Quote:
Originally Posted by WeepingWillow23
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* |
It is dungeons and dragons...this is part of character development...they use it in a lot of video games too....it's certainly not scientifically validated in any way. 33 percent is actually the cut off while you are technically lawful it's just barely a lot of what you think is neutral just like for me I'm barely good a lot of what I think is neutral ie if you help me I'll help you vs here let me help you with no expectations...
Also it's not about doing bad things for you since you're good but it's more about not being able to break the law to do good things. If you had to drive a friend to the hospital in an emergency you would theoretically have trouble running red lights even if the traffic were clear....others would just say f it and I don't want my friend to die we're speeding and running lights.