Is the WoL actually good though?

[Theodric]

I'm inclined to believe that the writers themselves do not think nearly so much about the implications of some of the things that they push until after they've already put it out there.

I was more referring to desperate people forced to do horrid things in order to survive rather than those who gleefully go around doing bad things with no greater purpose in mind. Both are technically bad, though a mother murdering a stranger to protect her son because he'll die if she doesn't play along is very different to someone doing it for the thrill of the hunt.

Morality in itself, however, is often very flexible. More than many would care to admit. There are countless examples of such throughout history. If a city is under siege and there is no way to escape or easily secure food, many survivors would do abhorrent things in order to feed their loved ones. Things that they did not believe themselves to be capable of, even.

[CrownySuccubus]

I was more referring to desperate people forced to do horrid things in order to survive rather than those who gleefully go around doing bad things with no greater purpose in mind. Both are technically bad, though a mother murdering a stranger to protect her son because he'll die if she doesn't play along is very different to someone doing it for the thrill of the hunt.

I would believe you if your prior argument hadn't been:

During Stormblood, the Eorzean Alliance shifted from the 'defender' to the 'aggressor' but they certainly didn't just shrug and say 'they were just defending themselves' whenever Garlean experimentation/body horror was put into play. Fae body horror and transformation is little different, really.

It's kind of silly to specify that desperate people doing desperate things to survive or in self-defense okay, but then try to portray the Alliance as "aggressors" on the subject of Garlean experimentation. Retaking a conquered territory from an expansionist military empire is a very loose definition of the term "aggressor", and likewise ignores what purpose those experiments were to serve. The Garlean Empire, as an expansionist military empire, is literally an eternal aggressor. Even if they're not currently invading your country right now, they've made it 100% clear that they will do so eventually.

Morality in itself, however, is often very flexible. More than many would care to admit. There are countless examples of such throughout history. If a city is under siege and there is no way to escape or easily secure food, many survivors would do abhorrent things in order to feed their loved ones. Things that they did not believe themselves to be capable of, even.

Right. But that argument relies on some sort of external, greater villainy or threat which is predicating their actions. Their actions are only morally gray because of an external moral black. So, even by the way you are defining it, that means there STILL needs to be some moral element that the audience is expected to find unambiguously "bad". If the point is for the audience to accept that people need to lie, kill and steal to avoid a bad thing, then that first requires the audience to accept that the bad thing is bad. For example, Fordola as a character doesn't work if everything was wonderful sunshine and rainbows before she joined the Garlean military and became "The Butcher". The writers have to first convince the audience that the situation she was in was terrible itself before they can sell the argument that Fordola is morally complex for the things she did to become "The Butcher"