Why Leo?

Also, a big part of the problem with how to view Leo is that since the game is from the perspective of the rebels, we are not privy to his actions outside of what is seen, and from what is seen Leo does seem to be a soldier with true honor, just misguided. He could be actively ignoring what is happening in the Empire, or maybe he is feeling guilt after the fact end overly blames himself for his actions.

The central problem with any interpretation of Leo is that due to the point of view the game uses to tell its story, we as the audience never know enough to make any judgment beyond that of the characters. The Empire is obscured intentionally so we never get more than the vaguest glimpses of its inner workngs. We only get to see it from the perspective of its victims.

For instance, Celes turned traitor. However we are not giving any sort of context or backstory as to what drove her to her decision, or even what she did.  The only direct, specific mention of her former deeds comes from Cyan. It's telling that despite Leo and Celes being both generals and perhaps the only two authority figures in the Empire who were arguably decent people, there is no actual on screen interaction between them in the game. Basically, Leo reintroduces her to Locke and that's it; Leo means more to Terra than Celes.

You guys are dancing all over CoV's entire premise. (if only I would work on the dang thing.)

Personally, I think there was a LOT more gray in the empire than we are privy to, but we are given a very narrow perspective on a very select few characters, albeit those in charge. Leo's position could have been informed by a lot of factors, and the "blind eye" or lack thereof, I think, is very open for interpretation (like in any good literature).

Happy Hacking to both of you in your ventures!