Board Thread:Spoilers!/@comment-26196542-20150930211355/@comment-6175354-20151012120000

LordViolet wrote: 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 starts 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. King George was a villian, because he bankrupted his own kingdom. He was an inept king, who let his lazy son gamble the taxes away.

However, you are probably right about Arthur. No matter what he did or how hard he tried, life kept pelting him with lemons. After what happened with Guinevere and Lancelot, Arthur probably stopped trusting anyone. His goal for perfection, was the only thing he had left.