Can good characters engender judgement?

Yes, good characters can engender judgement, because even though they are good, noone is perfect. There is always that bad seed inside them. This is shown in many novels, films, and more.

If you have seen the movie Big Daddy starring Adam Sandler, you have seen a good example of the judgement. In the film, Sonny (Sandler) plays a man who wants to show his girlfriend he is mature. He does so by adopting a child, which promptly causes his girlfriend to leave him. Once he finds out he can't return the kid, he trys to raise him in....controversial....ways (ex. teaching the kid to dent cans of food on the ground in the supermarket to get them half price). This would draw judgement on whether Sonny is responsible enough to have a child. But he never hurts the kid, makes him go to school, and has fun with him. At the end, when the courts try to take the kid away, he makes a heart wrenching appeal on why he should keep him. Even though he loses the case, he still shows that he loves the child, wants to keep him, and that he would do his best to raise the kid, even though he's not perfect.

So in conclusion, whether you're Supreman or an average joe, nobody is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. There are flaws in everyone, but how well you let the good parts shine is what makes all the difference.

What is the nature of evil?

Much like the nature of good, evil can be many different things depending on the perspective of the person(s) whom are being the judge. There is no true definition of evil, but it is understood that evil is the opposite of good. It is generally related to mental and/or physical harm. For example, crimes are concidered evil, but depending on the crime some are a greater evil than others. Murder would be more serious than petty theft, and therefore would be the greater evil. These would be universal evils, though evil is widely concidered a subjective truth.

What is the nature of good?

A long debated question that has led to wars in the past and will undoubtedly lead to more in the future, the nature of good is a controversial topic. While some people believe something is good, another might believe a different thing is better. It all depends on the perspective and beliefs of the group. As a general rule, though, something that is "good" benifits people more than it harms them. This applies to everyone. Laws are a goos example of people trying to uphold and promote "good" deeds. They are meant to prevent "evil" or "bad" things like robbery and murder from happening, therefore being "good" for society. Religeous beliefs have a lot to do with the nature of good as well. Usually the beliefs of the church rub off on the people, so if the church believes something is "good", the people will as well.

Is it subjective or a universal truth about what constitutes “good” and “evil”?

Mostly it is subjuctive as to what constitutes "good" or "evil". Depending on a person's point of view, an act can be deemed either of the two. It would be a matter of perspective. For example, a person needs to survive so they kill an endangered species. On one hand, this could be concidered good (from the survivors point of view). On the other, it could be concidered evil (from the animal rihts activists point of view). So it is all a matter of how the situation is seen, and the feelings directed towards it.