I also want to add: w/r/t Bolaire and honestly a bunch of other characters I've disliked in the past, the character's in-world morality is typically not a deciding factor of whether I like them. I think people often focus on that, either because they think the way to make me like the character is to justify their actions, or because they feel they are being attacked for liking a character who does bad things, and that's not, at least, how I approach it.
At this point Bolaire being, technically speaking, a serial killer, is barely a consideration for me. My problem is that he's not really doing much at all. He could feel endless guilt for it. He could stop killing people and start feeding the bodies he wears or find volunteers or something. I don't care. The problem is still "why aren't you investigating the literal neon sign INVESTIGATE ME Coffin of Olbalad, or really doing anything with the Archanade, or going to the library and looking up Gavzidra, or literally anything." I don't think that Imogen is a good person really, but she could be the sweetest most empathetic person alive; the problem is the indecision that made the plot drag on endlessly. Ludinus is a terrible person in-world, but the reason I want him dead is mostly that the narrative is deeply unsatisfying to just leave him drinking tea without remorse as he causes more problems, not as any kind of retribution, because he is not real, and more as just "well this seems fucking dumb." (This is also why leaving Trent alive and imprisoned is great, because it's a profound character moment for Caleb and to an extent Astrid and leaves a compelling plot hook in place while answering "why don't you just kill him.") I in fact love an abrasive asshole character; Julien is right up my alley because he has a very compelling story going on about having quite suddenly lost everything, and he is very much engaging with that narrative, and the fact that he's also a dick is not remotely an issue, because I don't care if he's a good person; I care that he's actively exploring the space of "my father and I can never reconcile and everything I took for granted and shaped my very privileged existence has been very quickly destroyed." Thjazi being secretly malicious and working with the Sundered Houses would undermine the entire conceit of Campaign 4. I'm not being defensive of my "orc blorbo" when I say this; I'm calling people who fail to realize this extremely bad at parsing narrative.
Hypocrisy in a character can be a great trait, because a great deal of character work exists in the difference between what a character says they do, and what a character actually does. [This is why, incidentally, citing actor intent from Talks or 4SD or Tale Gate or an interview is a waste of my time if I'm talking about what the character actually does; that's what they say they do.] The issue is not that a character is a hypocrite; the issue narratively arises if that hypocrisy is not explored. The issue in fandom is, as noted in the brackets, when fans do not recognize that "what they say they do" and "what they do" are in conflict.
There is no moral judgement from me about people liking different characters nor being bad at comprehending narrative. There's judgement of whether I value that person's analysis of narrative (ie, if they are bad at it, I won't), but like, if you love villains and you are aware they are villains, and engage with them narratively with an eye towards how they play a villain in the story, that's great. I know some people do judge on this basis, and like, they're wrong, but I do not. If your goal is to sway me, you will not do so by telling me your favorite character is a good person, or could not help what they were doing. You need to prove they're interesting within the narrative and engaging with the story. This is way harder than telling me they're a good person and requires a great deal more understanding.
However, I do hold moral judgement against people with the attitude of "You can't dislike what I like in a moral way," or people who, when I say why I don't like a character for narrative reasons (eg, failure for an actual play character to engage with the core concept of their class/subclass) dismiss that as unimportant. I hold in profound contempt anyone who cannot accept that no one else has to agree with their likes and dislikes, and hold in slightly less contempt, but still a good deal of contempt, anyone who lectures about how good a person they are for never having criticism. You're not a good person for having no criticism when I do; you just have lower standards than mine.
Anyway this is all just to say: obviously my opinions are shaped by personal experience - everyone's are, and if you need me to spell that out then uh, you're already not making a good case that you're up for the task of being capable of analysis - but as a rule my feelings about a character are going to be shaped by how they exist within the context of a story, and will be rooted in that story's text. I don't give a single fuck if they are meaningful to some internet stranger in terms of whether I personally like them, as I am not you, and I think you're horrifically self-absorbed for even thinking I should like them because they are meaningful to you, when, again, I am not you and don't know you. (Also I've never seen a single person who did this hold off from criticizing other people's favorite characters, because, again, they are horrifically self-absorbed people). If you cannot have a conversation in the context of "are they telling a narratively compelling story, based on what is literally in the text," then that's fine - I assume most of the people debating whether Bolaire is a good person or not aren't talking to me - but I am utterly uninterested in that question and the answer either way will not affect my opinion on him.
