Either we're talking at cross purposes or we've strayed a little from the topic at hand.
Before I go on, if you want to come to a conversation about D&D to tell people there is a 'wrong' way to play, there isn't. There might be a way you don't enjoy or don't find interesting but there isn't a wrong way to play. Some people are very precious with their own personal view of what collaborative story-telling is, but please don't confuse your preference with universality. So, please refrain from saying something is 'antithetical' to D&D, or that someone's views are bullshit.
Now, If we're talking at cross-purposes, its because we're using the term 'D&D' to refer to two very different things. There's D&D the roleplaying game that involves real people, with a referee on whose wetware a imaginary world is built, in which a sandbox is theoretically possible. Then there is D&D the term we're using for the rules system that is being adapted into a computer game; computer games can never be sandboxes, the world is unchanging, by the time we occupy it, its story will have been finished for months, how much of sandbox exists in a crpg is usually proportionate with how present a narrative is. So from this point of view, people complaining that BG:3 isn't D&D, doesn't hold much water for me, it can never allow for the kind of character you want. What I hear when people clamor against the origin system is people asking for games more like Ultima, or Elder Scrolls, or Solasta, characters who are complete non-entities.
You don't want to play origin characters because you don't believe in assuming the role of a character who wasn't written by you, well Tav can't be written by you either, that isn't on the table.
