A more thorough explanation:

The good-soldier defense is an excuse theory used by defendants who claim that they were following orders, usually from a military or corporate superior. However, this defense is not considered valid in most cases and is often seen as a derisive label.

Simply following orders does not excuse a defendant from responsibility for any wrongful acts committed, unless there were circumstances that would amount to coercion.

An example of the good-soldier defense is a soldier who claims that they were following orders when they committed a war crime. In this case, the soldier cannot use the defense unless they were coerced or threatened into committing the crime.

Another example is a corporate executive who claims that they were following orders from their boss when they engaged in illegal activities. Again, this defense would not be valid unless the executive was coerced or threatened into committing the illegal acts.

These examples illustrate that simply following orders is not a valid defense for committing wrongful acts. Coercion or threats must be present for the good-soldier defense to be considered.