If I had to be that guy, I would have bribed the kid with candy and booze, then got some dirt out of him his family didn't want getting out, and used that as leverage. I would have been the kid's best friend, provided he knew, never to speak of this incident.
I am sure that would have been Tyrion Lannister's solution. But not Jamie's. Totally IC.
Totally IC. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have made a good book/show. It wasn't some campy kick the dog moment where the bad guy does a thing JUST TO SHOW HOW BAD HE IS. Short-sighted? Yes, but Jamie's a shallow, self-absorbed prick. He still had his reasons for doing it, whether I agree with them being the best option really isn't the point, sorry, was just musing.
The original question was if there's any room for kindness in Zalanthas, given how harsh the world is supposed to be... some have chimed in with what seems to be absolutely not. My personal opinion is there is, provided, just like when you're a royal shit to people, there are adequate reasons to be. Chances are you can't afford to feed the masses unless you're a Highborn, and even if you did it would have to benefit the house in some way, which it very well could. If you're a commoner, others are going to start eyeing you wondering where all that coin is coming from and how they can take a slice for themselves... so you really can't hope to save the world, aspire to it all you like, just know, OOCly, realisticly, that it's going to bite you in the ass.
Individual to individual, yes, there /is/ room for kindness. You don't have to be a saint to be kind. I'd imagine you would reasonably stop being kind to someone who does unkind things to you. It can all come back to the question "What is genuine kindness? Does kindness where I gain something from my investment really count?", to which I'd say, yes. Usually this is the way I've found things to be IRL, more often in the crappier parts of town. I haven't seen it as much where people are better off, but that's all anecdotal.
It's precisely /when/ the situation gets dire that one stands to gain the most from an act of kindness, as people must pull together, combine resources and abilities, and make the most of a crappy situation. Sometimes, realisticly, desperation causes unkind things to happen, so it's not all unicorns crapping friendship rainbows across the sky, so there's room for both, I think. When you're in the desert and Amos has a skin of water and you don't, for example, simply gutting him for it is not quite the process. Your first question is, what does Amos bring to my continued survival or benefit? What are our chances of making it to a supply of water in the near future? Are there other options? If, after those considerations, you decide Amos doesn't need the water as much as you do, and won't consider sharing if you ask, and won't hand it over if you coerce or offer incintives, then by all means, get to stabbin'. Feel free to fuck up somewhere in that chain of considerations if it makes for a more compelling and realistic story.
Honestly, a lack of concern for the well-being of the group as a whole, and a resulting betrayal of said group, might realisticly cause an even /greater/ backlash from the group than would ordinarily happen when resources are plentiful. In a well-to-do household, stealing the last cookie from the cookiejar is a trivial offense. If you're in a fallout shelter waiting for a poisonous, toxic world to return to normal, taking the last cookie might mean drawing back a nub... so stabbing Amos might piss off someone who knows where your mate and child reside, and they might resolve to get even if it's somehow discovered. You just /might/ be better off giving Amos's promised source of water just ahead a try, because there's more at stake there. One day Amos might save your bacon on a trip somewhere, or maybe has before, which would reinforce that maybe he'd do it again. There's a lot more to it than just, need water, stab dude.