Okay, so we actually have something in agreement here. You agree with me that BG3's dialogue writing is not the awesome perfection many here are trying to make it out to be. And what you say about an obvious dialogue option being missing in some PoE dialogue is exactly something I would say about BG3 dialogue, except that the missing dialogue options are not random or arbitrary but rather typically very specifically the true-good dialogue options (as opposed to stupid-good dialogue options). And that, as someone who is interested only in playing a very strict good hero play-through, is super-frustrating to me.
If you're holding out for a game where you can play a very strict good hero, it might be faster to write your own. I think the world has largely moved on, and I think every game you're likely to be offered will require trade-offs and gray area.
I think the opinion that almost all shops are catering to is "we like our heroes a little flawed because it's more relatable."
Honestly, given the amount of choice in BG3, this may be the closest you'll get to having that option. I know in EA I've had playthroughs that are very, very close to the very good strict hero you're describing.
Well, I think you are reading into what I'm saying something I'm not saying. I don't see any contradition between what I said and what you are saying here. I too am fine with flaws in my PC, and in fact have always included flaws in the PCs I've played in TT 5e D&D. But having flaws is fundamentally not the same as being evil. For example, being a drunk is being flawed, but not at all being evil. A flawed character can absolutely be that "true hero" I want to play. But there is a line that clearly separates flaws from evil. Unfortunately, though, I see Larian blurring even that line far too much in BG3, effectively saying everything in their game is amoral, and good and evil are really no different from each other.
