greencarnations: ohno-zombees: greencarnations: ohno-zombees: Because Forensics does, eventually, get boring. Here’s the definitions for those who are curious. Oh man oh man oh man I love me some alignment charts. But I’m going to have to disagree about Sally/Anderson as lawful evil. They’re not evil, just assholes. Hi! re: Donovanderson: it is possible for individuals to have more then one alignment. It’s also possible for characters from different alignments to work together for a common goal.  If it helps, think of the scale as “altruism <—-> selfishness”, instead of “good <—-> evil”. In this case, evil simply represents those characters who focus more on themselves (often to the detriment of those around them).So, while Donovanderson’s CAREERS are definitely 100% Lawful Good, their personal CHARACTER is a little different. We know that because a Lawful Good character would never willingly cheat on a spouse. It would be completely anathema for them (and they’d likely confess afterwards, not keep doing it). Hopefully that clarifies why I put Donovanderson where they are? Hmm, it does, quite! Thanks for that. I do love Sherlock and Mycroft as the far ends of the sliding scale of law and chaos. XD I thought it worked well, yes. Both neutral, in that they’ll simply react as the situation necessitates, but they’re on opposite sides of the scale. Mycroft…follows the laws (even if he prolly makes them), whilst Sherlock…. doesn’t concern himself with trivialities like that. You could argue that Sherlock is ‘a force of nature’ and thus N-N, but I think John humanizes him and puts him back on the scale. As for Donovanderson, I quite like them. Sally, at least, is acting on her principles, and I can respect that. If she wasn’t schtupping Anderson, she’d be 100% Grade A Lawful Good… But where’s the fun in that!

greencarnations:

ohno-zombees:

greencarnations:

ohno-zombees:

Because Forensics does, eventually, get boring.

Here’s the definitions for those who are curious.

Oh man oh man oh man I love me some alignment charts. But I’m going to have to disagree about Sally/Anderson as lawful evil. They’re not evil, just assholes.

Hi!
re: Donovanderson: it is possible for individuals to have more then one alignment. It’s also possible for characters from different alignments to work together for a common goal.
 If it helps, think of the scale as “altruism <—-> selfishness”, instead of “good <—-> evil”. In this case, evil simply represents those characters who focus more on themselves (often to the detriment of those around them).
So, while Donovanderson’s CAREERS are definitely 100% Lawful Good, their personal CHARACTER is a little different. We know that because a Lawful Good character would never willingly cheat on a spouse. It would be completely anathema for them (and they’d likely confess afterwards, not keep doing it).

Hopefully that clarifies why I put Donovanderson where they are?

Hmm, it does, quite! Thanks for that. I do love Sherlock and Mycroft as the far ends of the sliding scale of law and chaos. XD

I thought it worked well, yes. Both neutral, in that they’ll simply react as the situation necessitates, but they’re on opposite sides of the scale.
Mycroft…follows the laws (even if he prolly makes them), whilst Sherlock…. doesn’t concern himself with trivialities like that.
You could argue that Sherlock is ‘a force of nature’ and thus N-N, but I think John humanizes him and puts him back on the scale.

As for Donovanderson, I quite like them. Sally, at least, is acting on her principles, and I can respect that. If she wasn’t schtupping Anderson, she’d be 100% Grade A Lawful Good…
But where’s the fun in that!