What is Sherlock Holmes' Alignment?

[NecessaryWeevil]

Hi Playground,

I'm building a Kalashtar Mystic and I'm thinking maybe he's a private investigator in Sharn. I know Kalashtar tend towards LG and I'm not opposed to that but also considering NG...in order to assist me in choosing I'm wondering about Sherlock Holmes' alignment. I'm pretty sure he's Good, but would you say he's Lawful or Neutral? I mean, he catches criminals, but he sometimes doesn't hand them over to the cops if he thinks their crimes were justified.

Opinions? (Only those that have read several original Holmes stories please)

[Particle_Man]

I would say lawful good but not a paladin. He is a great believer in his methods. He has his routines and habits. He has a functional relationship with the police (and the government) and frequently helps them in their cases.

[Falcon X]

I would definitely say Lawful. He believes that rules and orders and hierarchies should exist, whether he follows them very well or not.
Either Good or Neutral on the other side.

Of course, he isn’t exactly exemplary of any alignment. A soft LN would be my choice.

[Dark Schneider]

Lawful Neutral, as his main motivation is to satisfy his own interest over the helping others itself.

[Maan]

I'd say Lawful Good.
He firmly belivies that laws and social structure are for the greater good of everyone, but he more than once disregards laws when he thinks it's necessary to halt a criminal or when he thinks the culprit had sincerily good intentions.
He's also a researcher, but his metods and results are made avalaible to anyone; he respects authority enough that he lets them take credit for the cases he solves.

I think the times he goes against the letter of the law are just exceptions but he can be seen as consistently Lawful. And while he appears to be cold or distand emotionally he's actually capable of being very empathic and he cares for the greater good of honest citizens.
His less endearing traits are just part of his personality, but all in all I'd say Lawful Good his the closest alignment to his persona.

[holywhippet]

I'd say neutral good. There was one case, the adventure of the blue carbuncle, where he allowed the criminal to go free after reasoning that he'd never commit another crime again due to how scared he was of getting caught. He has also taken illegal drugs when bored, misled people (including the police) and committed breaking and entering when he feels such an action to be justitfied.

[Malifice]

Depends on the portryal/ depiction.

He avoids killing and harming others (unless in absolute self defense) and goes out of his way to help other people, so I would say 'Good' on the morality scale.

He's also prepared to both bend rules, and occasionally break them, while working within the law when he can. He's not overly honorable (without being a cad), and family and tradition he's kind of neutral about also. A notable eccentric, he dabbled in many illegal drugs (from cocaine to heroin), and despite a rational and logic mind, quite often his own personal life was rather messy and unstructured.

Id say he's not strongly committed to either Law or Chaos.

Probably NG.

[Aelyn]

I'd say neutral good. There was one case, the adventure of the blue carbuncle, where he allowed the criminal to go free after reasoning that he'd never commit another crime again due to how scared he was of getting caught. He has also taken illegal drugs when bored, misled people (including the police) and committed breaking and entering when he feels such an action to be justitfied.
In fairness, when the stories were written, cocaine wasn't illegal - it was seen as uncouth if used in excess (and Dr Watson wasn't shy about showing his disapproval), but it wasn't exactly scandalous.

I'd say he's definitely Good and tends towards Lawful. While he has committed illegal acts and even lied to the police at times, that was generally either because he valued Good greater than Law, or because the police were unable to bring someone to justice due to a technicality.

He did however have a mischevious bent, which meant that in some stories he looked somewhat Chaotic - but it was either in relatively low-stakes situations where he could let loose, or done in the overall pursuit of justice. When things mattered, he had a fierce moral core and belief in the principles of law.

[Chronos]

I'd say that he's more Good than Lawful, but still overall Lawful Good. He does what he thinks is best for society, which is Good, but usually (not always, but usually) thinks that what's best is orderly adherence to and enforcement of the law.

[AureusFulgens]

Having actually written an essay about the difference between Doyle's Holmes and BBC's Sherlock for an essay a while ago, I think it really is going to depend on the adaptation. Those are the only two that I am really qualified to comment on, so I'll do my best here. "Holmes" will refer to the literary detective written by Arthur Conan Doyle, and "Sherlock" will refer to the television detective in the series of the same name from the BBC.

Holmes is portrayed in most of the Doyle stories that I've read as taking a very personal interest in his clients. "The Speckled Band," for example, has him rather concerned about the young lady who comes to him for protection from her father, and in contrast disgusted with said father. And "The Final Problem" makes it abundantly clear that the reason he's going after Professor Moriarty is because Moriarty is a menace. He repeatedly reflects on the fact that he will culminate his career by taking a horrible criminal off the streets - he's impressed with Moriarty, but ultimately his focus is on his dastardly deeds. A concern for the welfare of other people which is put into practice, a consistent alignment with the forces of law (despite occasional Chaotic tendencies) makes him a fairly Roy Greenhilt-style Lawful Good.

"I could not sit quiet in my chair, if I thought that such a man as Professor Moriarty were walking the streets of London unchallenged."
- Holmes

Sherlock is a VERY different animal. He shows almost no empathy whatsoever, at least in the first couple of seasons (there seem to be token efforts later on at making him seem nobler, but season 4 is trash anyway, so I'll focus on seasons 1-2). He berates a woman until she's reduced to tears as part of an effort to confirm her reliability as a witness, grins and chuckles when he realizes children are being poisoned to death in a clever way, risks letting the murderer in the very first episode run free because he's curious if his little mind-games actually work... And of course Moriarty. Sherlock and Moriarty's mutual interest is entirely a matter of fascination with each other's intellect. And Sherlock isn't worried about Moriarty walking free and doing bad things, he's concerned about Moriarty ruining his reputation, or making him lose. Sherlock does consistently show concern for his few friends (Dr. Watson, Mrs. Hudson, Inspector Lestrade), but that by itself is a matter that's orthogonal to alignment in my mind. So: apathy toward the well-being of others, without a willingness to do serious harm himself; no particular commitment to Law or Chaos demonstrated, though he tends to work for the Law... a solid Lawful-ish True Neutral. (I'm tempted to even label him Evil-ish, given the sheer force of his apathy, but I'm not sure the evidence is there.)

"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them."
- Sherlock

[Max_Killjoy]

Having actually written an essay about the difference between Doyle's Holmes and BBC's Sherlock for an essay a while ago, I think it really is going to depend on the adaptation. Those are the only two that I am really qualified to comment on, so I'll do my best here. "Holmes" will refer to the literary detective written by Arthur Conan Doyle, and "Sherlock" will refer to the television detective in the series of the same name from the BBC.

Holmes is portrayed in most of the Doyle stories that I've read as taking a very personal interest in his clients. "The Speckled Band," for example, has him rather concerned about the young lady who comes to him for protection from her father, and in contrast disgusted with said father. And "The Final Problem" makes it abundantly clear that the reason he's going after Professor Moriarty is because Moriarty is a menace. He repeatedly reflects on the fact that he will culminate his career by taking a horrible criminal off the streets - he's impressed with Moriarty, but ultimately his focus is on his dastardly deeds. A concern for the welfare of other people which is put into practice, a consistent alignment with the forces of law (despite occasional Chaotic tendencies) makes him a fairly Roy Greenhilt-style Lawful Good.

"I could not sit quiet in my chair, if I thought that such a man as Professor Moriarty were walking the streets of London unchallenged."
- Holmes

Sherlock is a VERY different animal. He shows almost no empathy whatsoever, at least in the first couple of seasons (there seem to be token efforts later on at making him seem nobler, but season 4 is trash anyway, so I'll focus on seasons 1-2). He berates a woman until she's reduced to tears as part of an effort to confirm her reliability as a witness, grins and chuckles when he realizes children are being poisoned to death in a clever way, risks letting the murderer in the very first episode run free because he's curious if his little mind-games actually work... And of course Moriarty. Sherlock and Moriarty's mutual interest is entirely a matter of fascination with each other's intellect. And Sherlock isn't worried about Moriarty walking free and doing bad things, he's concerned about Moriarty ruining his reputation, or making him lose. Sherlock does consistently show concern for his few friends (Dr. Watson, Mrs. Hudson, Inspector Lestrade), but that by itself is a matter that's orthogonal to alignment in my mind. So: apathy toward the well-being of others, without a willingness to do serious harm himself; no particular commitment to Law or Chaos demonstrated, though he tends to work for the Law... a solid Lawful-ish True Neutral. (I'm tempted to even label him Evil-ish, given the sheer force of his apathy, but I'm not sure the evidence is there.)

"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them."
- Sherlock

Yeah. I'd say Holmes is on the NG side of LG, and Sherlock is Neutral (but absolutely not of the philosophical "balance" sort that rarely makes sense).

[Temperjoke]

RDJ's Sherlock is someone I would put in the Chaotic Good camp. He regularly flouts the law and authority in his investigation of crime (breaking and entering, hiding/stealing evidence) in the name of the greater good. I'd say he's still good because there is clear signs of a personal code that he doesn't violate: he doesn't kill any of his opponents for example (he uses martial arts to disable them but doesn't actually directly kill them), except for Moriarty in the end (because it was clear to him to be the only way to stop Moriarty).

[NecessaryWeevil]

Thanks all!

I'm quite looking forward to my Sharn Inquisitive, driven to cynicism and disdain for the holidays by the tragic death of his partner Marley, until he is visited by three Kalashtar and shown the true meaning of the holiday season.

[AureusFulgens]

Thanks all!

I'm quite looking forward to my Sharn Inquisitive, driven to cynicism and disdain for the holidays by the tragic death of his partner Marley, until he is visited by three Kalashtar and shown the true meaning of the holiday season.

... this makes me happy on a number of levels.


Yeah. I'd say Holmes is on the NG side of LG, and Sherlock is Neutral (but absolutely not of the philosophical "balance" sort that rarely makes sense).

The balance thing is a whole 'nother animal, and if anything it's rather Lawful (if it weren't for the fact that in the D&D'verse Law is one of the forces to be kept in balance... and yes, now my head hurts). Mordenkainen as portrayed in the recent Tome of Foes does a decent job of articulating what Balance might involve if it were actually semi-coherent, and of pointing out its flaws, but that still isn't a great example of what True Neutrality generally means, which comes back to the underlying difficulties involved in the alignment system and in any attempts to use it to describe other works that do not use a cosmology that is based on it, and if I keep talking we're probably going to wind up in an entire different discussion that has nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes, so I'm going to stop now.

[JakOfAllTirades]

The version of Sherlock Holmes I'm most familiar with is the one on Netflix, in which Smaug Benedict Cumberbatch plays Holmes, and Bilbo Martin Freeman plays Watson. In that series, Sherlock is anything but Lawful... he's Neutral or Chaotic. I'm not even sure if his motivations are Good; he seems motivated as much by boredom as any desire to help people. It's a rather different take on the character.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'd say it's about the same as Batman's.

[Galithar]

Sherlock Holmes is certainly not a lawful person. Good is questionable frequently as well. I would put him as a Chaotic Neutral leaning Chaotic Good. Now he's not the kind of Chaotic that will kill or torture to get a job done, he just doesn't care at all about law, only about solving mysteries. He would frequently bend or break laws in order to accomplish his goals, which is in my mind the definition of a chaotic character.

He revels in baffling the police which goes against, very strongly I might add, a lawful alignment. does his work for a combination of the money (original writings: "My professional charges are upon a fixed scale. I do not vary them, save when I remit them altogether") and to sate his own interests. He almost always charged clients, but also refused those that would pay, even those paying excessively, if their cases did not interest him. He often dabbled with addictive drugs, though they were legal in the setting so this is less indicative of alignment and moreso of personality.

[Rusvul]

In my view, he's Lawful--in most of his incarnations, he clearly believes in laws, he just also thinks that sometimes they need to be broken. Whether you categorize him as Neutral or Good ("I must solve crimes for my ego" or "I must solve crimes to keep the people safe"), his egotism or his altruism (respectively) is more important to him than his belief in rule of law. The rules do matter to him, but they're not the most important thing.

[da_chicken]

Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes is LG with LN tendencies, but he's also flawed as his deep depressions and cocaine binges suggest. Simply put, the character's overriding focus on logical thinking pretty much precludes anything other than lawful.

BBC's Sherlock as portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch is LN at best and probably just TN. He's not nearly as interesting a character, which is why the series' drama (and melodrama) replaces characterization and plot as the driving elements.

[Spamotron]

Holmes evolved over the course of Doyle's stories. He started out colder and more interested in mysteries as an intellectual challenge rather than doing the right thing, but gradually became more emphatic and moral. My take is that he started out as LN or even TN but shifted to LG over time mostly due to his developing friendship with Watson.

[da_chicken]

Holmes evolved over the course of Doyle's stories. He started out colder and more interested in mysteries as an intellectual challenge rather than doing the right thing, but gradually became more emphatic and moral. My take is that he started out as LN or even TN but shifted to LG over time mostly due to his developing friendship with Watson.

I'd buy that. Watson was definitely a moral compass and a lens for Holmes.

[Maan]

I'd buy that. Watson was definitely a moral compass and a lens for Holmes.

...or mirror, I'd say.
Holmes was very clear (to the point of being mean) that he didn't consider Watson an equal in terms of his intellect; yet he deeply valued his friendship, his morals, his character and often thanked him for the insight he provided on himself.

[Toofey]

Going by the written portrayal I would actually say that he's chaotic good, he wants to see good done, and he solves crimes because he likes it, and he's clearly good. But he's not actually all that intersted in laws, doesn't go out of his way to turn criminals who aren't murdering/blackmailing etc... and harming people, doesn't want to be police because he doesn't want to take orders, doesn't want to help the government because he doesn't want to take orders and doesn't get on with his brother. Ends up helping both because he likes to help though...

I say CG.

[the_brazenburn]

I would say that the “book” Sherlock is LG, and the “television” Sherlock is CN.

On my phone now, so I can’t provide much evidence at the moment, but ask if you have questions and I’ll answer them later.

[Arkhios]

I would say that the “book” Sherlock is LG, and the “television” Sherlock is CN.

On my phone now, so I can’t provide much evidence at the moment, but ask if you have questions and I’ll answer them later.

I can agree with this sentiment. The most recent depictions of Holmes (by Benedict Cumberbatch and Robert Downey Jr.) have painted a picture of a misunderstood genius with an erratic but selectively benevolent behaviour. At other times, he's merely indifferent.

I'd say Chaotic Good or even Chaotic Neutral are fairly accurate.

Watson is, in most cases, Sherlock's morale compass, steering him back on the right path, and I'd say he is Lawful Good or at the very least Lawful Neutral.

Because Holmes and Watson are often inseparable from each other, it would make sense to weigh their alignments' against each other to figure out a single character's alignment.

An "average" between LG/LN and CG/CN would be Neutral Good or True Neutral.

[GreyBlack]

My 2 CP. Remember: Law does not mean "doesn't break laws", it means "believes that laws and society are the best way to organize society."

Given this, Doyle's Holmes clearly believes that laws are the best way to organize society. Sure, he might flout social convention (cocaine) but he tries to bring down people who are actively disrupting the fabric of society. That said, lawful characters can still break the law if a greater threat would be averted; alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Given this, his adventures normally also cast him in the role of helping people. He isn't necessarily out for his own personal gain, and really does seem to care about the greater good. He normally has a strong moral center and believes in others as ends more than means. Ergo, Good.

Adaptation tends to blend Holmes with the amoral intelligent jerk archetype, which doesn't fully reflect the character set forth in the original texts. This is perhaps most apparent with House M.D., whom I would argue is Chaotic Good at best, and even then tending towards Chaotic Neutral. Which speaks to me of social biases towards persons of intellect being amoral jerks as opposed to previous societal biases, but that's a discussion for another time.

[5crownik007]

As many people have said, Neutral Good.
The argument for his law-chaos axis appears to be far more complex than his good-evil axis, so let's give it a crack.

He's not averse to bending legal procedure in order to find what he needs to investigate. But he's a very logical, goal-oriented and focused person. He doesn't break rules that are necessarily in place and he acts in service to the law. Neutral on the law-chaos axis.

He works to catch criminals and wrongdoers and bring them to justice. Good on the good-evil axis.

[Zonugal]

I see a lot of people talking about the book version of Sherlock Holmes, the BBC's Sherlock Holmes, & even Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes.

But what about Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock Holmes from CBS' Elementary?

[5crownik007]

I see a lot of people talking about the book version of Sherlock Holmes, the BBC's Sherlock Holmes, & even Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes.

But what about Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock Holmes from CBS' Elementary?

For some reason I encounter a lot of people who dislike CBS' Elementary, but personally I'm a fan. In terms of alignment, he's definitely Neutral Good, although an argument could be made for Chaotic Good. However, the same argument I made above applies here. He works to uphold the law, but bends the rules occasionally to achieve his goals. The Law isn't his ultimate authority. Combine that with the fact he's sometimes prone to outbursts of chaotic emotion that govern his actions, and you've got a solid case for Neutral Good.

[guachi]

Many of the other pre-Sherlock portrayals have Holmes as a whodunnit solver and, imo, clearly Lawful Good. I've got the entire Jeremy Brett run from the '80s and I can't think of one episode where I wouldn't call Holmes LG. I've seen a silent film version and a number of the Basil Rathbone movies. My hazy recollection places Holmes as LN of LG in those stories.