Maybe if Niara hadn't chosen Paladin in her example I wouldn't have found it so discordant.
Playing to, and against, type are equally cliché. Putting seeds into your backstory for the purpose of developing your character in their adventure is one thing. Deciding to do with the world, what you will, on your own, is a type of attitude that could become irksome. If Larian, Wizards of the Coast, or any DM, were too afraid of losing players to tell them they can't do something, then it's become a disingenuous relationship.
I like to view us as guests at their table, so whenever I see this kind of attitude taken with someone else's world, and then the trustees of that world, decades of work, just shrug and say nothing really matters, it's all made up anyway; it can call into question a lot of things.
I like all your character ideas, I bet it also helped having played the game beforehand writing in some points of potential conflict, but, and not to make this about generic Tav again, I've complained enough about how the world can't recognize certain contradictions people can make in their characters. The further into the lore you get the worse it becomes, see the recent Githyanki thread, and a number of Drow threads before that. Allowing people to toy with these things doesn't strike me as great if the game can't account for them.
If the game does eventually, more power to it, otherwise, I'll remain skeptical.
