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.
Am I remembering correctly that you've not played EA at all? If all you've seen is Larian's marketing, and the topics that people talk about heavily, I can see where you'd get that impression.
I saw something recently where Swen says "there's not a good path or an evil parth, just choices." And yes, they've been very clear they're going to make the darker choices highly incentivized. And because of that, I imagine playing through as very strict good guy will be more difficult, and likely more satisfying for having done it in the face of much temptation.
I guess what I'm really saying is that if it you haven't played at all, you might be making assumptions that don't bear out, and blocking yourself from having a great time
Fair enough. This is, quite honestly, the nicest way anyone has put it to me, and so I commend you for that.
But as I have said in other contexts, I just cannot justify paying full price for a game that has so many things in it that I actively dislike or believe to be wrong/poor game design choices. And this is not a money thing. It's a principle thing. So, maybe, some years from now, if the game is on sale at a heavily discounted price, I will try it out then.
