It's a fascinating moral dilemma -- one of many throughout the game -- and it's this kind of nuance that makes Dragon Age: Origins such a great RPG.

I oppose it for the same reason that I oppose polling: you present people with a dichotomy and say choose, but dichotomies are human constructs that only have relevance in contolled environments. Their function is to control how and what people think, the goal being a perfect state of "unthinking".

"Necessary evil" is a logical fallacy because that which is truly necessary is *not* an evil. I defy anyone here to come up with an evil that is truly necessary. You won't do it, because evil relates exclusively to satisfying one's desires, and unlike needs, desires are not necessities.

This does make for an interesting discussion. I disagree with your objection to polling, because you ascribe malice and the motive of controlling the polled to it - which can be true, but you assume it in all cases. Polling can be a legitimate attempt to obtain feedback on the opinion of a group around a certain decision - yes, it is necessarily imperfect, but the fact we can't do something perfectly is a very weak argument against doing it at all. And it certainly isn't evidence for sinister motivation, that's coming from somewhere else. Example: I've been polled on whether or not my city should make a bid to host the Olympics. Those commissioning the poll have to make a yes or no decision on whether to proceed. Of course there are a myriad of other things they could be working on, but this is the particular decision currently in question. Ideally (assuming one wants a democratic decision), they would gather a subtle, complete picture of every citizen's complete views on the subject, and apply that to the decision-making process. In reality that is impossible, and not because of artificially-induced limitations, but because of real ones.

I'll take a stab at the "necessary evil", though I see you have already defined it into impossibility by claiming the truly necessary is therefore not evil. But here, anyway... I'm curious to see if you consider survival a necessity, or a desire: two people trapped in some isolated situation (deserted island, whatever) with no independent means of escape. Rescue is possible but unpredictable. Water is available, but food is not. We have waited to the point where death by starvation is imminent. I have a knife, and can kill and eat my companion to prolong my survival, somewhat shortening his - he refuses to sacrifice himself voluntarily. If I do not kill him, we will most likely both die with a day or two - and before the end I will become too weak to kill him. If I do kill him, I can last... let's say three more weeks. Is killing him not a necessary evil?

For a complex variant, I have my young daughter with me as well. She is weaker - I could sacrifice myself, but I know that when starvation strikes again, if it does, he will kill her. Or I could kill him now, feed the two of us for a time, and sacrifice myself when necessary..

If your argument that my preference for my own survival (or my daughter's) over a stranger's is merely "desire" and not "necessity", then you have defined necessity into meaninglessness. If you claim that killing the stranger for food is not evil... then I think you're working with an idiosyncratic definition of evil. But sure, then using your definitions, of course there's no such thing as necessary evil, that position would be tautological. It just has no relation to how most people use the term.

That's an existential generalization, meaning there are exceptions, but I think they are few and far between because public relations is inherently elitist, and those who fancy themselves to be elite are almost always the worst sorts of people.

As for the specific example you raise, if the people being polled do not understand what hosting the Olympics entails, how can such a poll be in the public's interest? Is it impossible for them to have such an understanding? Not at all, so I think you have failed to make your point, but perhaps I am missing something.

This is very straightforward to me: you are a victim of circumstance, not this hypothetical other person, so you cannot honestly say that he/she is trying to deprive you of your life and invoke the right of self-defense. If you kill him/her it will be murder, and you will have degraded yourself, and I do not see that a hypothetical daughter would change that equation except to up the emotional ante.

For the earlier, polling comment... no, on second thought I won't continue that line, since your out-of-left-field elitest=worst comment makes me think common ground there is impossible, perhaps undesirable.


For the starving cannibalism, Note I was clearly not arguing the act wouldn't be evil - I'm arguing that it certainly is evil. It absolutely debases me... but it's still the necessary choice. You asked for an example of "necessary evil", so claiming my act would be evil is hardly an argument!

And you're right, it is straightforward: you apparently don't consider survival "necessary" - otherwise by your definition the act could not be evil (as Duncan's would not be) by your earlier "necessary is not evil" claim.

The daughter's addition was to add an obligation to defend a child into the mix. In the first scenario I could have chosen to sacrifice myself so the other could live, it's my life to give.... this eliminates a utilitarian argument for murdering my companion. In the second, if I sacrifice myself now, the next to be eaten will be my daughter... whereas if I kill the other man and later sacrifice myself, she will have the longest life possible in the circumstances, including the best chance of rescue. Most people would argue I have a duty to protect her, though there will be disagreement on how far I should go to do it. So the murder arguably remains evil, but necessary in the circumstances. But since you don't consider saving one's own life "necessary", I'm guessing you also don't consider saving one's young child necessary either.

As I suggested in the first place: your definition of "necessary" is not that generally meant when people use the term "necessary evil". You're not using the same language as your opponents.... clearly others on this thread have argued that saving the world from the Blight is "necessary". I consider saving my hypothetical daughter's life necessary - necessary enough that I would commit an evil act to that end. A necessary evil by our mutual position on "evil" and on my pretty common definition of "necessary".. Ha! A populist definition even - as opposed to your elitist one?

How is elitism any less vile than racism?

Common usage doesn't equate to proper useage.

So, necessity, or desire? Air, water, food and shelter are needs, as are the secondary needs, but I have never seen it asserted that a person must have a set span of years in which to live. I think most people understand that that is a variable, so how do you arrive at the conclusion that for you or your hypothetical daughter, it is in fact a need, rather than a desire?

In human society, people are *not* entitled to survive at any cost, period. You are entitled to defend yourself, or others, and that's it.

I'm reminded of the famous quote that governments are a necessary evil at best, and at worst, an intolerable one.

What exactly makes an "evil" government evil?

Taxes.

Taxes aren't necessarily evil.

So, what makes governments, and taxes, evil?

Morrigan's dark ritual is supposed to be a big deal in DAO however it was dropped as a plot point in subsequent games. Which is a huge disappointment. It was clearly building to that being a major plot element in a sequel to DAO we never got.

That is an easy one, the Atomic Bomb. The alternative was unimaginable carnage because the Japanese had no intention of surrendering otherwise. Think Okinawa x20 or larger.

The moral «grayness» of the game is one of the things that makes it so good IMHO.

Duncan's killing of ser Jory didn't bother me much. I guess I knew where that was going somehow.

But the part where you have to choose a Dwarven lord to support for kingship, now that was tougher at the time ;)