Talk:Kara/@comment-25400163-20140908223414/@comment-5674726-20140909204201

Arthur gave people with magic very little reason to consider him to be a better man than Uther. Unless they happened to be privy to the ultimately unrealised prophecy about the King he was supposed to become, they could only judge him by his actions.

He led an attack on a Druid camp in which innocent men, women and children were murdered. He would go on to order "no prisoners" when he led a raid on a Druid camp in Season Two. Uther believed that the Druids were a threat to him when he ordered their deaths. Arthur ordered the deaths of Druids despite believing them to be a peaceful people. Which is worse?

At no point during Arthur's reign were the laws against magic reversed. It remained a capital crime.

He promised the ghost of the murdered Druid child that he would treat Druids with respect but, given that Merlin found it credible that a Druid boy would not be able to openly seek help for a sick child, I would take Arthur's claims about his treatment of the Druids with a grain of salt.

Kara viewed Arthur as a tyrant, justifiably so.

If the oppressor is targeted by those he oppresses, can he claim the moral high ground?