The Problem with Being Ruthless

When the writers have the antagonist just sit on their ass while we take our time working to defeat them, that's just bad writing. When no one sees a totally benevolent PC as a naive schmuck and back stabs them for their own greed and/or prejudices, that's bad writing. When no one abandons us because they are simply too cynical, fearful, or broken to believe in the better future we propose, that's bad writing. When the ones who do have faith don't suffer heavy losses due to the enemies' superior numbers, resources and experience, that's bad writing. When the writers decide to completely ignore complex and strong personalities, centuries of ingrained cultural attitudes. logic, basic human nature and the tone and history of the franchise, all in the name of wish fulfillment and player entitlement, that is objectively bad writing.

It's one thing to talk about the validity of "evil" PCs, but more often than not, ruthless decisions can just as easily be attributed to pragmatism and desperation. Within the context of the story, our characters do not have the luxury of multiple save states or looking up the wiki. Do you take the "moral" option that feels good, but risks everyone in that it might not work? Or do you take the ruthless option that, while grim and bloody, you know for a fact will work? Sometimes there are no Happy Third Option, only the lesser of two evils.

Not. Hawke fight on Bethany's side. S/HE have a chance to keep an eye on Bethany. 

If they lose, they can run together – or die. So: if the don't die, Hawke still can kepp an eye on Bethany.

If Hawke side with Meredith, at the moment s/he doesn't know, what will happen with the mages, including Bethany. And again: Bethany is a mage, and wants to fight for the mages. If Hawke sides AGAINST her, only proves, that doesn't give a shit to her will, only interest to protect her, just for him/herself, not for Bethany: okay, sister, I saved your life, (I'm great as always), now go back to your prison and be a grateful, good girl, and I promise you, you will get cookie to your everyday lunch. This solution only serves Hawke's interest, never Bethany's.

Hawke even don't know, that Meredith will let his/her sister alive...

Hawke can side with Meredith but not for Bethany's sake, rather against it.

I think that we are faced with another example of when being "ruthless" is seen as being Chaotic Evil, or more affectionately known as "Chaotic Stupid". Being ruthless is ultimately pragmatism taken to the most extreme level.

I suppose pragmatism can be used in more 'good' ways, but in my mind pragmatism is almost always opposed by idealism. But that's just me.

That last part is actually wrong. The people do know what's going on but are too scared to do anything about it. Kim Jong Un (like his father and fathers father) keeps them under control through pure intimidation due to the fact that he just doesn't kill the individual, but their entire family also. North Koreans aren't as stupid as a lot of outsiders like to believe.

The issue wasn't that Joffrey was evil, he was a spoiled, stupid child who was never taught how to run a country. Tywin Lannister is an amazing example of a pragmatic, ruthless and effective ruler. He did a much better job running the Seven Kingdoms than Aeyrs ever did when he was Hand of the King. Of course his faults eventually caught up with him and resulted in his death, but no one is without flaws. A healthy mix of pragmatism and idealism would make an ideal ruler, but finding that balance is tricky if not outright impossible for certain individuals.
Some of the greatest villains are those who are able to hide their flaws and deceive the public. Lex Luthor was elected as President of the United States, Norman Osborne (the Green Goblin) managed to take control of SHIELD.

Very true. I wonder if his psychopathy was a result of nature or nurture.

Do we have good data on that?