"You’re a reaver, a cutpurse, a heathen-slayer, a tight-lipped warlock guarding long-dead secrets. You seek gold and glory, winning it with sword and spell, caked in the blood and filth of the weak, the dark, the demons, and the vanquished."A lot of people cite this as proof that the game is nihilistic. I'm not seeing it.
A couple of those character types are described in violent terms, and a "cutpurse" definitely has a morality problem. The problem is, even most of the literature intended to be heroic is filled with violence and theft. Jason and the Argonauts is about a raid or heist; they sail to another country and steal the Fleece by force, not because they were in danger, but because Jason's father told him to do it -- in the hope that he'd die in the attempt. Hercules kills a couple people, not all of whom deserve it; he also steals the girdle of the Amazons. Even Theseus, slayer of a monster that's killing innocent people, goes on to abandon a girl who helped him and later kidnaps a woman because he felt like it. The Arthurian tales are a little better, but there's a lot of good knights who later betray each other, and there's still a lot of killing going on that isn't strictly necessary. Robin Hood is considered good, but he's taking people's property by force and occasionally killing some people who get in the way.
Next, consider a lot of modern stories that have criminals as main characters. Even though they've done illegal stuff and may even have killed a couple people, they aren't always killers and thieves through and through. It's a standard cliché in a lot of '30s and '40s movies to have a gangster type who is also patriotic or who has a soft spot for "dames and kids". Even in later Mafia films or other gangster films, there's frequently some kind of moral code and sense of honor and duty: don't rat out your buddies, don't betray your family, sometimes even a "no women, no children" policy (there were a couple real-life mobsters killed by other mobsters supposedly because they broke the "no women, no children" code, although that code may no longer be enforced.)
My point? When I said that not being a hero (in the lofty moral sense) doesn't necessarily mean that you are a villain (rotten to the core,) I'm thinking of the mixed moral bag of pre-20th century heroes of legend and the mid-20th century heroes from Hollywood. They've either made a decision to not be strictly moral, because of a character flaw (gambler, drinker) or disrespect for the law, but that doesn't mean they are amoral. They may think of themselves as basically good people, and may help others out. They've just got this moral blind spot, which they may even reconsider. You don't have to play a sociopath to seek gold and glory.