babblegirl: ohno-zombees: Because Forensics does, eventually, get boring. Here’s the definitions for those who are curious. I just realized what often bugs me with alignment charts like this. I mean, it’s mostly accurate, but trying to fit each character into SEPARATE alignments when many characters actually share one, that’s where it gets difficult. I would definitely put Sally and Anderson into Lawful Good along with Lestrade. They play by the book and the law is their passion, and they don’t appreciate this eccentric recovering addict being allowed to touch evidence. They think it’s a weakness that Lestrade trusts Sherlock so much. Basically think of most of the Gotham City Police Department. Many comics have touched on the fact that some officers think Gordon’s trust in the Batman causes more harm to Gotham than good. And Irene would certainly share the Chaotic Neutral spot with Sherlock. I’d say she actually fits it a bit more than Sherlock does, really. Everything else fits pretty well, though. Except, I don’t know, I would be inclined to move Mrs. Hudson in with John under Neutral Good. Molly as Chaotic Good is surprisingly the greatest ever. And Lawful Neutral is the only place for Mycroft. I agree; the chart is, by it’s nature, gonna be pretty YMMV. Which is why I made it, because I’m excited to see what other people think of the characters. That being said, I’ll address a few points (which are turning into common ones, maybe I should make an FAQ?): Donovanderson: It is possible for one character to have… multiple places on the chart, which makes things super extra fun. For example, an ‘evil’ character may find themselves working with ‘the good guys’ in order to prevent a bigger problem. (Take the Mutant Brotherhood: Magneto will occasionally work with the X-Men if some Bigger Bad comes along that threatens everyone—the only difference is that the X-Men are doing it because “it’s the right thing to do”, and Magneto’s dudes are doing it because “if not, we’ll die also”.) Consequently, when I was making the chart, I focused not on their CAREER (which I agree is HELLA lawful good), but on their CONDUCT (which is a lot more ambiguous). Sally and Anderson are conducting an affair that could get them both fired behind a) their bosses’ back (fraternization is frowned upon in police units) and b) behind Anderson’s WIFE’S back. I interpreted that as being more selfish than altruistic. A character who was on the ‘good’ spectrum would find the cheating morally abhorrent, and wouldn’t generally be so ‘selfish’ in the first place. A character who falls more on the ‘selfish’ axis would focus more on their own needs and feel… correspondingly less guilt. So, take from that what you will. They, ironically, fit in both. Bad Cabbie fits best, but I tried to avoid Villain-of-the-Weeks.Irene: Chaotic Neutral works alright—but it relies on a disregard for rules and regulations. Irene (both personally and in her career) relies on rules and regulations. Even when she’s trying to blackmail Mycroft, she still trusts that he won’t simply take her out back and shoot her, or throw her in the same cell he pitched Moriarty in for torture  interrogation. Not to mention, she is blackmailing people—she’s holding their secrets quite literally in the palm of her hand, and saying, “I will ruin lives and countries—if you don’t give me what I want.” She’s not going to ruin lives just because it’s a tuesday, but she’s not going to quibble over the relative morality if it gets her what she wants, both of which are hallmarks of a neutral evil. But I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on why Irene fits in CN so please, lemme know!/essay

babblegirl:

ohno-zombees:

Because Forensics does, eventually, get boring.

Here’s the definitions for those who are curious.

I just realized what often bugs me with alignment charts like this. I mean, it’s mostly accurate, but trying to fit each character into SEPARATE alignments when many characters actually share one, that’s where it gets difficult.

I would definitely put Sally and Anderson into Lawful Good along with Lestrade. They play by the book and the law is their passion, and they don’t appreciate this eccentric recovering addict being allowed to touch evidence. They think it’s a weakness that Lestrade trusts Sherlock so much. Basically think of most of the Gotham City Police Department. Many comics have touched on the fact that some officers think Gordon’s trust in the Batman causes more harm to Gotham than good.

And Irene would certainly share the Chaotic Neutral spot with Sherlock. I’d say she actually fits it a bit more than Sherlock does, really.

Everything else fits pretty well, though. Except, I don’t know, I would be inclined to move Mrs. Hudson in with John under Neutral Good.

Molly as Chaotic Good is surprisingly the greatest ever. And Lawful Neutral is the only place for Mycroft.

I agree; the chart is, by it’s nature, gonna be pretty YMMV. Which is why I made it, because I’m excited to see what other people think of the characters.
That being said, I’ll address a few points (which are turning into common ones, maybe I should make an FAQ?):

Donovanderson: It is possible for one character to have… multiple places on the chart, which makes things super extra fun. For example, an ‘evil’ character may find themselves working with ‘the good guys’ in order to prevent a bigger problem. (Take the Mutant Brotherhood: Magneto will occasionally work with the X-Men if some Bigger Bad comes along that threatens everyone—the only difference is that the X-Men are doing it because “it’s the right thing to do”, and Magneto’s dudes are doing it because “if not, we’ll die also”.)
Consequently, when I was making the chart, I focused not on their CAREER (which I agree is HELLA lawful good), but on their CONDUCT (which is a lot more ambiguous). Sally and Anderson are conducting an affair that could get them both fired behind a) their bosses’ back (fraternization is frowned upon in police units) and b) behind Anderson’s WIFE’S back. I interpreted that as being more selfish than altruistic. A character who was on the ‘good’ spectrum would find the cheating morally abhorrent, and wouldn’t generally be so ‘selfish’ in the first place. A character who falls more on the ‘selfish’ axis would focus more on their own needs and feel… correspondingly less guilt.
So, take from that what you will. They, ironically, fit in both. Bad Cabbie fits best, but I tried to avoid Villain-of-the-Weeks.

Irene: Chaotic Neutral works alright—but it relies on a disregard for rules and regulations. Irene (both personally and in her career) relies on rules and regulations. Even when she’s trying to blackmail Mycroft, she still trusts that he won’t simply take her out back and shoot her, or throw her in the same cell he pitched Moriarty in for torture  interrogation.
Not to mention, she is blackmailing people—she’s holding their secrets quite literally in the palm of her hand, and saying, “I will ruin lives and countries—if you don’t give me what I want.” She’s not going to ruin lives just because it’s a tuesday, but she’s not going to quibble over the relative morality if it gets her what she wants, both of which are hallmarks of a neutral evil.
But I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on why Irene fits in CN so please, lemme know!

/essay