Good vs Evil tends to not work in RPGs for me. The issue is, that good paths aren't selfless - I think it comes from a mechanical need to give player incentives and rewards. You might help tieflings because you are selfless - but if that fails, Halsin is your best bet at saving yourself. And you get promised loot for helping them. And in the process you make bunch of people like you. No matter who you play as, you are given motivation (both for your character and you as a player) to follow the good path. Except for some edge case psychopaths, most characters I can come up with - selfless, or selfish - would lean toward helping druids. In general, I would rate BG3 choice range between pragmatic=>sadistic.
I think there a very few instances when choices offered feel genuinely balanced - probably the encounter with gnoll and caravan survivors is the best encounter in my book. Each approach comes with benefits - even the cruelest of approaches doesn't seem arbitrary. If you are goody-two-shoes you might miss out on an interesting thread - and consequences of each choice feel appropriate and satisfying. With different charcters I opted to make different decisions, while I only explored the evil path out of curiosity.
I find it a little bit funny you think the good paths are too rewarding because last I remember the "rewards" I got for playing good in DOS2 were a) death or b) become a soulless husk. I mean...if that is too much reward I don't want to know what you consider an appropriate reward. It was actually DOS2 that made me realize how fed up I had become of the good paths and how boring and formulaic they had all become in gaming. That was probably the point were I reached the I feel nothing for NPCs moment, I don't care anymore.
