One of the main reasons I see people praise this film for is that none of the characters is presented as being evil or a villain. Most of them are grey characters. I agree with the description, but why was it a good idea to go this route as regards characterisation? What does it add to the drama of the story to have the characters portrayed this way?
shareIt works well because it's more true to life. Real life isn't black and white, we don't live in a world of concrete good and evil. In films that clearly define good and evil, the audience is often left to little choice on which characters they support and how they support them. They can root for the heroes to succeed or hate the heroes and hope for a villainous victory. I know most films are deeper than that, but it's still a bit of a unique dynamic in films to have a compete cast of characters that you're not always sure what to think of them. This is especially true in a film like this where there clearly exist a conflict with two opposing sides. Where as many films you clearly know what side you're supposed to be on, here you don't. In fact, you'll probably find yourself both hating and rooting for both sides. Without a clear cut, black and white choice then how you feel and react to the characters and conflict becomes almost completely up to you. Such a situation can cause conflicting emotions and make you think in ways you otherwise wouldn't. That is why I love films like this.
"If life is getting you down and needs uplifting, then please come dance with me!"
It works well because it's more true to life. Real life isn't black and white, we don't live in a world of concrete good and evil.
In films that clearly define good and evil, the audience is often left to little choice on which characters they support and how they support them.
In real life (non-human) nature isn't capable of linguistic communication which is a major aspect of the dynamic between the characters in this film. If the forest gods we see weren't capable of communicating with San, Ashitaka and by extension the audience that immediately makes them even less relatable than they already are.
Yes by doing that you are making one side artificially more empathetic, but as I said by giving "nature" the power of language you're making it artificially more relatable. Both are a form of dramatic licence and emotional manipulation. If avoiding a clear antagonist is a strength of a the film, then logically, anthropomorphising nature should be seen as a weakness.
Just because a film has spiritual and fantasy elements doesn't mean that you can't draw any real world parallels.
Whether film has clear cut good and evil or doesn't, it's what the film does with those things that's most important.
All I can say is you clearly have your point of view and nothing I, or anyone else, says will change that. In a way your original question isn't that far off from simply asking why people like this film. People telling you why they like a film won't change how you feel about it. That fact becomes even more clear given how dismissive you are with my response. I answered your question the best I could, if you don't like my answer and just want to build straw men instead, there's nothing more for me to add to this conversation.
"If life is getting you down and needs uplifting, then please come dance with me!"