With the understanding that the Question of Good and Evil is not a simple one, and that this is my own personal opinion...

Quote Originally Posted by Cilia View Post
What makes the black-cloaked Ascians evil, then - the means, or the end?
Neither. Both are irrelevant when talking about whether an individual is good or evil. Murder is an evil action, but that doesn't mean that a soldier who kills in battle is an evil person. Good people do bad things at times for reasons they think are justified. A sign of a good person is that they regret doing so - especially if they learn later that the action was NOT justified.

What makes a person good or evil is not as simple as ends and means. It has to do with their attitude. Unnecessary cruelty while performing a task is a pretty good indicator of evil. Self-indulgence knowingly at the expense of others is another. Delight in the suffering of others is a sign, as well. Speaking broadly, it comes down to selfishness versus selflessness. If you're performing an evil act for your own betterment or indulgence, you are probably evil. If you're performing an evil act for the benefit of others, you may not be. There may be times when someone's performing an action for multiple reasons, some selfish, some selfless.

As for your example with the Imperials, most of the rank-and-file don't wear their hearts on their sleeves the way the black-cloak Ascians do, so it's tough to tell on a case-by-case basis whether they're good or evil people. The ones who smile while bayoneting babies? Probably evil. The ones fighting for the betterment of their nation? Probably not evil, but possibly misguided. Propaganda can play a big part in whether a soldier's justification in following orders is sound; if a soldier is convinced that the only way to stop the barbarian hordes from invading is to subjugate and civilize them, their aggression becomes a defensive, protective action. Why should they object to that? (Of course the ones who go the extra mile and indulge in criminal actions such as robbery or rape clearly are more interested in self-indulgence than civilizing the savages.)

For the ones who do object, but obey anyway, there's also the penalty for disobedience to consider; in the case of the Garleans, it's implied that the military isn't kind to those who disobey orders. When someone is coerced into performing an evil act out of fear for their own well being or the well being of loved ones, it is not that individual who is evil, but the one coercing them. Even were this coercion not the case, though, there's faith that the ones have a big-picture view that the rank-and-file don't have. "This action might SEEM questionable, but I guess it must be necessary for reasons I don't fully understand, but the higher-ups do." (Which is, of course, true in the case of the Garleans, but unfortunately some of the higher-ups are literal monsters.)

In fact, this is is a big part of the reason why the Eorzean Alliance is confident that revealing Zenos as an Ascian will destabilize Garlemand. They're confident that plenty in the Empire had been taking it on faith that their superiors knew what's best for them and that Garlemand's actions were for the betterment of the nation. Knowing that Zenos is an inhuman entity with questionable ties to Garlemand will make call into question that faith, and enhance the regret the good people feel at the "necessary" wrongs their nation has committed.