So we see a lot of different alignment threads and my shtick in life is all about perspective. It's hard to understand someone if you don't know how they think.
The premise of this thread is to take a popular character from media, and discuss their alignment and how it falls on the scale. We'll sit there, have some nuanced discussion on that and then we'll move on to a new character.
As much as I want to do Batman first based on a comment Yurei made in an alignment thread, I want to focus on a different detective: Sherlock Holmes as written by Arthur Conan Doyle. If I sit there and remember what I know about Sherlock, he definitely starts off as True Neutral with chaotic, but still good tendencies. I guess you can call all of this pre-hiatus/"death". Guy just does what he wants for the sake of an intellectual challenge, and while by and large he follows the laws? He only follows them when it suits him. His moral compass is specifically tied to his cases and he is willing to bend those morals to solve cases while mostly staying in the bounds of the law. As the cases go on, and definitely post death/hiatus you see a shift towards being more Lawful Good, but still being chaotic at points. Watson definitely tempers Holmes and he grows as a human and those alignment shifts happen, but sadly his DM doesn't follow RAW and impose any XP penalties since this all happened prior to 5th edition.
So let's talk Sherlock and alignment. We'll give it a few days or until the discussion dies down. At the end of your post, put in your vote for who you want to talk about next. Most votes wins, ties decided by me because its my thread.
I think you're spot on. Holmes has no problem with breaking the law and using outright deception in the service of his investigations when it suits him. He's not evil, but certainly not motivated by justice, and I think motivation matters more than results when it comes to alignment. On the lawful-chaotic axis, he strikes me as slightly more chaotic than lawful, but those terms are pretty vague to start with. Things get tricky with breaking the law, as a character (in my view) can break the law and still be considered lawful in D&D terms. Holmes doesn't undertake his investigation because of a code of ethics (he doesn't have a strong one), but because that's what satisfies his addictive tendencies.
I'd vote for Batman, but he's obviously LN. If I can think of a better character I'll update this post.
I think part of the reason that characters in the media rarely map cleanly to a given alignment is because characters are more interesting when they have conflicting motivations and values that result in inconsistent yet understandable behavior. What we might term as an "alignment shift," or an act that is outside the default alignment of the character can be a great dramatic moment (or just terrible writing depending on how well its handled), and a longer-term more gradual shift is often a part of a character's story arc.
This is why in the game, I try to use alignment as a touchstone but not an absolute determination of action. Conflict can (and should IMO) cause people to act outside their usual mindset if you want to portray a realistic, flawed individual.
I think one issue may be people may not have read the original Sherlock Holmes by ACD but have seen him portrayed in film, TV and or plays. I know when first reading your question I thought of quite a few different versions I have seen in film and TV and how different they have been.
I would say I would have to vote CN but tries to adhere to the law from most modern versions I have seen in film and TV but I do not remember his portrayal well enough in fiction to have an opinion.
Disclaimer: I have all the ACD books, but I haven't gotten round to reading them yet, so this is based on various films and shows rather than the original material.
I'm not sure where he fits. On the morality scale, he's not evil, but he has no qualms about doing dubious things to get to his goal, so I'd hesitate to call him good. He's not evil though, because Moriarty is his mirror, who is evil. That said, Holmes does generally work for the betterment of society, so perhaps lawful neutral, but he's quite happy to break the law, so not LN. That leaves Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral. Except, neither of those would give him any impetus to consistently help the police. He doesn't seem to be good, evil or neutral.
Perhaps a shortcoming of the alignment system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's been decades since I read any ACD, but I recall Holmes stating he'd kill a man for shooting Watson, had Watson not survived. Does that make him good? Or does that make him evil? You tell me (and your answer will tell me as much about you as about Holmes). Individual actions don't matter as much as trends, but murder is not exactly trivial and there not being a trend has as much to do with a lack of data points as anything else.
By the book, I'd put him somewhere between TN, NG and CG. None of those three as described by the PHB fit completely, but they're definitely the closest ones and any one of them could be justified.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Obedience to the law isn't really a good way to measure law/chaos as the actual law can be extremely variable. A better measure is by how much a character plans ahead and thinks about the consequences of their actions.
It's been a long time since I actually read any of the books, so I know my memories have been warped by other media, but most depictions I would say he's lawful neutral or just neutral. As for motivations, alignment isn't a motivator for a character, it's the result of their motivations.
Except, neither of those would give him any impetus to consistently help the police.
He generally doesn't though. For the most part Holmes took cases from private citizens which interested him for one reason or another
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm enjoying the discussion, but don't really have much to add about Sherlock.
I wanted to throw in a vote for Amos from the Expanse. IMO one of the most morally complicated and interesting characters I've seen.
I think it's fair to say that since only two people followed that "rule", he'll be next.
New character, new alignment.
Let's talk about Batman, and to be fair lets open it up to all forms of media. Be sure to talk about which form of media you're referencing BUT let's keep the new Batman movie out of this for spoilers sake.
Guy just does what he wants for the sake of an intellectual challenge, and while by and large he follows the laws? He only follows them when it suits him.
Which says to me Chaotic Neutral.
Holmes' main motivation for solving cases is avoiding boredom. When he doesn't have a case he avoids the boredom by taking drugs. He is selfish and inward-facing, with no care for those around him. Not surprising because to him all those around him, with a few exceptions, are his inferior in every way.
I think Batman would be lawful and then the other axis would be between neutral and good.
He operates outside societies laws but he has a strong code and works for justice.
Good or neutral? He's a champion of the people but he can be brutal. Maybe a lawful good vengeance paladin?
Batman isn't lawful to me by ANY stretch of the imagination. He's definitely good, and he isn't chaotic because EVERY single thing for Batman is about being measured and calculated.
He's Neutral Good, but holy moly does this have some huge swings based on the moment. Some notable things Batman has done:
Kidnapped Dick Grayson after the death of his parents, locked him in the bat cave and forced him to eat rats and bats
Tortured Penguin and broke his limbs
Launched Death Man into space, which caused him to repeatedly die over and over again
Locked KGBeast in the sewers and left him to die
Had sex with Barbara in the Batman Beyond comics, got her pregnant while she dating Dick Grayson and then later she miscarried in the streets while fighting crime
Tried to replace Robin, in front of him
Dick left, replaced him with Jason who died, then replaced him with Damien who died, replaced him with Tim who died.
I think Batman would be lawful and then the other axis would be between neutral and good.
He operates outside societies laws but he has a strong code and works for justice.
Good or neutral? He's a champion of the people but he can be brutal. Maybe a lawful good vengeance paladin?
Batman isn't lawful to me by ANY stretch of the imagination. He's definitely good, and he isn't chaotic because EVERY single thing for Batman is about being measured and calculated.
He's Neutral Good, but holy moly does this have some huge swings based on the moment. Some notable things Batman has done:
Kidnapped Dick Grayson after the death of his parents, locked him in the bat cave and forced him to eat rats and bats
Tortured Penguin and broke his limbs
Launched Death Man into space, which caused him to repeatedly die over and over again
Locked KGBeast in the sewers and left him to die
Had sex with Barbara in the Batman Beyond comics, got her pregnant while she dating Dick Grayson and then later she miscarried in the streets while fighting crime
Tried to replace Robin, in front of him
Dick left, replaced him with Jason who died, then replaced him with Damien who died, replaced him with Tim who died.
I'm just scratching the surface here.
You have way more comic knowledge than me, I'm just going by what I know from the movies. I think what you describe as measured and calculated I think of as lawful, I also think he has a strong sense of honor, trustworthiness and loyalty. But maybe neutral good is more fitting since he is willing to go against rules to do what needs to be done?
Edit: I'm kind of thinking those examples you gave speak more against Batman as good than lawful.
If we're going by every comic book he's ever been in, Batman's alignment is "whatever that particular writer needs for their story at the time"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I know i'm a bit late to the discussion and it's moved on to batman, but i wanted to weigh in on Sherlock Holmes. But first I wanted to define the relevant terms as i see them. Lawful doesn't refer to following the the governing law of the land- one could easily behave chaotically without ever breaking a law- it's more about having a code or set of beliefs that you follow consistently. Sherlock Holmes' single most defining characteristic, his dogmatic adherence to deductive reasoning and logic is a perfect example of "Lawful" and most examples of him breaking down and engaging in "Chaotic" behavior is when he doesn't have an outlet (an investigation or opportunity to solve/conclude an investigation)for his "Lawful" behavior.
As for morality, he's clearly neutral as he's not motivated by acting for the benefit or detriment of society/humanity but merely to fulfill his compulsive need to be challenged, deductively.
Batman, also is "Lawful" because his guiding principle is protecting(improving) Gotham City. While he may engage in unlawful (legally speaking, not alignment-wise) behavior or even endanger individual residents it's always for the intended benefit of Gotham City as a whole. I'm inclined to say that also makes him good, but one might reasonably argue his methods of doing so make him him neutral/evil and convince me to change my opinion.
If we're going by every comic book he's ever been in, Batman's alignment is "whatever that particular writer needs for their story at the time"
Sure, and I think that speaks to alignment shifting to a point. Batman being around for close to 100 years now, which is wild to say, but in the original comics he actively used guns and killed people, was wildly racist, has beaten and abused women, etc.
I think a good starting point for what Batman is to most people is either the films, really any of them or The Animated Series/Justice League/Justice League Unlimited/Batman Beyond.
When I think of alignment in general, I reference this a lot: http://easydamus.com/ - Gonna post the Lawful Good and Neutral Good pieces
Neutral Good
1. You shall lie only to evil-doers.
2. You shall not harm the innocent.
3. You shall not murder.
4. You shall help the needy.
5. You shall honor those who promote goodness.
6. You shall follow the law unless breaking the law results in more good.
7. You shall not betray others.
8. You shall bring evil-doers to justice.
9. You shall steal only to promote goodness.
10. You shall seek unlimited good for others.
Lawful Good:
1. You shall not lie.
2. You shall not harm the innocent.
3. You shall not murder.
4. You shall help the needy.
5. You shall honor legitimate authority that promotes goodness.
6. You shall follow the law.
7. You shall not betray others.
8. You shall bring criminals and evil-doers to justice.
9. You shall not steal.
10. You shall seek unlimited good for others and unlimited order in society.
So 4 of the 10 are exactly the same, and some of the others are pretty close. The big difference in them is people like Superman. Superman, for the most part is NOT a legitimate authority. Guy does what he wants and is just recognized as being this beacon of hope and goodness. Batman respects that and helps him. Same token, he helps Commissioner Gordon too, but then he goes out as a vigilante who isn't responsible to the law and beats the shit out of people. Superman doesn't go behind the streets for the most part and just beat up thugs. He saves people from something and puts the people in jail. Batman CANT exist like that, because of the nature of how he gets his stuff done.
The problem with applying D&D alignment axis to a character like Sherlock is a some assumption that all fictions exists in universes with comparable functions. D&D, with its alignments is roughly put a conflation of a manichean conflict between good and evil and the Michael Moorcock law and chaos conflict (which I'm pretty sure he got from somewhere else but I'm too lazy to get up and read the Gaiman forward I'm sure is in one of the volumes on my bookshelf). In D&D alignment, if you look at the definition of the word, is where a character stands amidst those intersecting conflicts.
In Doyle's Sherlock work ... I wouldn't even say so much Holmes doesn't care about these conflicts as much as I would say these elemental conflicts don't even exist. As a fictional entity descended from Poe's ratiocination tales, Holmes exists to play the game of solving a mystery. It's almost like saying which side of the chessboard has moral superiority. For Holmes the mystery is simply a game to be played and won. I mean you could sort of argue that Holmes was on the side of "civilization" and Moriarty, among his adversaries, the highest expression of civilization's "discontents" but Holmes was someone who relied on mind a lot more than heart or some sense of pathos. He's basically New York Times crossword guru Will Shortz the superhero version. I'm not saying Will Shortz is a bad man, but the New York Times puzzlemaster does not list upholding any sort of moral stance in his job description.
D&D Alignments, contrary to folks who think there's some sort of psychological truism to them (psst, there isn't this, is why the grid is never discussed seriously in actual psychology or even moral philosophy ... because what would be the point?) were broad brushes applied to a game of conflict to give those conflicts simple reasons for existing. The Appendix N stuff from which the alignments were arguable derived were not great testaments of psychological or moral realism, they in themselves were messy rationalizations of conflict, sometimes shifting or adapting from chapter to chapter (hi Moorcock!) so that there'd be some "reason" for what was otherwise mindless incessant violence. Even TSR was evolving past these simplicities in the modules they were putting out as far back as at least Dragonlance (maybe even Strahd ... I'm not the biggest fans of Hickman and Weiss, but they did bring a certain sense of psychological consistency in characterization you didn't really see prior to them) and definitely into Forgotten Realms and 2e.
I'd say even applying the 9 grid to Batman makes for a simplistic rationalization of Batman's violence that might have spoken to Batman prior to the 80s, but even then I have my doubts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
a manichean conflict between good and evil and the Michael Moorcock law and chaos conflict (which I'm pretty sure he got from somewhere else but I'm too lazy to get up and read the Gaiman forward I'm sure is in one of the volumes on my bookshelf).
Milton, I think?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
[...]But first I wanted to define the relevant terms as i see them. Lawful doesn't refer to following the the governing law of the land- one could easily behave chaotically without ever breaking a law- it's more about having a code or set of beliefs that you follow consistently[...]
I've got to point out that arguing the definition of lawful is pointless because WotC hasn't been consistent in its definition. Good and Neutral Lawful includes the law (implicitly by "do the right thing as expected by society" (as opposed to "by their personal code") in the case of the former and explicitly in the latter), and so it means to follow the laws of the land. Evil Lawful makes no reference to the law and talks about personal codes instead. As such, whether lawful refers to keeping personal codes or the law technically depends on your morality, but from a more reductionist standpoint (ie that lawful/chaotic should be defined independently of the other variable, morality) is actually not clearly defined. That's why we get so many arguments about alignment - it just isn't clear what is intended.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So we see a lot of different alignment threads and my shtick in life is all about perspective. It's hard to understand someone if you don't know how they think.
The premise of this thread is to take a popular character from media, and discuss their alignment and how it falls on the scale. We'll sit there, have some nuanced discussion on that and then we'll move on to a new character.
As much as I want to do Batman first based on a comment Yurei made in an alignment thread, I want to focus on a different detective: Sherlock Holmes as written by Arthur Conan Doyle. If I sit there and remember what I know about Sherlock, he definitely starts off as True Neutral with chaotic, but still good tendencies. I guess you can call all of this pre-hiatus/"death". Guy just does what he wants for the sake of an intellectual challenge, and while by and large he follows the laws? He only follows them when it suits him. His moral compass is specifically tied to his cases and he is willing to bend those morals to solve cases while mostly staying in the bounds of the law. As the cases go on, and definitely post death/hiatus you see a shift towards being more Lawful Good, but still being chaotic at points. Watson definitely tempers Holmes and he grows as a human and those alignment shifts happen, but sadly his DM doesn't follow RAW and impose any XP penalties since this all happened prior to 5th edition.
So let's talk Sherlock and alignment. We'll give it a few days or until the discussion dies down. At the end of your post, put in your vote for who you want to talk about next. Most votes wins, ties decided by me because its my thread.
I think you're spot on. Holmes has no problem with breaking the law and using outright deception in the service of his investigations when it suits him. He's not evil, but certainly not motivated by justice, and I think motivation matters more than results when it comes to alignment. On the lawful-chaotic axis, he strikes me as slightly more chaotic than lawful, but those terms are pretty vague to start with. Things get tricky with breaking the law, as a character (in my view) can break the law and still be considered lawful in D&D terms. Holmes doesn't undertake his investigation because of a code of ethics (he doesn't have a strong one), but because that's what satisfies his addictive tendencies.
I'd vote for Batman, but he's obviously LN. If I can think of a better character I'll update this post.
I think part of the reason that characters in the media rarely map cleanly to a given alignment is because characters are more interesting when they have conflicting motivations and values that result in inconsistent yet understandable behavior. What we might term as an "alignment shift," or an act that is outside the default alignment of the character can be a great dramatic moment (or just terrible writing depending on how well its handled), and a longer-term more gradual shift is often a part of a character's story arc.
This is why in the game, I try to use alignment as a touchstone but not an absolute determination of action. Conflict can (and should IMO) cause people to act outside their usual mindset if you want to portray a realistic, flawed individual.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think one issue may be people may not have read the original Sherlock Holmes by ACD but have seen him portrayed in film, TV and or plays. I know when first reading your question I thought of quite a few different versions I have seen in film and TV and how different they have been.
I would say I would have to vote CN but tries to adhere to the law from most modern versions I have seen in film and TV but I do not remember his portrayal well enough in fiction to have an opinion.
Disclaimer: I have all the ACD books, but I haven't gotten round to reading them yet, so this is based on various films and shows rather than the original material.
I'm not sure where he fits. On the morality scale, he's not evil, but he has no qualms about doing dubious things to get to his goal, so I'd hesitate to call him good. He's not evil though, because Moriarty is his mirror, who is evil. That said, Holmes does generally work for the betterment of society, so perhaps lawful neutral, but he's quite happy to break the law, so not LN. That leaves Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral. Except, neither of those would give him any impetus to consistently help the police. He doesn't seem to be good, evil or neutral.
Perhaps a shortcoming of the alignment system.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's been decades since I read any ACD, but I recall Holmes stating he'd kill a man for shooting Watson, had Watson not survived. Does that make him good? Or does that make him evil? You tell me (and your answer will tell me as much about you as about Holmes). Individual actions don't matter as much as trends, but murder is not exactly trivial and there not being a trend has as much to do with a lack of data points as anything else.
By the book, I'd put him somewhere between TN, NG and CG. None of those three as described by the PHB fit completely, but they're definitely the closest ones and any one of them could be justified.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Obedience to the law isn't really a good way to measure law/chaos as the actual law can be extremely variable. A better measure is by how much a character plans ahead and thinks about the consequences of their actions.
It's been a long time since I actually read any of the books, so I know my memories have been warped by other media, but most depictions I would say he's lawful neutral or just neutral. As for motivations, alignment isn't a motivator for a character, it's the result of their motivations.
I'm enjoying the discussion, but don't really have much to add about Sherlock.
I wanted to throw in a vote for Amos from the Expanse. IMO one of the most morally complicated and interesting characters I've seen.
He generally doesn't though. For the most part Holmes took cases from private citizens which interested him for one reason or another
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think it's fair to say that since only two people followed that "rule", he'll be next.
New character, new alignment.
Let's talk about Batman, and to be fair lets open it up to all forms of media. Be sure to talk about which form of media you're referencing BUT let's keep the new Batman movie out of this for spoilers sake.
I think Batman would be lawful and then the other axis would be between neutral and good.
He operates outside societies laws but he has a strong code and works for justice.
Good or neutral? He's a champion of the people but he can be brutal. Maybe a lawful good vengeance paladin?
Which says to me Chaotic Neutral.
Holmes' main motivation for solving cases is avoiding boredom. When he doesn't have a case he avoids the boredom by taking drugs. He is selfish and inward-facing, with no care for those around him. Not surprising because to him all those around him, with a few exceptions, are his inferior in every way.
Batman isn't lawful to me by ANY stretch of the imagination. He's definitely good, and he isn't chaotic because EVERY single thing for Batman is about being measured and calculated.
He's Neutral Good, but holy moly does this have some huge swings based on the moment. Some notable things Batman has done:
I'm just scratching the surface here.
You have way more comic knowledge than me, I'm just going by what I know from the movies. I think what you describe as measured and calculated I think of as lawful, I also think he has a strong sense of honor, trustworthiness and loyalty. But maybe neutral good is more fitting since he is willing to go against rules to do what needs to be done?
Edit: I'm kind of thinking those examples you gave speak more against Batman as good than lawful.
If we're going by every comic book he's ever been in, Batman's alignment is "whatever that particular writer needs for their story at the time"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I know i'm a bit late to the discussion and it's moved on to batman, but i wanted to weigh in on Sherlock Holmes. But first I wanted to define the relevant terms as i see them. Lawful doesn't refer to following the the governing law of the land- one could easily behave chaotically without ever breaking a law- it's more about having a code or set of beliefs that you follow consistently. Sherlock Holmes' single most defining characteristic, his dogmatic adherence to deductive reasoning and logic is a perfect example of "Lawful" and most examples of him breaking down and engaging in "Chaotic" behavior is when he doesn't have an outlet (an investigation or opportunity to solve/conclude an investigation)for his "Lawful" behavior.
As for morality, he's clearly neutral as he's not motivated by acting for the benefit or detriment of society/humanity but merely to fulfill his compulsive need to be challenged, deductively.
Batman, also is "Lawful" because his guiding principle is protecting(improving) Gotham City. While he may engage in unlawful (legally speaking, not alignment-wise) behavior or even endanger individual residents it's always for the intended benefit of Gotham City as a whole. I'm inclined to say that also makes him good, but one might reasonably argue his methods of doing so make him him neutral/evil and convince me to change my opinion.
Sure, and I think that speaks to alignment shifting to a point. Batman being around for close to 100 years now, which is wild to say, but in the original comics he actively used guns and killed people, was wildly racist, has beaten and abused women, etc.
I think a good starting point for what Batman is to most people is either the films, really any of them or The Animated Series/Justice League/Justice League Unlimited/Batman Beyond.
When I think of alignment in general, I reference this a lot: http://easydamus.com/ - Gonna post the Lawful Good and Neutral Good pieces
So 4 of the 10 are exactly the same, and some of the others are pretty close. The big difference in them is people like Superman. Superman, for the most part is NOT a legitimate authority. Guy does what he wants and is just recognized as being this beacon of hope and goodness. Batman respects that and helps him. Same token, he helps Commissioner Gordon too, but then he goes out as a vigilante who isn't responsible to the law and beats the shit out of people. Superman doesn't go behind the streets for the most part and just beat up thugs. He saves people from something and puts the people in jail. Batman CANT exist like that, because of the nature of how he gets his stuff done.
The problem with applying D&D alignment axis to a character like Sherlock is a some assumption that all fictions exists in universes with comparable functions. D&D, with its alignments is roughly put a conflation of a manichean conflict between good and evil and the Michael Moorcock law and chaos conflict (which I'm pretty sure he got from somewhere else but I'm too lazy to get up and read the Gaiman forward I'm sure is in one of the volumes on my bookshelf). In D&D alignment, if you look at the definition of the word, is where a character stands amidst those intersecting conflicts.
In Doyle's Sherlock work ... I wouldn't even say so much Holmes doesn't care about these conflicts as much as I would say these elemental conflicts don't even exist. As a fictional entity descended from Poe's ratiocination tales, Holmes exists to play the game of solving a mystery. It's almost like saying which side of the chessboard has moral superiority. For Holmes the mystery is simply a game to be played and won. I mean you could sort of argue that Holmes was on the side of "civilization" and Moriarty, among his adversaries, the highest expression of civilization's "discontents" but Holmes was someone who relied on mind a lot more than heart or some sense of pathos. He's basically New York Times crossword guru Will Shortz the superhero version. I'm not saying Will Shortz is a bad man, but the New York Times puzzlemaster does not list upholding any sort of moral stance in his job description.
D&D Alignments, contrary to folks who think there's some sort of psychological truism to them (psst, there isn't this, is why the grid is never discussed seriously in actual psychology or even moral philosophy ... because what would be the point?) were broad brushes applied to a game of conflict to give those conflicts simple reasons for existing. The Appendix N stuff from which the alignments were arguable derived were not great testaments of psychological or moral realism, they in themselves were messy rationalizations of conflict, sometimes shifting or adapting from chapter to chapter (hi Moorcock!) so that there'd be some "reason" for what was otherwise mindless incessant violence. Even TSR was evolving past these simplicities in the modules they were putting out as far back as at least Dragonlance (maybe even Strahd ... I'm not the biggest fans of Hickman and Weiss, but they did bring a certain sense of psychological consistency in characterization you didn't really see prior to them) and definitely into Forgotten Realms and 2e.
I'd say even applying the 9 grid to Batman makes for a simplistic rationalization of Batman's violence that might have spoken to Batman prior to the 80s, but even then I have my doubts.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Milton, I think?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I've got to point out that arguing the definition of lawful is pointless because WotC hasn't been consistent in its definition. Good and Neutral Lawful includes the law (implicitly by "do the right thing as expected by society" (as opposed to "by their personal code") in the case of the former and explicitly in the latter), and so it means to follow the laws of the land. Evil Lawful makes no reference to the law and talks about personal codes instead. As such, whether lawful refers to keeping personal codes or the law technically depends on your morality, but from a more reductionist standpoint (ie that lawful/chaotic should be defined independently of the other variable, morality) is actually not clearly defined. That's why we get so many arguments about alignment - it just isn't clear what is intended.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.