In the story "The Lady, or the Tiger?" the king is defined as "semi-barbaric"; however, from his conduct in the narrative "barbaric" seems more appropriate. For, the author's use of irony in his descriptions of the king suggest the cruelty of the ruler:
When everything moved smoothly, his nature was bland and genial; but whenever there was a little hitch, he was blander and more genial still, for nothing pleased him so much as to make the crooked straight, and crush down uneven places.
The reader is reminded of the lion who resides calmly until something occurs to upset him. Then, the regal animal, who lies most of the day, becomes the threatening predator who proves that he is the "king of the beasts." Likewise, the "semi-barbaric" king is only less barbaric when things go his way, which is to say that he is all barbaric, actually.
That the king punishes the young man for loving his daughter seems, of itself, cruel, selfish, and barbaric. In addition, "there was no escape from the judgments of the king's arena." This arena allows no freedom even after the accused is supposedly "freed" since even if the accused is not killed by the tiger, he must marry someone other than the one he has chosen. Such an arrangement is clearly barbaric and cruel.
So much can be read into the fact that the king is "semi-barbaric". He does know right from wrong, but he chooses to ignore it and go with with whatever he fancies. In a sense, this makes him, perhaps, the worse kind of character. He does, in fact, know that his ways are evil and subject to incorrect chance, but he does not care. He sees his method as a perfect fifty percent to fifty percent, so according to him, it is fair.
Still, he has to know that this is a less than perfect system--in fact, it is a complete fallacy.
When we think about it, this may make him the most despicable and contemptible of characters. He goes against whatever conscience he may have.