Quote:
Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic
You are the first lawful one here....my thoughts on the voices is that if you recognize the voice as an authority in some way you might respond in a typical lawful way...let's say your voice is the prime minister and he tells you to do something even if it's just to eat a doughnut are you more likely to listen than I would be if the voice of Obama told me to do something? I don't know if it's true or not just a thought...so because you're motivated by good it would have to be something with a net positive outcome. Alternately would you be less inclined to believe the voices and instead rely on the laws of this world as you have particular respect for them above your own laws? I don't know it was all just fodder for conversation....
|
Well lawful was only 33.3%, idk what the cut off was but it doesn't seem that high. Also I don't think the Qs differentiated between morals and laws. I can't really think of an example, but I wouldn't do something that morally I disagreed with even if it was legal, but a lot of things that I'm morally against do happen to be illegal.
I wouldn't do anything a David Cameron voice told me to do, even something like 'eat a doughnut', just because he is prime minister, same as I ignored all the other stupid things the voices told me to do. I'm my own person. I don't do what voices say, or laws say, unless I agree with them.
Also what does 'D and D style' mean? All I can think of is Dungeons and Dragons, which shows that I watch too much Big Bang Theory!
*Willow*