Is Griffith evil, or a product of causality?

I'm not a Griffith apologist, and I definitely recognise he did wrong, but one thing I've always wondered about him is whether he'd sacrifice the band of the hawk if his dream hadn't completely collapsed.

I genuinely believe that if Griffiths torture had left him with a somewhat disfigured face, but not having lost his ability to communicate and fight, he would have turned down the Godhands offer. If for example he was still fit enough to go and restart his military career elsewhere, he might have been frustrated, but I think he believed in himself and his own abilities enough to think he could rise through the ranks once more. I also don't think Griffiths beauty is that important to him to where he'd throw away his comrades to regain it. I believe that what caused Griffith to make the sacrifice was the fact that his dream was over, and there was no possible way for it to ever be reborn. His reason for living was completely and thoroughly destroyed.

This leads me to the question of, if a person's not seemingly predisposed to do an evil act(which golden age Griffith isn't in my opinion) but will only do it when they find themselves in a desperate enough circumstance, is that person truly evil?

Is Griffith the same as a person who would have accepted the Godhands offer regardless of what the circumstances are, or is he a product of what causality had determined would happen- that when his dream collapsed, he would give in to evil?

I wouldn't go as far as to call him a victim, because he could have said no, but I do think this complexity in him is what makes him a compelling antagonist, and is probably why he has so many supporters in spite of the demonic things he went on to do.