King Henry IV Part One presents a difficult case in terms of my big question: is humankind inherently good or evil? The characters are so complex and dynamic regarding their actions, it's hard to assign one character with a specific role of good or bad. There are three characters in particular that, even though one of them changes drastically throughout the play, are a little easier to decipher: Falstaff, Prince Hal, and King Henry IV himself.
Falstaff at first seems to be a very simple character. Give him wine and women and he's a happy man. But upon closer reading, he actually possess a lot more depth than some of the other characters in the play. Despite his affection for drinking, Falstaff is almost divine in a sense. He references God more than any other character in the play. He sticks by his friend Prince Hal even when Hal casts him away. Though Falstaff seems like a bad role model with his over indulgences, he is basically a good person. Aside from the occasional violent robbery...
Prince Hal is definitely a dynamic character. He goes from a young "hooligan" as my mother would call him, to a very serious, noble King. In the Tuesday Writing I wrote earlier today, I explored the question of how honor affects moral. Hal, being a very moral person, gets his honor from his moral. He is more concerned about ruling his kingdom than what his kingdom thinks about him. This is a very good trait to have in a king, and just a person in general.
King Henry IV is a very different character compared to the other two. He is a very introverted man, introverted to the point where he can't rule effectively. He is worried about his public appearance, and is very shy. His actions don't derive from a bad personality, but they do cause harm. Aside from being an illegitimate king, he doesn't have the allure to assert his kingship. This lack of leadership combined with his illegitimate rule, is what allowed the rebels to rebel. Despite having won the war, a lot of people still died. It was a war after all. If the King was able to assert his claim to the throne, I don't think the rebels would have rebelled.
None of these characters are inherently bad. Despite being guilty of their crimes, they never truly wanted to actually hurt people just to hurt them. However, their actions did end up causing problems and sometimes cost lives. So in comparing King Henry IV Part One to the real world, no the people in the play are not inherently bad, like real life people. They just sometimes make bad decisions. However, remember that this is a play for entertainment. This kind of a question can't be answered from interpreting just this one book. Only time and experience can do that, neither of which I have very much of.
