Well... I mean, they did say that they would add the evil-or-at-least-not-good companion characters first to encourage folks of playing a more evil-alignment playthrough for the first time (as that is what they wanted most feedback on).
Also, I would not be concerned about your options rubbing your companions the wrong way every now and then. Granted, I do not play with Lae (who would probably oppose my character the most) on my playthrough, but even though Astarion or sometimes even Shadowheart disapproves of my generally neutrally good decisions, my relationships with them remain intact. Unlike many other CRPGs, it doesn't seem like an occasional disagreement is as big of a deal as it was in ... Let's say PoE2 - like holy F it took forever to regain the favor lost from "wrong" decisions...
well... here is me giving feedback, it sucks and it was done wrong.
Well, if you consider it done wrong - then so be it. Obviously you're as much entitled to an opinion as everybody else.
But please, hear me out, and let me address your more specific part of the original post about the characters being "locked off" when you can't reach certain criteria. This is true, 100% true even and it is rather bothersome, especially for those of us who want to enjoy the *entire* story and work of Larian. But in my personal opinion, not being able to please everybody is logical and the correct decision. I feel like it would remove so much from the roleplaying experience if you choose a certain alignment for your character that completely opposes a companion and your decision that directly conflict with your companions alignment didn't matter at all - it would just simply feel like it would dull out any form of diplomatic decision-making since you would be able to recover any lost favor with chocolate and roses.
Of course, this comes at the cost of being "locked out" of certain perspectives. However, these perspectives are not completely out of reach, even if they are (rightfully) out of reach for your particular character. You can read their stories from other players or watch videos covering their stories. Or you could simply run another round with an alignment better matching the companion of interest.
THAT SAID, like JoB said just above here - these are people that we depend on for our very lives. Actually gaining negative relationships/favor/reputation/whatever-you-wanna-call-it that OUTWEIGHTS the positive relationships that you develop just by keeping each other alive should really require a ton of effort (or almost actively pursuing to piss them off) considering these people are in the same boat as our PC is - we are all suffering from the same tadpole and we all need help with it. It is not like the comparable situation in PoE 2:D where we get companions willing to risk their lives for "our" cause and "our" issues (while their personal goals happen to slightly align) - they could have all the reason in the world to just say "No, this aint worth it. I am out, bai" just because they dislike your character's choices (looking at you, Pallegina...).
ALL THAT SAID, this does of course not excuse the fact that pretty much all companions feels like different shades of the same color - none of them really seem to belong to a good alignment, each one of them would imo be classified as neutral or "worse". I would love to see some diversity among the personalities of our companions - however, I am aware of that Larian has promised great character development when it comes to companions and hence I am not gonna say too much regarding them when we've only encountered parts of them from Act 1.
They might turn out to be better in the future (or worse, who knows?). I mean, I do not even dislike our current companions - but sometimes I struggle to rationalize the situation for my PC when the companions are on their worst behavior.
Larian stated a while back that the companions might not be the ones you would choose to associate with, but that you are forced together by common circumstances (the tadpole).
I mean, sure. You're not wrong, but I am don't think that answer has much to do with the original author (and many other people who brought up the issue) meant. If their complaint is as simple as "We do not like our current followers" then your reply holds no legitimate answer - we know we're holding up with them out of necessity, otherwise most of us would not see any reason at all to keep these folks (from a pure roleplaying perspective, how many people roleplay a character that would put up with some stuff these guys come up with?).
From their perspective, as I've understood it, the "complete" question would be the following: why would Larian think it enjoyable (from a gameplay perspective) to throw us 5 characters that are all arguably near the same alignment which happens to oppose the majority of the player base's chosen alignment (I can't prove that more people play good alignment, but considering Larian asked people *specifically* to do the evil path and yet the vast majority of players chose to do the good path then... Well, yeah. I'll make guesses from there)? I mean, it is almost like PoE but the opposite - I remember thinking that I couldn't imagine trying an evil playthrough in PoE since all companions would literally hate me. PoE got away with it, I'd assume, cause most players play good aligned characters.
So, as far as I am aware, CRPG games rarely attempt to piss off their player while you play. Throwing in companions that Larian know (should know?) will oppose the majority of player's alignment is a weird move unless there is a specific purpose behind it. They got all the power in the world (since they made the game...) and chose to give us these companions, and it is perfectly legitimate to question the entire idea of this since we don't know what reasons Larian had for making these characters this way. We, as general players, don't know if there are huge redemption arcs coming or if the companions will start leaning towards the PCs alignment as they spend time together or if they are gonna stay this way forever - the people who criticize this are only reacting to the known facts (aka. how our companions treat us at the moment), and rightfully so if they feel like the companions make the game less enjoyable. Time will tell whenever the criticism is valid or not, but until then I'd encourage people to speak their mind regardless so that Larian can't shrug it off and say "we didn't know" if this becomes an issue at launch / endgame.
ESPECIALLY considering that it is very uncertain how many companions we're getting in the final product, which further legitimates being concerned about the precious few that we have.
I realize this post became a bit longer than I anticipated, and I apologize. Hope I made my point clear, either way.
I'm not a fan of the influence system as it now stands. It incentivizes gaming the system as opposed to roleplaying. Suddenly conversational choices are being made to appease companions. Not so much because you want to appease them as because you don't want to miss out on unlocking content that might come with a higher approval rating.
I'm happy with a party that doesn't get along well. I think that's great. These are all different people pulled together by necessity. They should disagree and bicker.
But some consideration should be given to the bond that forms from traveling together and fighting together. These companions are standing side by side against enemies, often rushing to one another's aid, healing one another. They see each other in triumph. They see each other in pain. There's a closeness that has to develop from that kind of intimacy.
Consider, if all the influence stuff was behind the curtain and you got to the end of the Act, would you be surprised to learn how the companions felt about you? Would the way they feel about you mirror the way you feel about them? I would be surprised. I would be like, "Hey, I thought we shared something out there on the road? What's this all about?"
Personally, I tend to bond to the companions I travel with more than the ones I leave back at camp. Conversation impacts what I think about them, but so does their performance. (Remember that time you pushed that gnoll off that cliff? Oh, that was a close one. We're lucky to be alive. Or-- remember when I got pushed off that cliff and couldn't stand? I thought I'd broken every bone in body, and then you healed me. That's the kind of thing I could never forget.)
I absolutely agree. It feels weird that you should have to tip-toe in order to gain favor with a certain companion when you're already risking your lives for each other. Not directly pissing them off should lead to a positive relationship as time goes by, if you ask me. PoE2:D failed at this in a rather funny matter - I found it hilarious that my neutral good character (in terms of choices) could only ger Edèr to rank 1 and Aloth to rank 2 considering the history they have together, both during PoE2 but also during PoE1. It is nothing short of laughable that the fish boy and Xoti liked my character better in the end DESPITE these two being rotated for other characters from time to time, wheres Aloth and Edér were with me from the moment I recruited them, til' the very end. How does this even make any form of sense!? >.<''