Is that important though? I think saying that someone "is" good or evil reveals a too static viewpoint. People very rarely "are" good or evil, they usually do some things that are regarded as good and some that are regarded as evil, and many that are regarded as morally irrelevant, by varying collectives of people. And people's reaction to other people's actions often depend much more on the specifics of that action rather than a general disposition of the person responsible for it, especially since you can't see that. There's no such thing as "Detect Evil". In fantasy worlds with devils and demons, maybe, but even then it can't plausibly be applied to people. You'd find that everyone lights up if you take it at face value, because there is some evil in everyone, and if you interpret it as "detect pure evil" it would be triggered by almost no one.
So I think it's great that BG3 dispenses with alignments, since it now allows us to focus more on the specifics of character's actions. But what do people talk about? Whether someone "is" evil or not..... I don't understand that.
Also, morality is about action. If Astarion speaks casually about killing, that doesn't necessarily bother me much. Just as Viconia talking about her might-makes-right view of the world in BG2 did not bother me. It might depending on the specifics - such as Lae'zel's racial supremacism because it might get you killed - but people say a lot of stuff in a day. I recall saying about someone who had not killed, raped or mutilated anyone that they deserve to be shot, and I probably would say that again about a type of people who number in the tens of thousands, and have likewise not killed, raped or mutilated anyone. Doesn't mean that I go out and kill anyone.
