZIP codes.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 18, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> If people enjoy the vicarious thrill of watching Jack torture and murder, fine, but that doesn't make him a Good person in the D&D sense even so.




That's a bit harsh.

Fortunately I eat puppies for breakfast and kittens for dinner so I'm not too offended 



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> There's always other options. That Jack chooses the torture option and the murder of innocents option and the violation of civil rights options does not mean that he was forced into that circumstance, far from it.




I think there are situations where you don't have other options available.  In my contrived example of the wizard opening a gate to the Abyss, what if the wizard's family supports his goals and won't help to talk him out of it? What if there are no other feasible ways to stop this wizard aside from threatening or even doing harm to his family? Are there times when you must act evil to do good?

To the OP's question, no Jack isn't LG (although he could have been at one point in time), but I sure can't beleive that he is NE as you posited (unless you were talking about James Bond, with James Brown being CN).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 18, 2006)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> That's a bit harsh.
> 
> Fortunately I eat puppies for breakfast and kittens for dinner so I'm not too offended



I didn't mean to offend. I get a vicarious thrill watching action movies and I, say, greatly enjoy the Sopranos and the Shield and root for the protagonists, but I'm never fooled into thinking that Tony Soprano isn't Neutral Evil or that Vic Mackey isn't (at best) Chaotic Neutral. Liking someone and thinking they're a "good guy" doesn't have to go hand-in-hand. Heck, just look at how people vote. 



> I think there are situations where you don't have other options available.  In my contrived example of the wizard opening a gate to the Abyss, what if the wizard's family supports his goals and won't help to talk him out of it? What if there are no other feasible ways to stop this wizard aside from threatening or even doing harm to his family?



Especially in D&D, where there are ample forms of magic (and psionics, so those folks don't get left out) to compel someone to do something, starting with humble level 1 spells, there's always a feasible way. I reject the question, even if it's allowed that it's contrived.

This is especially true when extrapolated out towards a more realistic scenario in 24 (although it's at least as fantastic as anything in D&D, IMO). Although CTI seems to have some problems with basic Internet security ("it's going to take me 15 minutes to open a socket!"), the team is capable of near-miraculous feats in a relatively short period of time. The aforementioned faked-up executions took a great deal of time and resources to put together. Given time, resources and ample imagination, Jack did not choose the only option, he chose the option he wanted to do. There's no figleaf of necessity he can hide behind when we discuss this evil act. (Man, I should copyright "figleaf of necessity." That's _good_. )



> Are there times when you must act evil to do good?



There are times when it's the easiest course available and the alternative is very, very, very difficult. But it's never the only option.



> To the OP's question, no Jack isn't LG (although he could have been at one point in time), but I sure can't beleive that he is NE as you posited (unless you were talking about James Bond, with James Brown being CN).



Yeah, it's 007 as NE and the Godfather of Soul being CN. I think Jack Bauer is, at best, right around True Neutral, but he mostly gives his DM a headache, I think.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 18, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Regarding the "Paladin must commit an evil act to stop an even evilier act":
> 
> If the Paladin is a True Hero, he'll suck it up, perform the evil deed, lose his paladin status (one evil deed isn't enough to change his alignment from LG), prevent the apocalypse, feel reeeeally bad about himself, seek atonement for his actions and be haunted by the worst thing he ever did in his life. And then soak up in roleplaying XP.
> 
> There is a reason for the term Pyrric Victory (where you win, but you feel like you've lost).




Would he also get roleplaying XP if he refused to committ the evil act to stop eviller act, on the basis that you can't do the right thing by evil deeds?

Because man, if I were playing the paladin in that scenario I'd be tempted beyond belief to just refuse outright and see if the DM would actually bring on the apocolypse or if the DM would prove my character right by having there be some alternative way of stopping the apocolypse.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 18, 2006)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> What if there are no other feasible ways to stop this wizard aside from threatening or even doing harm to his family? Are there times when you must act evil to do good?




That's the rub...possibly there may be situations where one must act evil to do good...but it's still evil.

Banshee


----------



## Glyfair (May 18, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> And, given that the original question was whether he was Lawful Good, I submit that an actual Lawful Good character (Superman is always good for these examples) would have found a different option than the one Jack keeps pretending he's forced into doing.



I'll submit that a *LAWFUL GOOD* character would have, however a lawful good character might not have.  He might have tried, but wouldn't necesarily have tried hard.

Now, this is about a pattern of behavior.  IMO, a lawful good character can commit an evil act and not become evil (or even neutral).   He might even be able to do it regularly, but not often, and still be good.  If he does an evil deed once for every one hundred good acts (assuming the acts are equivalent in scale), than I consider that character good.  He might not be "paladin good," but he's still good.

I think there are often a lot of double standards when it comes to alignment judgments among D&D players.  Often a single questionable act will cause a character to fall from good (especially paladins), but evil characters are given a lot of latitude in performing the occasional good act.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 18, 2006)

Honestly, I think the Good/Evil thing is the easier of the two to peg.  Jack is, IMO, generally Neutral with respect for Good and Evil.  He'll do whatever will get the job done quickly, regardless of whether it is good or evil.  Whoever described him as Apathetic nailed it.  I don't believe that Jack takes pleasure in doing the evil acts he does... he's not sadistic by any means.  It's just that good and evil don't matter to him when he needs to protect his country and save many lives.

With regards to Lawful/Chaos, I think I'd have to put him at Neutral or Chaotic.  Jack has repeatedly demonstrated Chaotic behavior throughout every season.  If it was all for his allegience for his country, that only makes him less Chaotic, it doesn't make him Lawful.  Neutral with Chaotic tendancies tends to fit him best, I think.  He'll play with the team as long as it follows his view of how things should be done.  Even when he goes off on his own, it's for a common goal, usually.

I think True Neutral describes Bauer the best.

I've found this entire thread interesting as well because through this you really get the idea that alignment really is subjective.


----------



## Darthjaye (May 18, 2006)

loki44 said:
			
		

> I think he is.  Anybody disagree?




I know there's been a lot of answers here by now, and my vote would have to be NG.   He's tortured people and not worried about their health too much, but done it for the greater good.   He seems to break the rules at the drop of a hat, but not for breaking the rules sake, but more for getting the job done when he feels it's hanging up his or anyone else's accomplishing the task at hand.   He ignores his superiors almost repeatedly, but always in getting the job done and not for the sake of spite at command or law.   He is concerned about those directly on his team.   I think NG covers him pretty well.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 18, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'll submit that a *LAWFUL GOOD* character would have, however a lawful good character might not have.  He might have tried, but wouldn't necesarily have tried hard.
> 
> Now, this is about a pattern of behavior.  IMO, a lawful good character can commit an evil act and not become evil (or even neutral).   He might even be able to do it regularly, but not often, and still be good.  If he does an evil deed once for every one hundred good acts (assuming the acts are equivalent in scale), than I consider that character good.  He might not be "paladin good," but he's still good.



Well, by definition, we only see Jack on a few days out of his life but, by the same token, they're the days where his moral compass is actually most put to the test. By that standard, his pattern sure ain't lawful good, because it sure isn't the rare occasion that he does something evil.



> I think there are often a lot of double standards when it comes to alignment judgments among D&D players.  Often a single questionable act will cause a character to fall from good (especially paladins), but evil characters are given a lot of latitude in performing the occasional good act.



Very true.


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> This thread is bizarre and a little scary to me.
> 
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
> 
> A willingness to let evil go by unchallenged is to be complicit in that evil oneself.




The "good men" cited are, per D&D alignment, Neutral.

In the ideal world, the paladin would have acted long ago to prevent the evil wizard from getting to the point where he has to make the choice given. However, in the theoretical worst-case scenario, it is possible that the paladin finds himself with two options: torture the innocent family of the wizard, or allow a portal to the Abyss be opened, releasing a horde of demons that the paladin has no hope of stopping.

Rejecting the question because "there are always other options" or even positing other solutions is akin to Kirk reprogramming the Kobayashi Maru simulator to 'win' - it allows you to feel like you've won, but means you've not faced the no-win situation. The interest in the example is not 'how do you win', it's 'how do you choose to lose'.

Do you maintain your morals, and allow the world to be swallowed in darkness, or do you compromise your morals? And, once you've made your choice, what do you do next?


----------



## prosfilaes (May 18, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Rejecting the question because "there are always other options" or even positing other solutions is akin to Kirk reprogramming the Kobayashi Maru simulator to 'win' - it allows you to feel like you've won, but means you've not faced the no-win situation. The interest in the example is not 'how do you win', it's 'how do you choose to lose'.




And the answer is that some people don't choose to lose. Some people will reprogram the simulator rather than lose. You always have another choice, no matter how much of a long shot it is, and some people's answer is to try that long shot rather than accept the lose-lose situation.


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> And the answer is that some people don't choose to lose. Some people will reprogram the simulator rather than lose. You always have another choice, no matter how much of a long shot it is, and some people's answer is to try that long shot rather than accept the lose-lose situation.




One of the issues raised by Star Trek II is that Kirk couldn't keep running from the no-win situation. He reprogrammed the simulator to cheat, he cheated death again and again, but in the end, he reached the point where he had to face it, and it hurt.

To switch to another example, Buffy faced the exact question being asked here: sacrifice Dawn, or allow a portal to be opened that would swallow the world. Her answer was to allow the portal to be opened (although it would have been interesting to see if the decision was the same if it was anyone else who's life was on the line).

There are options, contingencies, and cheats. You can try whatever long-shots you want, no matter the odds.

But the question remains: once you've tried everything else, and you come down to only the two options, which do you go for? It _is_ a valid question, albeit a viciously unfair one to have to deal with an a non-theoretical situation. (It's also worth noting that answering the question in a theoretical sense is only of limited value anyway - what you do when the real situation arises might be completely different anyway.)

You don't have to answer. But refusing to answer, or rejecting the situation outright, is _not_ the same as answering the question.


----------



## Felon (May 18, 2006)

I think there's a little too much emphasis in this thread on particular actions being good or evil, and thus reflecting directly upon a person's nature (i.e. that person's alignment). What about a person's reactions? Jack is clearly disturbed and remorseful about a lot of the choices he makes. If I shoot you in the knee and I'm remorseful about it, does that indicate a different alignment than a person who kneecaps you and laughs his head off about it?


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> I think there's a little too much emphasis in this thread on particular actions being good or evil, and thus reflecting directly upon a person's nature (i.e. that person's alignment).




In D&D alignment, a character's alignment has to be defined by his actions. The DM cannot know what was in a player's thoughts when he had his character act a particular way, and very few of us are ever completely honest about our full motivations for our actions. So, it really has to be about the actions.



> What about a person's reactions? Jack is clearly disturbed and remorseful about a lot of the choices he makes.




I don't recall seeing any remorse. I see Jack quite often blaming his victims for "forcing me to do this", or words to that effect. This is rationalisation - he's trying to transfer the blame, and hence the guilt, of his actions onto others. Psychologically, Jack is not at all well.



> If I shoot you in the knee and I'm remorseful about it, does that indicate a different alignment than a person who kneecaps you and laughs his head off about it?




It's a difference between a 'small' Evil and a 'big' Evil. Whether you are remorseful or laughing, I still can't walk.


----------



## Eosin the Red (May 18, 2006)

I'd say Neutral Good, right alongside Batman and James Bond. All of them pretty much the epotime of NG.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 18, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> I know there's been a lot of answers here by now, and my vote would have to be NG.   He's tortured people and not worried about their health too much, but done it for the greater good.



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


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> In D&D alignment, a character's alignment has to be defined by his actions. The DM cannot know what was in a player's thoughts when he had his character act a particular way, and very few of us are ever completely honest about our full motivations for our actions. So, it really has to be about the actions.






> I don't recall seeing any remorse. I see Jack quite often blaming his victims for "forcing me to do this", or words to that effect. This is rationalisation - he's trying to transfer the blame, and hence the guilt, of his actions onto others. Psychologically, Jack is not at all well.



How else should he show that he doesn't like what he does? How can he show remorse? Should he cry from time to time (IIRC, he did at the end of one season)? He is usually trying to comfort or help his victims - in the case of the terrorist where he staged the murder of his kids, he did explain to him that it was all a trick in the end, so that the man would feel better. He asked for help for Hendersons wife. 
And certainly he is transfering the blame to others - if he had only himself to blame, that would mean he didn't do what was neccessary, but what he purely wanted (and possibly enjoyed) to do. 



> It's a difference between a 'small' Evil and a 'big' Evil. Whether you are remorseful or laughing, I still can't walk.



It might still be different. You can't walk, but if I am remoreseful, you might have some kind of pity or sympathy for me. 
If I laugh, you will probably just hate or despise me. That is also a considerable effect.


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> How else should he show that he doesn't like what he does? How can he show remorse?




Not doing it again would be a good start. Jack Bauer regularly uses torture.

(Actually, I really don't like the fact that CTU now have torturers on-staff. When Section had them in Nikita it was excuable based on Section being clearly identified as both being Evil and being the "bad guys". In CTU, neither is true - we're supposed to accept CTU as the 'good guys'.)


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 18, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> I don't recall seeing any remorse. I see Jack quite often blaming his victims for "forcing me to do this", or words to that effect. This is rationalisation - he's trying to transfer the blame, and hence the guilt, of his actions onto others. Psychologically, Jack is not at all well.



Yeah, that kind of "remorse" is, quite frankly, serial killer creepy as far as I'm concerned. 

A thought that has been edging about my mind in this discussion - a lot of folks describe Jack's actions as being for the "greater good", and it seems he is always working against the clock to save people. But they are *his* people. Since we are playing hypotheticals, what if a rogue agent from with loyalty to America was staging an equivelently massive purely civilian attack on an unfriendly country? What if it was (since we're all hypothetical no-win here) actually sactioned by the government? Would Jack shoot an innocent person to save "countless lives" or only "countless american lives"? I don't know the answer or if its been addressed in the show at all, but as long as his greater good lines up specificly with his national or personal loyalties, I am skeptical of it's defensive value. It makes him more lawful, not more good IMO.

What if a chaotic wizard was going to open a portal to Celestia and bring hordes of solars down on a drow civilization?


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2006)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Since we are playing hypotheticals, what if a rogue agent from with loyalty to America was staging an equivelently massive purely civilian attack on an unfriendly country? What if it was (since we're all hypothetical no-win here) actually sactioned by the government?




I doubt it's possible ever to know, since I can't see any situation where even a UK equivalent of CTU would give Jack the sort of leeway he gets in 24 (of course, in reality I can't see a real US CTU doing so either). If your strongest allies wouldn't do so, who would?

Actually, IIRC the first season hinged on a revenge plot for an assassination mission that Jack led under the sanction of David Palmer. Although the target was a real monster (we're led to believe), I'm not sure I can get behind assassination as being other than an evil action either.



> Would Jack shoot an innocent person to save "countless lives" or only "countless american lives"? I don't know the answer or if its been addressed in the show at all,




I don't believe it has. I suspect that the answer is probably 'yes', but only assuming that the action doesn't actively harm American interests. Of course, most of the second season followed Jack's attempts to find proof three small nations didn't attack the US, thus saving the US from invading. I don't think the projected US losses were too great in that instance, although I might be wrong.



> but as long as his greater good lines up specificly with his national or personal loyalties, I am skeptical of it's defensive value. It makes him more lawful, not more good IMO.
> 
> What if a chaotic wizard was going to open a portal to Celestia and bring hordes of solars down on a drow civilization?




I have a problem picturing a ravening horde of Celestials standing ready to lay waste to a drow city in that manner 

Actually, for a slightly different example I don't, but that's hitting on one of the more uncomfortable aspects of my religion, so fortunately I can't comment here.


----------



## Falkus (May 18, 2006)

> It might still be different. You can't walk, but if I am remoreseful, you might have some kind of pity or sympathy for me.




Sympathy? For a man who just shot me in the knee? I wouldn't care whether you were laughing or crying, I'd be trying to get a hold of a gun of my own to shoot you in the knee.


----------



## jsaving (May 18, 2006)

Good characters "protect innocent life," according to the core rules.  They don't necessarily protect _all_ life, they don't necessarily refuse to torture _any_ life, they just do their best to protect _innocent_ life.  By that standard Jack Bauer has to be considered Good.  Clearly some of the posters here don't see him as mirroring their own alignment or their own conception of Good, but he does match the PH conception of it.

Lawful characters "keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."  Bauer certainly doesn't respect authority or honor tradition -- he does what it takes to follow his conscience no matter who he has to disobey in so doing.  Which partially matches the core rules' view of Chaotic characters, who are defined as people who "follow their consciences" and "resent being told what to do."

Is he an Exalted character as James Wyatt defined the term in BoED?  No, because Wyatt sees torture as always wrong no matter how evil the being you are torturing or how many lives you might save by committing the torture.  But he makes clear he is NOT talking about whether someone is Good or Evil -- it's perfectly OK for someone to flunk the Exalted test while still having a Good alignment.  All that means is that you aren't (or in this case, Bauer isn't) among the small subset of Good-aligned people who are Exalted.   

Does his repeated disobedience of authority make him Chaotic?  Not necessarily, because he does generally keep his word once it is given.  Recall Henderson's words to Bauer in the last episode -- "I want you to give me your word because it's the only way I can trust you" (or something to that effect).  Not that he always keeps his word, but he generally does, and is genuinely conflicted in the rare instances when he breaks it.  So in this respect he's more Lawful than Chaotic.

I'd call him a non-Exalted CG character with NG tendencies (or maybe NG with CG tendencies).


----------



## Klaus (May 18, 2006)

Regarding the "paladin must kill innocent woman to prevent apocalypse" discussion, I think I've found a honorable way out: tell the woman why she needs to die, what would happen if she doesn't, reassure her that her sacrifice will not be in vain and that her family will be looked after by the paladin. She will probably refuse, but there is the odd chance that she will think of protecting her children from the apocalypse and give the paladin permission to slay her for the greater good. Remorse abounds, but no loss of paladin status.


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2006)

jsaving said:
			
		

> Clearly some of the posters here don't see him as mirroring their own alignment or their own conception of Good, but he does match the PH conception of it.




I'm not convinced I agree with your argument, but the text I've quoted above is a crucial point, I think. In my opinion, D&D alignment as written suffers from two things:

1) There have been too many writers, with too many interpretations, for there to be a clear standard for alignment discussions.

2) D&D suffers from "team-shirt" alignments far too often. If Good vs Evil were as simple as the US vs. the Nazis, it would be nice and easy. Sadly, that is a caricature of anything resembling real ethics and morality.

I first had massive problems with alignment as written way back with the "Dragonlance Adventures" hardback, in which the Kingpriest of Istar was described as instituting concentration camps for goblins and other 'evil' races, and then was listed with an LG alignment (IIRC, IDHTBIFOM).

It was at that point that I ditched any notion of D&D alignments as written. We still use alignment, but define Good as, well, Good, Evil as Evil, and so forth. Who decides which is which? Well, me. I'm the DM, after all


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 18, 2006)

jsaving said:
			
		

> Good characters "protect innocent life," according to the core rules.  They don't necessarily protect _all_ life, they don't necessarily refuse to torture _any_ life, they just do their best to protect _innocent_ life.  By that standard Jack Bauer has to be considered Good.  Clearly some of the posters here don't see him as mirroring their own alignment or their own conception of Good, but he does match the PH conception of it.



Let's hear it for selective quoting!    According to the core rules, Good *also* "implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." By that full standard, and coincidentally my own conception of good, Jack not only doesn't "have to" be considered good, is arguable whether he can be.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 18, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Rejecting the question because "there are always other options" or even positing other solutions is akin to Kirk reprogramming the Kobayashi Maru simulator to 'win' - it allows you to feel like you've won, but means you've not faced the no-win situation. The interest in the example is not 'how do you win', it's 'how do you choose to lose'.
> 
> Do you maintain your morals, and allow the world to be swallowed in darkness, or do you compromise your morals? And, once you've made your choice, what do you do next?



OK, here's the thing, though: Star Trek was a pretty black and white show, much more than real life or (hopefully) most D&D games. There is NEVER a no-win situation. There are situations, as I've already stipulated, where the other choices are very, very, very hard, but there are always other choices.

I appreciate the interesting moral dilemma you pose -- it's what Buffy was about for several seasons, for instance -- but in terms of absolutes, it's bunk. Using that as an apology for Jack choosing torture instead of another option -- in fact, concocting a non-existant no-win scenario he wasn't faced with in the show -- is also bunk.

And your point also ignores that this is _systemic and repeated_ by Jack Bauer. No one is faced with no-win scenarios over and over and over again, even if they actually did exist and even if we did allow that he chose the way he did because the first time appeared to be a no-win scenario.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 18, 2006)

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> I'd say Neutral Good, right alongside Batman and James Bond. All of them pretty much the epotime of NG.



Right alongside the enraged (semi-psychotic) vigilante who assaults the police when needed and subverts the system at a whim and the hired assassin?

Chaotic Good and Neutral Evil on those two, IMO.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 18, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> I think there's a little too much emphasis in this thread on particular actions being good or evil, and thus reflecting directly upon a person's nature (i.e. that person's alignment). What about a person's reactions? Jack is clearly disturbed and remorseful about a lot of the choices he makes. If I shoot you in the knee and I'm remorseful about it, does that indicate a different alignment than a person who kneecaps you and laughs his head off about it?



OK, let's say I cheat on my wife, but I'm _really sorry about it._

And then I do it again.

And again.

And again.

At what point does my wife club me to death with a fireplace poker, even though I'm clearly disturbed and remorseful about my adultery?

If it had been a one-time instance of Jack performing a grossly evil act, that would be one thing. But we passed one-time a long, long time ago.


----------



## iwatt (May 18, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> One of the interesting things about Jason Bourne is that he's not *actually* a murderer.  He pretended to be, in order to accomplish specific goals, but he was just laying claim to crimes perpetrated by someone else.  When he lost his memory, and got it back, he thought he actually was an assassin, but that was a falsehood.




Actually, in the second Bourne book we learn that David Webb (the real identity of Jason Bourne) was a CIA operative in Vietnam before the whole Jackal-hunting thing started. IIRC his job was infiltration/assasination and demolition. 

Still, your point is valid.

Basically the remakes only connection to the books is: "Guy wakes up from a coma with amnesia and discovers* he is an assasin". 

As a character, the Charlton Heston version (much closer to Ludlum's original work) of Bourne is more interesting tan the Matt Damon version. The action scenes though, are better in the remake.


----------



## iwatt (May 18, 2006)

Just to add some fuel on the flames:

I think he's extermely Lawful.

IMO, Lawful doesn't mean following the laws as much as sticking strictly to a preselected set of rules. Bauer only commanding protocol is "save the maximum amount of american lives". If he can get things done without breaking the laws he'll do it. But in his eyes, anything that get's in his way (family, friends, due process, morality) must take second place. 

I'd peg him as Lawful Neutral because although he continuosly does evil acts, he's also the character in the series who has sacrificed the most as well.


----------



## painandgreed (May 18, 2006)

My thougths on all this even though I don't know the character or show involved:

1) As with every D&D alignment issue, it all depends on the DM. Good and Evil may be objective in the game, but what consitutes good or evil, even when trying to follow the loose guidelines in the RAW, is still subjective to each individual DM interpretations.

2) Just because somebody is good, doesn't mean they couldn't preform an evil act, even repeatedly. All good characters aren't perfect, then they would be exalted. Most people have their moral lapses and it woudl still be possbile for their good acts to outweigh their evil ones. Again, it's up to the DM.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2006)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Let's hear it for selective quoting!    According to the core rules, Good *also* "implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." By that full standard, and coincidentally my own conception of good, Jack not only doesn't "have to" be considered good, is arguable whether he can be.



Jack is definitely altruistic. Multiple times, he has been willing to sacrifice himself. (Think of when Nina asked for a presedential pardon for killing him at a later point) . The end of the last episode was a exception, but - in that case, there weren't lives at stake. It was just a political issue and it could probably have been resolved in a lot better way (and it was). 
He always puts his life on the line. 

he also has a respect for life and dignity of sentient beings. In the current season, he was against the decision to allow the terrorists to use the Sentox nerve gas in the shopping mall. He was ordered otherwise, but ultimately, he managed to reduce the casulties. 

Still, the rest of his behaviour doesn't make him good. He probably would like to be a good person, but the decisions and actions he take make that impossible. 

If law means following a outward authority (be it laws or superiors), he definitely isn't lawful. If it would also allow a personal code, I think he might be, he is definitely uncompromising. (He wasn't willing to let the president go with his actions, as Heller wanted to. Nor was he happy with the impeachment against the president, though he could accept that, since the end result would be the same.)



> No one is faced with no-win scenarios over and over and over again, even if they actually did exist and even if we did allow that he chose the way he did because the first time appeared to be a no-win scenario.



No real person is faced with no-win scenarios over and over again, but Jack is. That's part of the concept of the show.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 18, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> No real person is faced with no-win scenarios over and over again, but Jack is. That's part of the concept of the show.



No, its not. His no-win situations can always be solved in other ways, especially as he spends so much freaking time and resources with his "only possible" solution. Devoting even a large fraction of those resources to finding another solution would invariably find one.

The show's concept is to show a protagonist doing these awful things, so we know how awesome he is.


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Using that as an apology for Jack choosing torture instead of another option -- in fact, concocting a non-existant no-win scenario he wasn't faced with in the show -- is also bunk.
> 
> And your point also ignores that this is _systemic and repeated_ by Jack Bauer. No one is faced with no-win scenarios over and over and over again, even if they actually did exist and even if we did allow that he chose the way he did because the first time appeared to be a no-win scenario.




Oops, I think perhaps you misunderstood my intent. I'm definately of the opinion that Jack is at best Neutral, and probably NE. The "Evil Wizard portal" thing was a bit of topic drift, where there was postulated a theoretical no-win situation.

As you noted, it was interesting but not very realistic. Sadly, most of the real-world no-win situations are (a) very complicated and (b) very political, so not possible to discuss here.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 18, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> But the question remains: once you've tried everything else, and you come down to only the two options, which do you go for? It _is_ a valid question, albeit a viciously unfair one to have to deal with an a non-theoretical situation.




But you can always try to reprogram the simulator. You can always deny that the options you see are the end-all and be-all of the problem. You can always remember that the people who gave you all this crap about the portal and what will stop it didn't have nuclear weapons at their disposal. You may be wrong, but denial is always an option.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 18, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Right alongside the enraged (semi-psychotic) vigilante who assaults the police when needed and subverts the system at a whim and the hired assassin?
> 
> Chaotic Good and Neutral Evil on those two, IMO.



CG for Batman, I see. NE for James Bond? I have a hard time with that one. Bond does things his own way (chaotic tendencies), but believes strongly in Queen and Country and tries to follow orders (lawful tendencies), he has a strong sense of justice and protects the weak (particularly the weak and pretty), and is constantly surrendering to villains who threaten innocent people (collectively good tendencies), but is also ruthless in getting what he wants... except that he's not really evil about it. Is seducing someone to get information evil? I can't recall Bond ever doing anything particularly evil. Reckless, careless, amoral, yes. But evil?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> No, its not. His no-win situations can always be solved in other ways, especially as he spends so much freaking time and resources with his "only possible" solution. Devoting even a large fraction of those resources to finding another solution would invariably find one.



Maybe it's because of the quick pace of the show, but I rarely see real alternatives. But that mgith be because he never bothers to look for one. I think he is usually taking the quickest and direct path, because everything else might cause dangerous delays. 

I still think he is neutral, and I must admit I doubt that further discussion will change my mind. But as long as I don't find any new arguments for this position, I will probably be unable to contribute anything further for others making up their mind. 



> The show's concept is to show a protagonist doing these awful things, so we know how awesome he is.



I wouldn't disagree with you there. 
Maybe we need a new alignment for Jack: "True Awesome". (Or "Awesome Stupid"? ... er... no. )


----------



## Felon (May 18, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> In D&D alignment, a character's alignment has to be defined by his actions. The DM cannot know what was in a player's thoughts when he had his character act a particular way, and very few of us are ever completely honest about our full motivations for our actions. So, it really has to be about the actions.




I disagree. Reactions can be observed and noted. If a DM knows a player is in a virtual no-win situation, then it hardly makes sense for the DM to pigeon-hole a character as evil for making a tough choice, while dismissing the agony the character's going through while making it; the reason the choice is agonizing is because he's not evil. The character has no good options, so the only thing that separates the good character from the bad is his disgust and remorse. 



> I don't recall seeing any remorse. I see Jack quite often blaming his victims for "forcing me to do this", or words to that effect. This is rationalisation - he's trying to transfer the blame, and hence the guilt, of his actions onto others. Psychologically, Jack is not at all well.




It's easy to judge someone as insane when all of the behavior you're judging them by takes place under insane circumstances. In between the last couple of seasons, Jack seemed content to live his life humbly and peacefully. He's not acting out psychotic fantasies in his free time; he's not bumping off homeless people and hookers and saying they deserved it. he's darn near self-actualized. Given the choice, Jack would rather not shoot someone in the kneecap to get information out of them. OTOH, a sadistic, genuinely ruthless person would not require the rationalization. 



> It's a difference between a 'small' Evil and a 'big' Evil. Whether you are remorseful or laughing, I still can't walk.




And that's terrible, but labeling a character as evil isn't some form of retribution. Your limp versus a thousand people's lives...It's a tough choice for a good person to make, but from a purely rational standpoint, it's pretty cut-and-dried.



			
				sword-dancer said:
			
		

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




And some of them would have a valid argument, and some wouldn't.


----------



## Felon (May 18, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> OK, let's say I cheat on my wife, but I'm _really sorry about it._
> And then I do it again.
> And again.
> And again.
> ...




If you're committing adultery to stop terrorists from setting off a nuclear device in LA...
Or releasing a flesh-eating virus...
Or flooding a city with nerve gas....

Then you're definitely acting under mitigating circumstances. Your wife will probably still kill ya, but many people will appreciate you acting for the good of the nation.

If Whizbang stops having sex, the terrorists win!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 18, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> NE for James Bond? I have a hard time with that one. Bond does things his own way (chaotic tendencies), but believes strongly in Queen and Country and tries to follow orders (lawful tendencies), he has a strong sense of justice and protects the weak (particularly the weak and pretty), and is constantly surrendering to villains who threaten innocent people (collectively good tendencies), but is also ruthless in getting what he wants... except that he's not really evil about it. Is seducing someone to get information evil? I can't recall Bond ever doing anything particularly evil. Reckless, careless, amoral, yes. But evil?



At the end of the day, James Bond's job is to kill people. Not rescue them, not resolve situations as best he can, not even to gain intelligence generally. He's an assassin working for the Queen of England. Even if he doesn't have the DMG Assassin PrC, the fact that he willingly and enthusiastically sets out to murder perfect strangers without any real intention to look for alternatives (and soldiers, as a rule, would rather their enemies surrender) or openess to them.

Wanting to keep beautiful women he will likely have sex with alive and intact isn't good, it's pragmatic.

The seductions, incidentally, are more evil than they appear to be: While recreation is obviously a part of it, he's also _turning these women into traitors_. Now, it may be a traitor to SMERSH or SPECTRE but it could also be to America or the Soviet Union or another country. In none of these cases is being a convicted traitor a good career plan and it's often a very, very short one. So, for his own purposes, not only does he kill, but he also knowingly causes those who help him come to harm. In the Roger Moore era, many of them escaped with him at the end -- although the fallout from fleeing your country or sinister organization is rarely over once you are picked up by MI-6 -- but even then, it was usually just the final one in the chain of women.

Now, granted, all of the movie actors haven't been as evil as the novel's original version. But even Roger Moore at his campiest is still an assassin whose ultimate mission boils down to "go into this place, find the head guy and put a bullet in his brain."


----------



## jasper (May 18, 2006)

Neutral evil 
Follow his own code and gets the mission done. He evil so you don’t have to be, you should thank him for being a bad guy for our side and he is employed by a good government. Just like James Bond is evil. They both look good, get the beautiful women and look cool while doing it.


----------



## jsaving (May 18, 2006)

But killing per se isn't an evil act in D&D.  It can be Good, or Neutral, or Evil, depending on the extent to which it protects innocents from harm. 

Endangering the lives of non-innocents also isn't an evil act per se in D&D.  It can be Good, or Neutral, or Evil, depending on the extent to which it enables one to protect innocents from harm.   

It is true that the assassin PrC has an evil alignment restriction, but this is because D&D assassins kill for selfish gain, indeed _must_ kill for that reason if they are to enter the PrC in the first place.  Bond does it because his country tells him that his actions will preserve order and save innocent lives, which would appear to be a LG motivation rather than an Evil one.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 18, 2006)

jsaving said:
			
		

> Bond does it because his country tells him that his actions will preserve order and save innocent lives, which would appear to be a LG motivation rather than an Evil one.



Preservation of the status quo is lawful, not good. And he's undertaken a number of missions that never were about saving lives, but merely about preserving the status quo.


----------



## Veander (May 18, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Bauer's alignment?
> 
> He sways between Lawful neutral and True Neutral.  He's loyal, but his loyalty is more to his own concept of how the job should be done than to any sort of higher standards.  He has no problems with shooting or torturing people, which is evil, but hes self-sacrificing to the point of almost getting himself killed in an exploding building so he could save a friend, which is good.  Hence, he is mostly neutral.




Hmm, so people in the military or in combat are evil?  I would wager the Bauer character knows killing is wrong, but doing it in the line of duty against enemies of the country is a different situation.  If think if someone is doing something that they truly feel is for the good of something like a country, they are are good.  The line is crossed when they have no remorse for their enemy's death.  Maybe not at the time, but in general most Vietnam vets I have met realized that killing was wrong.  Killing in the name of one's country is different.  Heck, Bauer ignored a direct order from the president to let some gas go off in a mall.  He has a moral compass and it points to NOT killing innocents.

And it's clear he's lawful.  Sure he doesn't always follow the rules placed on him in his job, but he also works in a job where subterfuge and deception play a heavy role.  So he's often second-guessing everything for a godo reason.  I'd say he's just one falvor of Lawful Good or LAwful Neutral.  Torture is one of those methods that I think many would have a problem with doing and while it's not obviously evil in Bauer's case, it clearly isn't good.


----------



## Toras (May 18, 2006)

I honestly think that Jack started as LN (Duty) PreSeason1 -> LG (Family) in Season 1 (As he didn't really torture anyone physically then)

He fell to LN with the Death of his wife, and to TN as the System continued to fail him.  He pretty much remains there for the rest of time (only seen through Disk 2 of Season 4).

That seems to cover the range, but while I would say some of his acts are evil, I wouldn't define him as a Evil Person.  He's gotten close, but he's not quite there.  

And while I will admit there are usually a better way, it generally does have longer odds and since he doesn't have the infallibity shield that some of the more clearly good characters have, he can and might fail.  Can he take the chance when lives are on the line?  

It comes from a divergent thought on the nature of good and evil.  But that's a much larger debate.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 19, 2006)

Veander said:
			
		

> I'd say he's just one falvor of Lawful Good or LAwful Neutral.  Torture is one of those methods that I think many would have a problem with doing and while it's not obviously evil in Bauer's case, it clearly isn't good.



I'm sorry, I missed how torture isn't obviously evil.

Again, I get the feeling that people are resisting the notion that someone likable may be evil, by the strict (and not reflective of real world shades of gray) D&D alignment system.


----------



## Felon (May 19, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I missed how torture isn't obviously evil.




Unfortunately, yes you have. 

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.



> Again, I get the feeling that people are resisting the notion that someone likable may be evil, by the strict (and not reflective of real world shades of gray) D&D alignment system.




I don't particularly like Jack, and even cutting him slack for certain acts, I still think he should be in prison many times over, along with the rest of the CTU--if not for the on-screen actions they take for the sake of immediacy, then for the sort of things they do the other 364 days of the year (no doubt they have Bill-of-Rights toilet paper in their restrooms). However, I can understand why he does what he does. Most of the folks calling Jack evil are clearly doing so as a form of moral condemnation rather than as an objective assessment of what his beliefs and motivations are (and indeed, beliefs and motivations are what the alignment system dwells on for the most part, not particular actions).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 19, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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 (May 19, 2006)

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 (May 19, 2006)

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 (May 19, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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 (May 19, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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 (May 19, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> 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 (May 19, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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 (May 19, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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 (May 19, 2006)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> 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 (May 19, 2006)

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.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 19, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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.



No, I used that word because people want to insist that Jack Bauer is a good guy despite his evil acts and that his intentions make it all OK. 



> 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.



That simply isn't true. He has massive resources available and, given that 24 is real time, we know it took him quite a long time to arrange the faked-up executions to torture a parent into divulging information. He had options, he just chose not to use them. He _chose torture_.



> 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.



And it simply isn't plausible to say that "Person X did horrible evil act Y, but he cried and claims he was forced into it, therefore he has Good alignment."



> 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.



Again, not true. He might assert it, but since we have a real time clock and know how long he has to prepare for many of his acts and can watch him marshal his considerable resources, the "I have no choice" excuse he offers is a lie. He's a butcher who chooses violence against innocents as a first resort.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 19, 2006)

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> 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.



Wow. No. The deeply committed commander in the armies of Iuz who will fight to preserve the lives of his men and tortures an enemy healer into saving one of his soldier's legs isn't a good guy simply because he's willing to risk it all for someone he's close to.



> 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.



He did it despite having the resources available to explore other viable options. It's a choice of first resort.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 19, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Wow. No. The deeply committed commander in the armies of Iuz who will fight to preserve the lives of his men and tortures an enemy healer into saving one of his soldier's legs isn't a good guy simply because he's willing to risk it all for someone he's close to.
> 
> 
> He did it despite having the resources available to explore other viable options. It's a choice of first resort.




I gather from some of your posts that you've seen the show. I'm curious if you could give a couple of examples of other actions that might have been taken instead of torture. (Sayid and the mock execution is a good one, the withholding medical aid from Kate Warner's sister is another one). 

I'm not trying to derail this conversation (which I think offers some interesting perspectives on alignment views and the variety of them), I'm just trying to understand your POV on this one.

Hmm... now that I read some of my posts and examine my motivation, I think maybe I'm trying to defend the show too much 

Sorry, I'm a fan


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> And your point also ignores that this is _systemic and repeated_ by Jack Bauer. No one is faced with no-win scenarios over and over and over again, even if they actually did exist and even if we did allow that he chose the way he did because the first time appeared to be a no-win scenario.




This is why I think the writers are doing this deliberately.  I think Jack was good at first...then, a few seasons back was the first time he "had" to torture someone.  He hadn't done it until that point....season 3?  I don't think he did in season 1, and I didn't see season 2, and the first time I remember it was season 3.

Once he did it once, it seems he's been using it as a "standard" tactic more and more, becoming more vicious every season.  It's almost like he's becoming habituated to it, and has lost his inherent moral compass which might have made torture a non-option in the beginning.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2006)

Not sure if I'm the only one having technical difficulties, but whether I'm using IE or NS lately, I can't seem to post anything longer than 2-3 sentences.  The browser just thinks and thinks after I click "send", and then "the document contains no data" appears.

Banshee


----------



## Thotas (May 19, 2006)

I'm pretty sure that it was first season that he threatened to kill someone with a towel in a very gruesome manner unless given info that he needed.  The fact that his training even contained this kind of technique lends credence to a sketchy past.  Someone earlier said Delta Force proves non-good right there.  

On the other hand, I'm one of those who has noticed that Jack's detractors are always saying there's always another way, without telling us what those ways are when specific incidents are brought up.  Specifics, please?  I do think that in reality we sometimes find ourselves with few options, and in fiction an author can arrange it all they might want.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 19, 2006)

Good call on the towel murder threat. That was a chilling one.



			
				Thotas said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I'm one of those who has noticed that Jack's detractors are always saying there's always another way, without telling us what those ways are when specific incidents are brought up.  Specifics, please?  I do think that in reality we sometimes find ourselves with few options, and in fiction an author can arrange it all they might want.



OK, let's talk about the mock execution of the kids. To pull it off and get the information from the captured terrorist (as I recall it was a terrorist -- I watched multiple seasons on DVD back to back last year when I was laid up and very ill), he had to bring in a film crew, get a computer special effects specialist in (and they can't have a zillion of them just waiting around for this opportunity), briefed them all on the plan, hook up the TV feed and, as I recall, do this all by phone internationally.

At a minimum, that's involving six other people in two countries, and as I recall, there were even more CTU people aware of the plan and working to set it up, all to get the information out of this guy.

There are a myriad of ways six highly trained intelligence operatives, again, in two countries, could have been utilized in that time to get similar information. Heck, they could have been poring over the information they had, looking for clues, they could have been out knocking on doors, questioning more people, they could have been running computer simulations, they could have mocked up one of his allies being questioned and about to roll over on him (also psychological trickery, but not quite showing him his child being killed and telling him the rest of the family's about to get the same), they could have even given him sodium pentathol (which I won't argue would get Jack canonized, but certainly isn't in the same league as torture) and probably a whole bunch more ideas.

Torture, whatever other qualities it might possess, was not the only option.


----------



## Thotas (May 19, 2006)

Well, okay, I expected that would be the one you would bring up 'cause you had made specific reference to it.  Frankly, that incident was a stretch in general; even with the film crew and special effects folks sitting around, I have my doubts they'd have been able to get it together as fast as they did.  But that is more the credibility of the storyline at that point than the morality of if, I admit.

Of the things you've lined out, only the last two alternatives mean much here.  Looking at the info, knocking on more doors ... CTU had lots of folks looking over the info, they always do.  Knocking on more doors is great if you've got 'em, but there weren't any, at least not that CTU was finding in the reviews of the info.  On the other hand, Jack was looking right at a guy he knew _did_ have the info.  The psychological trickery thing is the most moral of the two options Jack you give him (as you mentioned, pentathol isn't as clean and simple as it has sometimes been portrayed) and uses the same resources as the psychological torture did, spurious as those resources may be.  However, it's less likely to work, and for the exact same reasons that make it more humane.  And that brings us closer in again to the "how much room does Jack have to let an option not work?" -- the question of how much option he had.


----------



## delericho (May 19, 2006)

Thotas said:
			
		

> And that brings us closer in again to the "how much room does Jack have to let an option not work?" -- the question of how much option he had.




Right, how abut the leg-shooting incident? (Warning: major spoilers for the current season)



Spoiler



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.


----------



## glass (May 19, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Right, how abut the leg-shooting incident? (Warning: major spoilers for the current season)



Thanks for trying, but there's already been some pretty major undisguised spoilers in this thread.


glass.


----------



## delericho (May 19, 2006)

Veander said:
			
		

> Hmm, so people in the military or in combat are evil?




The crucial difference is that enemy combatants are equipped to figth back, know and (generally) accept the risks, and so forth. It's somewhat 'clean' if you will. It should also be noted that our military forces have rules for the treatment of enemy prisoners (who are helpless before our forces), and that we draw a distinction between (deliberately) attacking combatants and non-combatants, and consider ourselves civilised for doing so.



> I would wager the Bauer character knows killing is wrong, but doing it in the line of duty against enemies of the country is a different situation.  If think if someone is doing something that they truly feel is for the good of something like a country, they are are good.




Really? Do we have to drag the Nazis into this?



> Killing in the name of one's country is different.




No.

Firstly, 'killing' is a Neutral act. Context is everything. Killing in combat against acknowledged enemy combatants can be considered 'clean'. Killing as part of the death penalty is arguable, and political, so let's not discuss it. So-called 'mercy killing' of someone who is in persistent pain who you can't otherwise help? Again, political.

But all three of these are clearly difficult to murder.

With that said, I will submit that murder committed in the name of one's country is no different from murder committed for any other reason, and is Evil. What's more, it's Evil even if you were told to do so by your superiors, or even your Commander in Chief. "I was only following orders" is no excuse.

(I will acknowledge that there are situations where murder is necessary. But even in those circumstances it is still Evil, hence "a necessary evil".)


----------



## delericho (May 19, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Thanks for trying, but there's already been some pretty major undisguised spoilers in this thread.




Yeah, but I was going into a lot more detail about current events than I'd previously seen, so...


----------



## Thotas (May 19, 2006)

Yeah, the leg shooting incident was way spoiled way back.  In part by me, so I know.    

And the context it's being brought up in now also brings up a matter that I don't think has been mentioned yet; what is called (I think as a technical term in game theory?) "perfect knowledge" or lack there of.  For example, in chess, one has perfect knowledge.  You can see the whole board, all the rules and all the situation laid out before you.  In poker, however, you don't know what your opponent(s) have in their hand, and clues that lead you to think you've got it figured out might be deceptive.

Jack usually doesn't have perfect knowledge.  He didn't know that Chloe would make that break through, or even know for certain whether it was possible.  I've seen lots of cases on paladin threads and stories I've heard from other gamers in person about DMs who set moral traps for paladins by sticking them in situations without perfect knowledge and then penalizing them as if they had it.


----------



## glass (May 19, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I was going into a lot more detail about current events than I'd previously seen, so...



Yeah. I didn't read it, but I saw there was quite a lot of it when I QUOTEd quote post.

Thank you for that. Hopefully in the future more people will follow your fine example!  


glass.


----------



## Drowbane (May 19, 2006)

*(haha)*



			
				Hellcow said:
			
		

> In Eberron...





			
				Hellcow said:
			
		

> ...If Jack Bauer was in Eberron...





			
				Hellcow said:
			
		

> ...Alignment in Eberron...





			
				Hellcow said:
			
		

> ...Pulp heroes and Eberron...




God!! Whats with this guy?! You'd think he designed the damn setting or something?!















Hehehe, Mr Baker, you rock!


----------



## Ds Da Man (May 19, 2006)

> Wow. No. The deeply committed commander in the armies of Iuz who will fight to preserve the lives of his men and tortures an enemy healer into saving one of his soldier's legs isn't a good guy simply because he's willing to risk it all for someone he's close to.



No, but the CG priest torturing an enemy combatant to save the lives of a villiage of peasants is. If you cannot see the evil already perpertrated in the show, by the other side, and JB just responding to the evil, for the sake of life, country, family, I say your vision in life must be pretty skewed. I would do the same thing right now to save the life of a child, or even another adult, if need be. Breaking some fingers, shooting some legs, to gain knowledge to help stop an evil act, makes me evil? I highly doubt it. 
 Let say for instance that someone has kidnapped a child, buried her/him alive, and has told police about it, but won't say where the child is buried. Your telling me that breaking/burning/shooting to gain info to save the childs life is evil? 
 I have to say, this thread probably ties into Monte's a little, about how political views can change how one views good/neutral/evil actions. I don't think I'll post anymore in this thread. Have fun


----------



## Drowbane (May 19, 2006)

Gumby said:
			
		

> So, Gregory House, M.D.....
> 
> 
> Chaotic Neutral or what?




House is N/G (he does what needs to be done to save lives, whether or not it falls within accepted guidelines) with Jerk tendencies.


----------



## delericho (May 19, 2006)

Thotas said:
			
		

> Jack usually doesn't have perfect knowledge...
> 
> I've seen lots of cases on paladin threads and stories I've heard from other gamers in person about DMs who set moral traps for paladins by sticking them in situations without perfect knowledge and then penalizing them as if they had it.




Yeah, I'm not a fan of DMs who trap Paladins as described. Indeed, I would walk away from a table where the DM forced the "evil wizard/portal" situation on a Paladin without a _long_ lead up to that situation. It's fine as the climactic point of a tragic campaign, but it's not fair to arbitrarily force it on the PC.

The thing about Jack in that incident is that he had other options available, but he didn't even consider them. His first recourse was to the torture of the innocent. And the fact that there was another resolution proves that he was wrong to do so.

There's a line. I'm not sure when he crossed it, but by that point he is well over it, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 19, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> 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.





One example is the  Gestapo, Einsatzgruppen, Totenkopfstaffeln of the SS Himmler(whose words at the mass murders implies he believed(or told it so) it was a hard thing to do but legitimate it  with the necessity that it must be done for the "greater good"), 
The Wannsee Konferenz, a very interesting and hypocritic act, where the holocaust was replanned.

These were one of the things coming automatical to my mind, mybe because I´m German, there was no shot at you intended.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 19, 2006)

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> Breaking some bones to gain information may be an evil act, but doesn't make a character evil. .




1st Problem, he doesn`t break the Bones of evil People, he breaks the bones of children.

2nd Problem where does this stop, torture the guuilty but what is when the toturer makes a mistake...

Main Point it goes against the dignity and the human rights of every human.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2006)

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> Let say for instance that someone has kidnapped a child, buried her/him alive, and has told police about it, but won't say where the child is buried. Your telling me that breaking/burning/shooting to gain info to save the childs life is evil?
> I have to say, this thread probably ties into Monte's a little, about how political views can change how one views good/neutral/evil actions. I don't think I'll post anymore in this thread. Have fun



Funny, there was a similar case in Germany a few years ago. The police officer in charge decided to threaten (not actually commit) the kidnapper with torture, who then gave up the information. (Unfortunately, the kid was already dead. The world isn't fair, is it?). 
The court decided the police officer was acting against the law (not surprisingly). But the court didn't make any moral decisions.

My take on such situations is that killing or torture can never be good, but that doesn't always make it evil. But in D&D terms, you have certainly strayed away from good, towards neutral, and depending on the situation, even towards evil.


----------



## Hussar (May 19, 2006)

Just a point about Mr. Bond.  I don't recall the movie, but, Bond has fairly often killed helpless people.  In one movie (Moonraker?  One of the Moore ones) the bad guy is hanging off the edge of a building, barely holding onto Bond's tie.  Bond questions him, gets the information he wants, then casually slaps the man's hand away, letting him fall to his death several stories down.  

This is about as evil as it gets.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 19, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> House is N/G (he does what needs to be done to save lives, whether or not it falls within accepted guidelines) with Jerk tendencies.




But he doesn't. I think the show makes it pretty clear that the cases we see he takes because they're interesting, and that he ignores opportunities to save lives--like running away from a breakout of menigitious, or ignoring requests for consults--whenever it doesn't interest him.


----------



## Glyfair (May 19, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> But he doesn't. I think the show makes it pretty clear that the cases we see he takes because they're interesting, and that he ignores opportunities to save lives--like running away from a breakout of menigitious, or ignoring requests for consults--whenever it doesn't interest him.



I think he's Chaotic Neutral with Good tendancies.  He does have his good moments, and no real evil moments.  However, it's 100% clear he has a disrespect for law, going out of his way to thumb his nose at such notions.


----------



## Darthjaye (May 19, 2006)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> 1st Problem, he doesn`t break the Bones of evil People, he breaks the bones of children.
> 
> 2nd Problem where does this stop, torture the guuilty but what is when the toturer makes a mistake...
> 
> Main Point it goes against the dignity and the human rights of every human.




Good people do bad things sometimes.   The instances that people like Whizbang have given in previous posts are the opposite however of this.   Bad people occassionaly do prosperous things for themselves and their own.   That, in no way, makes any of those instances viable as "good acts".  I think you may have to learn to distinguish the act from the person.  In all examples so far, the person defines the act, and not the act the person necessarily.



			
				sword-dancer said:
			
		

> One example is the Gestapo, Einsatzgruppen, Totenkopfstaffeln of the SS Himmler(whose words at the mass murders implies he believed(or told it so) it was a hard thing to do but legitimate it with the necessity that it must be done for the "greater good"),
> The Wannsee Konferenz, a very interesting and hypocritic act, where the holocaust was replanned.
> 
> These were one of the things coming automatical to my mind, mybe because I´m German, there was no shot at you intended.




Okay, these two posts are more of a political view rather than a simple evaluation of one's alignment in a specific instance.   I would suggest not bringing this into the forum at all.   Your just going to start arguements over it and there's no reason for it.   We're not here to bum every one out so please, again, no more posting of this nature.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> The crucial difference is that enemy combatants are equipped to figth back, know and (generally) accept the risks, and so forth. It's somewhat 'clean' if you will. It should also be noted that our military forces have rules for the treatment of enemy prisoners (who are helpless before our forces), and that we draw a distinction between (deliberately) attacking combatants and non-combatants, and consider ourselves civilised for doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bingo.  There have been classic psychology experiments conducted wherein people did horrible things, including causing the "death" of the subject of the experiment, all because they were told to do so by someone they perceived as being an authority figure.  When the responsibility for their actions was taken off their shoulders, they crossed a line that should never have been crossed.

Murder is murder, whether state authorized or not.  The only difference is that if it's state authorized, the state doesn't punish the person who carries it out.

I would think torture would be on the same level....especially given that regardless of what the TV show wants to portray, it's not all "ok" once it's over....I'm pretty sure it can lead to long term psychological damage, PTSD, and things like that.

And again, given it's based on bad science.....or rather, there is no scientific evidence that it's an effective way of extracting reliable information anyways.

Banshee


----------



## Falkus (May 19, 2006)

> This is about as evil as it gets.




Actually, I'd imagine that certain demonic rituals involving the sacrifice of large numbers of children via torture for the express purpose of opening a permanent portal to hell so that the entire world can be overrun by demons, this dooming the entire population of hte planet to slow, tortorous deaths is about as evil as it gets.


----------



## Hellcow (May 19, 2006)

Popping in for one more observation (and I haven't caught up with every post, so I apologize if I repeat someone):

In my eyes, the key question here is how extreme you are in your view of evil. Again, I can only speak for Eberron, and in Eberron the goal is to play with shades of gray and to say that there is a lot of evil in human nature... that if anything, good is the greater rarity, making the good hero truly stand out. 

If you say that evil alignments should be reserved for the truly horrific and extreme - unrepentant rapists, serial killers, and actual demons - then of course that's not Jack. However, if this is the case, I don't see how it would be remotely feasible to encounter evil people in a world with the magical sophistication of Eberron or the Forgotten Realms. If evil people are _reliably_ that bad - if you know that an evil person is automatically on par with a baby-murderer - then you should have goverment-mandated teams of paladins and clerics rooting out all people of evil alignment for the good of society. Essentially, you'd end up with _Minority Report_: you may not have done anything, but since only absolutely vile beings show up as evil, your alignment alone is good enough for us to bring you down. In my mind, this would create a very alien society, and one without much excitement for adventurers, because evil has been burnt out of the world. 

Hence, I broaden the range of evil, to include the slumlord who cuts corners to make a profit even though he knows it's threatening the lives of his tenants; the government agent willing to torture in the name of his country; the general who authorizes massacres to demoralize an enemy. The general may actually end the war more swiftly through his actions, and in the long run, save lives. The spy may get information vital to the survival of his nation. And the landlord... well, he's just scum, but that's business. You don't like the way he does things, earn your own gold and build your own #%$@ house. 

With this in mind, _detect evil_ becomes a tool that tells you something about someone's character, but it doesn't tell you everything. It tells you they are comfortable with some evil acts, but not the circumstances or _what_ evil acts. That evil government agent would think the slumlord was scum... and unlike a good character, who might try to see the slumlord brought to justice (if lawful) or force him to compensate his victims outside the law (if not), the evil agent might simply kill him, or for that matter torture him to teach him a lesson. You can't arrest every person of evil alignment if a third of the world is evil - and if many evil people don't actually take actions that harm innocents. Again, take the bloodthirsty barbarian who only fights because he loves to inflict pain on others... and yet, who is fighting invading demons. The barbarian's an evil man, but his aid may be just what you need. However, if he turns on innocent villagers, you'll have to bring him down. Detect evil tells you what he's capable of - that he isn't acting out of any sense of altruism or empathy for others, that he's potentially capable of truly vicious and ruthless acts - but it doesn't tell you about his blood oath to destroy demons, the vow he took that fuels his vendetta against them. 

In Eberron, this is why the Church of the Silver Flame doesn't fight "that which is sensed by detect evil" - it fights those who threaten the innocent. It fights evil in the world with the sword, and seeks to redeem evil in the mind through guidance. 

So when I say I see Jack Bauer as evil, it's because I think that by *my* standards, a lot of government agents have to be evil to do their job efficiently... and that this doesn't make them monsters, it makes them people with certain views of ethics, empathy, and the sacrifices that must be made in the name of their cause. Essentially, in Eberron I advocate narrowing the definition of neutrality and expanding the spectrum of both good and evil. If you'd call someone "neutral with evil tendancies" - just make 'em evil. There is a huge difference between Hannibal Lecter and Jack Bauer, but I'm comfortable making both evil. Fuzzing this line makes it more difficult for detect evil to be the be-all end-all in villain detection and allows more mystery in the world. When you discover the Dark Lantern working with you is evil, you know to keep an eye on him... but you can't automatically assume that means he's going to betray you. He may simply be ruthlessly devoted to his nation. 

With all that said, I also feel strongly that people can perform actions outside of their alignment under duress: alignment is a guideline, not a chain. Repetition and comfort is the key. As such, I agree that in Jack, we may be seeing a gradual change in alignment, as he is forced to become more comfortable with extreme methods. And in response to the question of "So in some of the torture situations, what alternative did Jack have?" - he had the choice not to take the actions that he did, actions often challenged by his compatriots. Yes, if he didn't do what he did, hundreds of people might have died. But a good-aligned person - like the people who challenged him - might still hesitate to take the ruthless action, even though it resulted in greater disaster. As I said, I believe that many governments would (or do) employ evil people for precisely this reason. 

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.


----------



## Hellcow (May 19, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> God!! Whats with this guy?! You'd think he designed the damn setting or something?!



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.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> Popping in for one more observation (and I haven't caught up with every post, so I apologize if I repeat someone):
> 
> In my eyes, the key question here is how extreme you are in your view of evil. Again, I can only speak for Eberron, and in Eberron the goal is to play with shades of gray and to say that there is a lot of evil in human nature... that if anything, good is the greater rarity, making the good hero truly stand out.
> 
> ...




I won't say very succinctly put, because there's a fair amount of detail there...but I think you've made your point pretty clearly.  I actually tend to agree with what you're saying with respect to Jack.

Banshee


----------



## Hellcow (May 19, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I won't say very succinctly put...



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


----------



## Felon (May 19, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (May 19, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> 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 (May 20, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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 (May 20, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Ace said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hussar (May 20, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> 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 (May 20, 2006)

Hellcow said:
			
		

> 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 (May 20, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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 (May 20, 2006)

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 (May 20, 2006)

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...



			
				Ds Da Man 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.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 20, 2006)

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> 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. .




AFAIK, Press News and so on
1st Daschner was a very lawful man, he cared much for his colleagues, if one of his team was ill or wounded, accident he checked personally their welfare, he remembered important dates(Birthday, Marriage etc) of them and usualy sends his wishes years after departing.

2nd the dead of a child was a thing Daschner feared most of all, FEARED 

3rd Daschner didn`t tortured the kidnapper, he threatened him with torture, "A doctor is on the way to supervise it"

4th Daschner informed the court what he `d done, 

5th The Child was dead, at this moment, long dead.


----------



## Ds Da Man (May 21, 2006)

But once again Delericho, I don't consider torture for information evil. I consider torture for pleasure (a la Hostel) evil. I'm not saying that torture is good, but that a good person can use torture and not be evil. Shooting someones wife in the leg to glean info, when you know she won't die, isn't evil, just not good. 
I also believe that inaction with the knowledge/ability to stop evil, is evil. Are you as evil as the person doing it? No, definately not. But I believe you are still evil.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 21, 2006)

> “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.




I don't think Bauer has no compassion for others, and I don't think he tortures "without qualm" but I don't think you can count him as good, either. He's just too close to going over the edge. I'd say neutral. (This is why I wouldn't give him a D20 Modern allegiance too good or evil - just United States, friends and family.)


----------



## delericho (May 21, 2006)

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> But once again Delericho, I don't consider torture for information evil.






			
				Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> I also believe that inaction with the knowledge/ability to stop evil, is evil.




And there it is: I fundamentally disagree with you on both of these points, for reasons i've outlined earlier in the thread.

However, I've noted that I haven't added anything new to the thread for the past several posts (merely restated my position), so at this point I'm going to bow out.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 21, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> However, I've noted that I haven't added anything new to the thread for the past several posts (merely restated my position), so at this point I'm going to bow out.



I know the feeling. 

But on the other hand, it is so much fun discussing Jack Bauer.. The 24 episode threads are not enough.


----------



## Derren (May 21, 2006)

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> I don't consider torture for information evil.





Ah, so it is ok to inflict pain on someone because you want something from him?

For example when a guy you meet on a lone street rams a knife into your shoulder and threatens to kil you unless you give him all informations he needs to access your bank account and to withdraw all money you have is, according to you, not evil?


----------



## Banshee16 (May 23, 2006)

Given the events of tonight's episode, what about Jack's alignment now?  I'm not sure if he's done this in previous episodes, but I don't think so......shooting a man in cold blood...

Henderson wasn't a threat, his gun had no bullets, and Jack knew it.

That can't be excused as a good act, I'm thinking..

Banshee


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 23, 2006)

He's in deep now...


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Given the events of tonight's episode, what about Jack's alignment now?  I'm not sure if he's done this in previous episodes, but I don't think so...




Thanks. In the UK we're about 6 weeks behind.

Jack shot Nina in the third season when she was helpless. This immediately followed a running gun battle through CTU, though, so I don't know how it compares.


----------



## glass (May 23, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Thanks. In the UK we're about 6 weeks behind.



Or about 2.5 seasons, for those of use who don't have Sky.  


glass.


----------



## diaglo (May 23, 2006)

the real point of this thread is moot

*loki44*'s paladin died in the first session on sunday. eaten by a grue


----------



## loki44 (May 23, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> the real point of this thread is moot
> 
> *loki44*'s paladin died in the first session on sunday. eaten by a grue




And for the record, he did not torture anyone en route to his death.

AoW's is more deadly than 24.


----------



## ericlboyd (May 23, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Given the events of tonight's episode, what about Jack's alignment now?  I'm not sure if he's done this in previous episodes, but I don't think so......shooting a man in cold blood...
> 
> Henderson wasn't a threat, his gun had no bullets, and Jack knew it.
> 
> ...




Possible spoiler ...













It's not clear to me that Henderson is really dead. The whole scene looked pretty staged for the benefit of the navy guy. Perhaps that "scene" was how Jack fulfilled his promise to Henderson.

--Eric


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 23, 2006)

ericlboyd said:
			
		

> <blackened for spoiler>It's not clear to me that Henderson is really dead. The whole scene looked pretty staged for the benefit of the navy guy. Perhaps that "scene" was how Jack fulfilled his promise to Henderson.




This was my thought exactly!  Seemed a bit too swanky. And even with Jack's behavior, it was over the top, and I can't imagine he'd go that far.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 23, 2006)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> AFAIK, Press News and so on
> 1st Daschner was a very lawful man, he cared much for his colleagues, if one of his team was ill or wounded, accident he checked personally their welfare, he remembered important dates(Birthday, Marriage etc) of them and usualy sends his wishes years after departing.




That doesn't have to be lawful. It's good, or an allegiance to your buddies (and you can have buddies, even if you're evil).


----------



## Banshee16 (May 23, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Thanks. In the UK we're about 6 weeks behind.
> 
> Jack shot Nina in the third season when she was helpless. This immediately followed a running gun battle through CTU, though, so I don't know how it compares.




Delericho, my sincere apologies.  I didn't realize you were behind in the U.K.  It's small consolation, but that's actually a small piece of the finale, and doesn't give away the "end".  I'm sure you'll have lots to chew on once you see the finale itself.  I'll be sure to leave any spoilers out next time. 

The third season is actually the only season of 24 that I haven't seen.  That's the one where the big threat was a biochem attack or something, wasn't it?  I've seen a piece of one episode, and that was it.  Never saw how Nina was ended.

Banshee


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Delericho, my sincere apologies.




Don't worry about it. It was a momentary annoyance this morning, nothing more. I was just having a bad day. (I locked my keys in my car. The worst of it was, I remember thinking to myself at one point, "That's a bad idea, you'll lock your keys in.")



> The third season is actually the only season of 24 that I haven't seen.  That's the one where the big threat was a biochem attack or something, wasn't it?




That's the one. 'tis a good season, better than 2 and 4 IMO. I'm reserving judgement on 5 until it's done - it started well, but seems to have tailed off a bit in the middle.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 23, 2006)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> This was my thought exactly!  Seemed a bit too swanky. And even with Jack's behavior, it was over the top, and I can't imagine he'd go that far.



May I suggest you continue the discussion on the last episodes to the Media Lounge (I believe that's how it is called "these days")? You and _ericlboyd_ brought up some nice points and it would be sad if it was missed by the rest of the 24 fans there


----------

