babblegirl: ohno-zombees: babblegirl: ohno-zombees: babblegirl: ohno-zombees: 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 Can’t really argue much on Sally and Anderson, they pretty much are all over the map. I was thinking more in terms of their careers, and they do have a passion for justice otherwise they wouldn’t be so concerned with Sherlock messing things up. Even with their history of infidelity and breaking what may be office rules, that’s not something that I would categorize as “evil”. I could never really think of Irene as evil by D&D standards because she is really just looking out for her best interests. I would never consider Bela Talbot from Supernatural to be evil, or Catwoman either (although Catwoman jumps back and forth between vigilante and villain much more than the other two). Irene will do the “right thing” if it is within her interests. Her goal is simply watch out for number one. That’s not the sign of a Good Person, but not Evil either, even Neutral Evil. She is definitely on the less noble side of CN than Sherlock. I see them as two different kinds of CN. She is a villain, but I don’t really think she fits in with any “evils”, and since she is (to me) Chaotic, Chaotic Neutral seemed the most fitting. Our own ideas of what constitutes good and evil may differ a little bit, too. Basically, yes, these are very subjective. And I just want to applaud you again on your decision to place Molly in Chaotic Good. I have no idea why but that is so perfect. Well, I’m going a bit more meta with the evil. In the D&D canon, it’s really more like, “altruistic <——> selfish”. An evil person might not be the baby kicking puppy-stomper, they might just work in their own interests. That being the case, let’s look at the definition of Neutral Evil: “Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them” We know that Irene is tentatively allied with Sherlock during a lot of the action—or at least, she selectively cultivates an alliance with him on her own terms (another trait of the neutral evil). However, when it comes time to throw him over, she does so without compunction (switching to Mycroft and then dropping them both from a height).Irene also has no compunction about harming others (she’d sell her clients out for monetary gain and protection), but won’t go out of her way to do so. For example, she could have harmed John—but it served no benefit to her and so she didn’t. She could have given away the information at any point simply to cause chaos—but refrained from doing so until it was in her best interests to do so (‘selfish’). She also adheres to laws (a dominatrix professionally and (apparently) a domme in her personal life—of course she follows ‘laws’) until they no longer suit her. Hence why I picked Neutral Evil for her. In regards to Molly, I thought long and hard about it—but I figured the fact that she’s giving away chunks of dead people (for SCIENCE!) probably implied at least a chaotic alignment, and I couldn’t see her as anything other THAN Good. I’m glad you enjoyed it, though! =D Ahhhhhhhh, that makes sense. Sometimes I do forget that part of DnD Evil. Now I really get where you coming from with Irene. Yeah, that definitely fits. Yeah. Like, if we’re going evil in the ‘We’re taking the Hobbits to Isengard, and here, whilst we’re at it, take these nine shiny rings, totally legit, they come with this SemTek parka”, then no. Irene isn’t evil. But if we’re looking at it on the scale from “Here, take my spare kidney, I wasn’t using it” <———>  “I’m going to take your heart now, you weren’t using it, right?” Irene does fall somewhere in the middle.  Which is why she’s so much fun, I think. She’s got character.(Though I still love Molly. like, goddamn adorable—and yet. Let us not forget that her mild-mannered self dumped Jim Moriarty.) Irene is amazing. That fact that she falls in the middle is why the “Neutral Evil” thing threw me off I guess. Irene and Molly totally need a scene together next season. Just sayin’. Yeah, Neutral Evil is one of those fun ones where it can sort of… go either way. Like, it’s the alignment for the not-good-people-but-still-have-morals. So go figure. I mean, Irene probably wouldn’t kick a puppy, but she’d blackmail a ‘minor government official’ for a metric shittonne of money. Also, she played the Brothers Holmes like a harp, so who knows. Oh, I would like that a lot. Irene, the Queen of Faking Dead, and Molly, who is straight up pretty much the Queen of the Dead as it is. They can bond over Not-Eating-Dinner and stuff.

babblegirl:

ohno-zombees:

babblegirl:

ohno-zombees:

babblegirl:

ohno-zombees:

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

Can’t really argue much on Sally and Anderson, they pretty much are all over the map. I was thinking more in terms of their careers, and they do have a passion for justice otherwise they wouldn’t be so concerned with Sherlock messing things up. Even with their history of infidelity and breaking what may be office rules, that’s not something that I would categorize as “evil”.

I could never really think of Irene as evil by D&D standards because she is really just looking out for her best interests. I would never consider Bela Talbot from Supernatural to be evil, or Catwoman either (although Catwoman jumps back and forth between vigilante and villain much more than the other two). Irene will do the “right thing” if it is within her interests. Her goal is simply watch out for number one. That’s not the sign of a Good Person, but not Evil either, even Neutral Evil. She is definitely on the less noble side of CN than Sherlock. I see them as two different kinds of CN. She is a villain, but I don’t really think she fits in with any “evils”, and since she is (to me) Chaotic, Chaotic Neutral seemed the most fitting.

Our own ideas of what constitutes good and evil may differ a little bit, too. Basically, yes, these are very subjective.

And I just want to applaud you again on your decision to place Molly in Chaotic Good. I have no idea why but that is so perfect.

Well, I’m going a bit more meta with the evil. In the D&D canon, it’s really more like, “altruistic <——> selfish”. An evil person might not be the baby kicking puppy-stomper, they might just work in their own interests.
That being the case, let’s look at the definition of Neutral Evil:

“Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them”

We know that Irene is tentatively allied with Sherlock during a lot of the action—or at least, she selectively cultivates an alliance with him on her own terms (another trait of the neutral evil). However, when it comes time to throw him over, she does so without compunction (switching to Mycroft and then dropping them both from a height).
Irene also has no compunction about harming others (she’d sell her clients out for monetary gain and protection), but won’t go out of her way to do so. For example, she could have harmed John—but it served no benefit to her and so she didn’t. She could have given away the information at any point simply to cause chaos—but refrained from doing so until it was in her best interests to do so (‘selfish’). She also adheres to laws (a dominatrix professionally and (apparently) a domme in her personal life—of course she follows ‘laws’) until they no longer suit her.
Hence why I picked Neutral Evil for her.

In regards to Molly, I thought long and hard about it—but I figured the fact that she’s giving away chunks of dead people (for SCIENCE!) probably implied at least a chaotic alignment, and I couldn’t see her as anything other THAN Good. I’m glad you enjoyed it, though! =D

Ahhhhhhhh, that makes sense. Sometimes I do forget that part of DnD Evil. Now I really get where you coming from with Irene. Yeah, that definitely fits.

Yeah. Like, if we’re going evil in the ‘We’re taking the Hobbits to Isengard, and here, whilst we’re at it, take these nine shiny rings, totally legit, they come with this SemTek parka”, then no. Irene isn’t evil.
But if we’re looking at it on the scale from “Here, take my spare kidney, I wasn’t using it” <———>  “I’m going to take your heart now, you weren’t using it, right?” Irene does fall somewhere in the middle. 
Which is why she’s so much fun, I think. She’s got character.

(Though I still love Molly. like, goddamn adorable—and yet.
Let us not forget that her mild-mannered self dumped Jim Moriarty.)

Irene is amazing. That fact that she falls in the middle is why the “Neutral Evil” thing threw me off I guess.

Irene and Molly totally need a scene together next season. Just sayin’.

Yeah, Neutral Evil is one of those fun ones where it can sort of… go either way. Like, it’s the alignment for the not-good-people-but-still-have-morals. So go figure. I mean, Irene probably wouldn’t kick a puppy, but she’d blackmail a ‘minor government official’ for a metric shittonne of money. Also, she played the Brothers Holmes like a harp, so who knows.

Oh, I would like that a lot. Irene, the Queen of Faking Dead, and Molly, who is straight up pretty much the Queen of the Dead as it is.
They can bond over Not-Eating-Dinner and stuff.