I'll leave the first two points alone since that's firmly an agree to disagree thing, it seems. But regarding the stuff abut druids and gods, let's start with the druids. My issue with stuff like that is that the game gives us as the player very little insight into this stuff. If meeting a druid should be so rare that the person meeting them wouldn't have any preconcieved notions, then the game should play up that strangeness and let us know that it's strange. If they're meant to be so commonly known that it's not worth giving an explanation, then there should be an out of game explanation given to us as the player so we know what the typical opinion would be.
As for the matter of gods, we as players should at least be given the elevator pitch of the various common gods our character would have heard of. In a bunch of other crpgs I've played, they do a thing where for certain bits of lore, the names are highlighted and you can hover your cursor over the name and get a few sentences of context. Wrath of the Righteous does this for things like gods, certain countries, etc. This way you as the player have a baseline understanding of the world. And that baseline understanding lets you roleplay better because then you're not scratching your head over every new piece of lore that gets dropped casually in conversation. If you the player aren't sure what any of this stuff is, then it makes roleplaying harder because it's harder to stay in character. If you want to play a farmer who's been thrown into the deep end, then should you be shocked by meeting tieflings and druids? I think that in a roleplaying game, we should KNOW, not just be left to assume, the very baseline stuff that an average person in the setting would know. That's what worldbuilding is for.
The biggest offender for me is Shar and the shadowheart reveal. Based on the dialogue choices, it's clearly intended to be a big reveal that our character is supposed to be shocked by. But all I knew about her when I reached that point was that she was a dark goddess that's set up in contrast with Selune, goddess of the moon. She's clearly somewhat dubious because her followers endorsed mind-wiping, but that could just have been due to the dangerous nature of the mission. But I never learn in-game what the average person's feelings on Shar would be, so I couldn't properly choose my character's opinion in turn. It's only on this forum that I learned that she's apparently supposed to be an incredibly evil and notorious goddess that's tried to end the world. When there isn't enough information given for a reveal to have any weight, that's just a failure in writing, nothing less.
And with regard to the Baldur's Gate thing, if they keep it so that we're from Baldur's gate, then that's honestly worse in my opinion because we are unable to know anything about it. We as players don't actually know anything about it beyond it being a fairly metropolitan fantasy city. We can't talk about it, which would give us as players insight through dialogue options, we hardly hear anyone else talk about it in depth, it's just a mystery place that we don't learn anything about. Why the hell can't we talk to Astarion about Baldur's Gate? That's a perfect way to introduce the place to us. Have him express opinions about the place and we can either agree or disagree. THAT'S how you worldbuild and give the player information smoothly. Sure in-universe it makes sense, but out of universe it makes it harder for players to feel invested in this new setting. It frustrates me how little about the wider world we learn in act one, when act one is when we should be learning all this stuff.
