In the extant religions, we mostly find that they contain a "center of morality" that is congruent with the "center of power" - the deity, or deities - of the religion in question.
I am wondering to what extent this can be expanded upon the religion of ancient Greece. That morality, unlike in Abrahamic religions, in ancient Greek religion was not derived from divinity, but rather coterminous with the morals of the surrounding culture, seems a given, but to what extent did the deities of ancient Greece conform to the morals of that surrounding culture? Or, in simpler terms, did the Greeks think of their deities as "good"?
I think this question can be cast in different angles:
Did the Greek deities themselves commit acts that were immoral? Was this immorality "canceled" because of the standing of the deities as deities, but would have been maintained if committed by a non-divine entity?
Did the deities intervene to ensure the maintenance of cultural morals? Was it expected that wrongdoers - thieves, cowards, murderers, perhaps others - would be punished by them, regularly or on occasion? Did they do so in myth, or was the tale of Lycaon unique?
Were there any other entities that would ensure the maintenance of moral standards, or some of the moral standards, through supernatural intervention, but which could not be considered part of the pantheon, because they could not be appealed to in a functional way? Who determined that the "wicked dead" would go to Tartarus? Hades? Or was it a "law of nature" that did not depend on the personal judgement by any deity (although deities could intervene to place certain individuals there in person)?
Did the deities demand any acts that were considered immoral? For comparison, the Aztec deities demanded human sacrifice - I assume that murder and manslaughter were considered immoral in Aztec society. Did the Greek deities similarly demand acts that would be inconsistent with the morals of Greek society?
Why were the Greek deities worshipped? Because it was hoped that they would intervene in the natural world to bring rewards for those who worshipped them? Or because it was hoped that worshipping them would prevent them from intervening in the natural world to bring about punishment intended for those who did not worship them?
Did the Greeks think of the natural world being in every instance a reflection of the deity to whose portfolio that instance belonged? Did every thunderbolt strike because of Zeus' personal decision? Or did Zeus merely have the power to control thunder and lightning if he so desired, but thunder and lightning would also act on their own, as inanimate phenomena of nature?
A few examples:
Zeus - I'm assuming that rape was considered an immoral act in ancient Greece (and probably a crime?). Yet, a vast portion of the corpus of myths that involves Zeus deal with his sexual exploits with non-consenting women. Was being a rapist, even if the act was considered immoral, a "signal" that was understood as representing masculinity, sexual prowess and power, and hence Zeus was confabulated to engage in it so frequently? (Or perhaps I am wrong, and the rapist was considered entirely without blame and instead the woman who had let herself be raped was considered the immoral seductress?) Zeus also desired to have the edible parts of cows to be given to him in sacrifice and when that did not happen, ventured to sabotage the creation of human civilization. When that did not work either, he caused the creation of all forms of human suffering. A somewhat... mixed record... in my estimation, but what did the Greeks think about it? Did they consider Zeus' punishment justified?
Athena - One of the few deities whose domain includes things that are by definition positives, and such as are commonly considered beneficial for the lives of humans - wisdom, courage, strength, justice and so forth. Did the Greeks recognize her as a "good" goddess, morally superior to other deities?
The Gigantes - Featuring as the opposition of the deities in the Gigantomachy, one could speak of them as the "villains" of the Greek corpus of myths. As descendants of Gaia, they are often described as representatives of "untamed nature" at odds with human civilization, supposedly represented by the Greek deities. Is that accurate? It does not seem to me that the Greek deities - apart from a scant few, such as Athena - had any greater affinity to civilization, nor any lesser to untamed nature. Zeus is the deity of thunder and lightning, Poseidon the deity of the sea - both are natural forces. I grant that Poseidon, Athene and even Artemis may act in favour of human civilization (by bestowing pescatorial boons, knowledge or a successful hunt), but how would Zeus be conductive to civilization? Were the Gigantes really villains beyond their opposition to the deities? Were they considered "evil"? Was their defeat considered as having been beneficial to anyone but the deities themselves? Was Gaia, as their mother, considered "evil"? Or was this merely a tall tale, told for entertainment, of various ancient supernatural entities fighting each other, with no "right" or "wrong" side?
Ares - Creates war and bestows success in war. While surely useful when there is a war already, and you want to win it, was his role as creator of wars ever bemoaned? Or were wars considered "good" by virtue of being the will of a deity?
I won't attempt to answer most of those questions, but will note a few things.
Cults were localized. It is hard to even identify what made Artemis, Artemis. There were localized beliefs, practices and rituals surrounding all of the deities that may or may not have been similar to other locations. That being said, the mythological narratives did provide a certain level of codification of deities.
Much of the worship of these deities would perform 2 functions. The first is that it operates as a form of magical thinking. It is divine reciprocation:perform this act which is under human control and get a god to reciprocate with something out of human control. The second is marking the passage of time. Lifetimes are marked out by sacred events, I.e. festivals or rituals, and thus order the life of individuals and communities.
Read Pierre Hadot's "Philosophy as a way of Life". His argument is that it was not religion that ordered people's moral lives, but rather philosophy. You can offer cult to any deity you want, but following a philosophical school will determine how you live. This has been used to argue for why Paul's missionary work focusses on the Agora, where philosophical ideas are traded, as he brings a new philosophy, not a new cult (I apologize for having no source on this!).
Two notes on Greek sexual ethics, which don't really address the bulk of your question, but provide some context:
There was no concept/word in ancient Greece which means "rape". What we would call rape was (at least in classical Athens, and I assume elsewhere) prosecutable, but not as rape. One crime which a rapist could be prosecuted for committing in Athens was "hybris", but hybris had a wide range of meaning, and essentially any act which damaged someone's reputation could be prosecuted as hybris (e.g. Meidias' punching Demosthenes at a festival was prosecuted as hybris in Dem. 21).
Rape and seduction were both considered to be immoral (and criminal!). Lysias claims in On the Murder of Erastothenes that rape was considered to be a less severe crime than seduction, but modern scholars debate over whether this was in fact the case (Edward Harris, "Did the Athenians Regard Seduction as a Worse Crime than Rape?" makes the case against Lysias' claim most strongly; Christopher Carey, "Rape and Adultery in Athenian Law" agrees with Lysias' conclusion that rape was considered less severe than seduction, but disagrees with Lysias' explanation for why this was). Outside of Athens, we know that in Gortyn rape and seduction were liable to the same penalties (with the exception of one specific case, in which rape was punished more severely).