I think we can be a little more objective than that, can't we?

I'd say a good government is the one which improves the well-being of the people. So if a king leaves the kingdom in the same state of poor education, poor sanitation, corruption and bureaucracy in which he found it, he may be a charming person but I'd hardly call him a good king.

OTOH, can a sadistic, arrogant SOB be a good ruler? I doubt it (he'll probably create a thought police and stuff like that), but I suppose you can argue for it.

What do you think?