Board Thread:Spoilers!/@comment-26196542-20150930211355/@comment-26196542-20151012110055

In french we say le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, that means better is ennemy of the goodness. I totally understand that, because i'm perfectionist too, and when you're obssessed with the best you easely forget moral/rules for competition.

I think the issue with Arthur is that, he first start acting for the good, but all the good things he did was never enough. Wathever he did, something gone wrong or someone betray him, so instead of becoming a villain like Cora, or Zelena, he fell in another extreme: too good. Which mean sacrifice, as a conscequance of the royal pressure.

I think goodness is not the opposite of darkness, it's more something like a balance.

Then, I think it became like a habit, because the way he acts with the manservant is totally villainous, though he actually show regret. But he totally know wath he's doing is bad, and he doesn't do it for him like every villain do, he do it for his kingdom.

So the question is: Doing bad things for your kingdom does make you a villain?

After all King george was a villain.