It seems like any analysis of Rumple's evil should begin with his becoming the Dark One. We've never had a full explanation of how the DO curse altered him. But, there are some different possibilities. It's also a bit confusing because I'm not sure how decided the people on the show are about it. Some things seem to fit one explanation and some seem to fit another.

Certainly, part of his problem is rooted in the curse. The Rumple who turns the man with the cart into a snail doesn't get why Bae's upset. When Bae is freaking out over it, Rumple is simply confused. His explanation, essentially, is that he's Bae's father and it's his job to protect his son.

The central issue--that killing someone is a wholely inappropriate way of doing this and that a kid is going to freak out when something like this happens right in front of him, especially if he feels partly responsible--seems to go right past him.

There are other villains or anti-heroes on the show who may have done something like that. I can see Cora snuffing someone out that casually. But, even Cora would have understood why Regina was upset. She probably would have explained to Regina that she needed to harden up if she was going to get anywhere in life--but she would have understood the central issue.

Rumple didn't.

And, this is even more disturbing because the Rumple we saw before he was cursed would have understood. He was they guy with nothing who stopped to give a few coins to the beggar he met on the road when he was in the middle of a desperate escape. That was a guy who understood compassion.

Yes, he later stabs the Dark One. Under the right circumstances, he will kill. I won't say there wasn't darkness in him before the curse.

What I'm saying is that, once he's cursed, there's some seriously scary stuff messing up his head. There are circuits that are not connecting.

DO Rumple is also complicated by the fact that we see changes in him over time. Later on, there are times when he clearly does get things that he didn't seem to get earlier.

So, does the way the curse effects him change? Is the curse initially like some huge, power high that he adjusts to? Is he reclaiming his humanity despite the curse? Is he simply learning that he needs to curb himself to follow his goal of finding Bae?

Is Rumple like the Red Skull in Captain America? The curse has only emphasized what was already there?

A case could be made for any of these--or for any combination of them. I have my opinion. But, while I hold with Rumple being good deep down, I can see being proven right on that and being proven mistaken on just about everything else about him. There was a time, after Desperate Souls and Skin Deep, when I thought Gold had gotten to the same point as Zoso, wanting to die and pass his curse onto someone else--and that his actions were based around Emma being the person he meant to pass his curse to. I feel like my understanding of his character was still correct, but that conclusion was way faulty. Maybe, a year from now, I'll be saying the same about some of what I'm writing now.

Still, that said, my take is that the curse knocks out certain things in Rumple. Part of it does seem to be a power high, but I'd say it's messing with his circuitry. There were connections that should have been made that just weren't happening. What was really creepy (to me) was that moral culpability is based on knowing that what you did was wrong. So, Daniel, for example, when he came back from the dead and perceived Henry as threatening him and trying to rip his heart out, wouldn't have been morally responsible for harm done (yet still a great argument for leaving dead people dead).

It is creepy to see someone who had a very good, functioning moral sense at one point who isn't ignoring it, he just doesn't see the questions.

But, later, we have a DO Rumple who seems quite capable of seeing these things.

So, my take is that things that came with the DO curse obscured his ability to see right and wrong. These things included the power high and some emotional changes. What he would have normally felt (whether he made the right choice or not) before the curse wasn't happening.

Put another way, you've heard of the disease leprosy? Leprosy kills the nerve endings. People with it lose their sense of touch. In areas where the disease is common, lepers have often been known for their great strength--because a leper doesn't feel the pain a normal person would that would stop the leper from doing something.

A doctor who made some of the first observations about this, gave the example of a young boy who opened a door for him that was stuck that he'd been unable to open himself. When he checked the boy's hands, they were bleeding from the effort it took--but the boy didn't feel the pain.

Lepers actually had to be taught new ways to learn their limits. They also had to be trained to examine themselves regularly for injuries.

I see Rumple as being like this once the DO curse hits him. I also think, to an extent, he did retrain himself. You might argue that some of this was learning socially acceptable behavior--if he wanted someone to help him with some aspect of the curse, he couldn't have them running in terror when he showed up.

But, my take is that he began to realize at least some of what he was. He has some very honest moments--like when he warns Cora that all he can offer her is isolation and darkness, the two things he has.

I'm undecided on how I should feel about the Robin being tortured thing. In strictly logical terms, Rumple's torture doesn't add up--but, we're talking a TV show.

Now, I admit to having researched the error margins on handguns when Hook claimed to have deliberately not killed Belle. In real life, that kind of gun has too big an error margin. A superhuman shot with perfect night vision could expect the bullet to land within four inches of the target.

But, Wesley in Princess Bride could have done it. Inigo Montoya could have probably done it, too. If you tell me you see Hook as a swashbuckler, a character type who would have those skills regardless of "real world" laws, I won't argue the point with you.

However, the same part of me that looks up things like that about guns wants you to note that there was no blood splatter in Robin's cell and that Robin's injuries were not consistent with the amount of blood he was supposed to have lost.

Heck, he wasn't even bleeding onto his shirt (or not significantly).

Also, he was able to recover quickly and make his escape despite having lost enough blood to drench a few aprons.

The average human body has six quarts of blood. Loss of about 2.4 quarts can result in death. I'd say the amount of blood Rumple was supposed to have been dealing with should have easily been that high.

I'd also like to add that Rumple's claimed intent was to make Robin a sufficiently mutilated corpse to discourage anyone else who thought of robbing and attacking him. So, torturing and healing him (which would make sense if he was just torturing Robin for personal revenge) does not make sense in this context.

Furthermore, when Robin really makes him mad--by fooling Belle, stealing the wand, and escaping (I leave it to you which of the three most outraged him)--he decides to (bah-bum!) kill Robin. Quickly. Without any prolonged pain or suffering whatsoever.

Uh. . . .

Now, before someone else rips that defense apart, let me do it for you. This is a Disney show on ABC. How much blood splatter am I expecting? This is also a TV show that has to fit into about 45 minutes. Lengthy explanations, like why the villain changes tactics, fall by the wayside. Furthermore, television. Rumple aiming the arrow at an oblivious Robin who has just been reunited with the woman he loves and just found out she's going to live is tons more dramatic than Rumple about to capture Robin to drag back to the castle. It also allows him his act of mercy without the story having to include Robin and Marian's reaction to it--something that would probably have to be there if Rumple had been dragging him back to the castle.

What works dramatically usually wins out over what works logically in TV and movies.

But . . . I'm still going to point out the above.

And that's just DO Rumple. Gold is morally culpable. Sort of.

I mean, yes, he's had centuries of living in the weird mind of the Dark One and there are times when he does something where I will give him a walk or I do think he didn't see that other people might think it was a "bad thing" (he's surprised by how upset Emma is when she suspects he kidnapped Kathryn. I see his POV--there's a good case that his actions saved Kathryn's life [since Regina didn't go after her herself] and Mary Margaret's [since Regina's main intent was to kill/hurt MM]. In FTL, his actions might have even been reasonable. In our world, not so much [although, the FTL playbook was the one in operation in a lot of SB already]).

But, let's cut to the chase (at last, you say, at last).

Last episode. Keith.

No, I'm not happy with Rumple.

I'm not sure what was going on with that attack. Sure, the initial part was that he'd had a very bad day and Keith didn't run when he had the chance. I get that. I also get that Keith had tried to buy Belle like common when he first met Rumple.*

But, after that, is he calculating? Hey, here's something he and Belle can build a new relationship on. Is he not calculating at all? Is this just some fun, now that Belle's joined in? Is there any part of him that's even a fraction as disturbed as I am by what he's doing?

Just because I don't call that sociopathic (and I don't think it is) doesn't mean that I'm not really disturbed by it. Sociopath is a clinical definition. I may be wrong and Regina may be one (I've been backing off from calling her one for certain reasons**). There have been creepy, murderous individuals throughout history who weren't sociopaths. To say Rumple is or isn't one is not a judgment on him as good or evil. It his a comment on how he perceives the world and what motives may underline his actions.

Robert Carlyle has said that Rumple's greatest failing is his tendency to make the wrong choice. Maybe. I find his most worrisome trait the ruthlessness with which he will go after things he wants. Even when they're good things--finding Bae and making up for letting him go--he can go off the deep end and then some getting them. I'm afraid he may be going that way with Lacey right now. But, I also have hope.

Call me undecided.

Quick recap of all the above--

DO Rumple: Complex, debateable motives. His perceptions of right and wrong are not static during this time. Clearly out of whack at the beginning. More complex (but still ethically arguable) later on.

Gold: Much more morally aware than Rumple. The hardware is functioning. The software, however, shows signs of being rewritten.

Gold post Keith Beating: Uhhh . . . let me get back to you on this one.

**Let's see, in how many ways was that a bad idea? Rumple had specifically addressed the issue (if obliquely) of whether or not he was going to use Belle sexually when made his deal with her: the answer was no, he was not. So, Keith's implication could be construed as an insult to Rumple the Deal-Maker (not a moral issue, a professional one).

He also assumes that, even if Rumple is sleeping with Belle, he won't have any problem with other men sleeping with her. That could certainly be taken as an insult to Rumple. It's also an extreme insult to Belle, making her out to be a pretty low kind of prostitute (and that's the least insulting way I can find to say it).

Oh, and he's trying to deal with Rumple, not her.

So, he's pretty much treating Rumple as a pimp.

And, twenty minutes? Really? I'm sorry, but if there was anything more disgusting than what he'd already said, treating the idea of sleeping with Belle as lunch grabbed on the go and wolfed down before you know what you've put in your mouth would be it. Especially to Rumple, who was already beginning to see her in goddess-like terms--if Rumple fears to profane with his unworthiest hand (hey, I'm a Shakespeare fan), Keith better convert fast to Rumple's religion or expect the Spanish Inquisition (not a major Monty Python fan, but c'mon, how could I pass that up?).

**OK, originally, I thought Regina was sociopathic. The moment where that really came home to me was when Graham died.

However, I've changed my mind on why Regina killed Graham (although I may yet wind up changing it back, the way she's been acting lately). Originally, I thought she killed him because she was losing him to Emma. Murdering a man she'd been forcing to sleep with her--that she knew was sleeping with her because she forced him--because he's escaping her hold for another woman? Sociopath.

I also thought, after she killed Graham and her father, that Henry would not be safe from her if she saw him as a threat.

Now, I think she killed Graham because she saw what was happening as the curse breaking down. By killing him, she was shoring up the curse.

That may not sound a whole lot better, but it strikes me as something a non-sociopathic dictator (for example) might do, shoring up her absolute monarchy even at the cost of the life of someone she may have cared about (yes, I think Regina is capable of caring about someone she's using magic to coerce into sleeping with her. I see her as very messed up that way [basically, I see her as convincing herself that what she has with Graham through the curse is "real." To her, it's not a relationship built on lies (my take), it's what their relationship would be without the "false" perception of Regina as the Wicked Queen]).

Also, I think Regina's shown that she cares more about Henry (compared to her own life/desires) than I'd thought.