I'm a bit of an interloper here so let me apologise for that at the outset. 

I have played a lot of games called RPGs. This is my favorite kind of computer game.
I think, however, that most of you would not qualify most of such games and True D&D. 

This question now arises with regard to Baldur's Gate 3. 

Why? 

Because it has been claimed/discovered that BG3 does not take Alignment into account in it's Character Creation. 
If so this would be a very important flaw in BG3 - if it claims to be True D&D? (Maybe it doesn't care?)

Because without this element of Character Creation a player can do pretty well do anything they please and face no consequences for their actions.
For example, it seems a Character can act as a butchering evil murderer and still achieve Hero status and be applauded by all at the end of the game. ??
Only Donald Trump could enjoy that feat. 

I have not experienced this myself - haven't got that far (nor would I ever play that way). 

This is reported/claimed by one individual in the BG3 forums on Steam. 

Personally, I consider accountability for your behavior/actions to be a vital element in D&D - call it Karma if you like -
in that the Game must respond to how you behave -  or your actions/behavior are completely irrelevant. 

And since I see no Alignment element BG3 Character Creation in I have to consider this probably true?
Therefore, for me this definitely affects my enjoyment - and the validity - in playing BG3 as a D&D experience.

I can't say why it seems Larian Studios didn't include this element in Character Creation?
Was it an oversight? or a conscious decision?

Without going on any further ... what sayest thou about this?

I'm just trying to figure out what the hell you mean by "true D&D".

Because that would be 1e.

There are two schools of thought on Alignment, both of which could be considered “true D&D.” 

There is the thought that alignment is absolute - that you have to take actions based on your alignment and if you do not, you should suffer some kind of consequence.  Wizards no longer favours this interpretation of alignment because, frankly, it is kind of dumb.  It doesn’t reflect the reality of how people work and ignores the fact that alignment is very much open to interpretation.  Strict alignment also creates problems in playgroups - it can create unnecessary arguments about where the lines between the alignments might fall, and it can result in “alignment police” trying to force their (often emotionally and empathetically stunted) views on alignment onto other players. 

The second school of alignment is the one Wizards presently favours.  It does not look at alignment as an absolute part of your character, but as a metric for measuring your character.  Alignment, in this school of thought, is akin to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - a bad psychological test which is easy for laypeople to understand, but which should not be used as an actual psychological evaluative tool.  Under this theory, your actions dictate alignment, not the other way around.  Alignment exists to measure where you are - if you start doing things that slide you toward evil or good, the evaluation on your character might change.

This is a more accurate view of how people actually operate.  It reflects the facts folks change and develop based on their experiences, and allows greater flexibility in how a player develops over the course of a game.  It also reduces party conflict, because there are no in-game consequences to an alignment change.  This you do not have alignment police stopping the game to try and force a change in action or imposition of consequence.

Additionally, the idea there are no consequences to your actions without some kind of arbitrary alignment penalty is almost a laughable proposition.  The DM can always impose consequences - a bounty being put on a good character who has a move toward evil; the character’s evil friends turning on her if she moves toward good; etc.  There are plenty of actual story ways to punish players for changing who they are - all of which are better storytelling than “and now your alignment changes” or “and now you face some arbitrary punishment for ignoring your alignment.” 

Ultimately the game had to choose between two different ways of viewing alignment - the absolute way, which offers next to no actual advantages and causes incredible amounts of problems, or the more flexible way which better reflects psychological and ethical realities and is less likely to cause conflict or the feeling of arbitrary action.  I think it is pretty clear why Wizards favours the second view on alignment, and thus it is pretty clear why they would want that more flexible view of alignment in the game.

What do you mean “true D&D?” Who gets to be the arbiter of that?

I am so confused. What is "True D&D"? Are those that don't mandate alignment for characters somehow playing a fake, not real, nonexistent, or incorrect version of the game?

Alignment's an excellent tool for many, me included of course. But I have no ability to comprehend why it's a necessity, unless a specific and weird version of the Outer Planes is crucial to the campaign.

Baldur's Gate is a video game, it really doesn't matter whether or not the main character is technically classified as a hero. And why did you post this thread in Adohand's Kitchen? There seems to be an ongoing campaign of bogging down this forum with threads that should clearly go in General Discussion.

Thank you kindly for this excellent response. I am no expert in all this. 
I can definitely see the difficulty of programming this in a game.  
In life I truly believe in Karma - that we account for our behavior. 
For me that's a necessary and appealing element in D&D and I believe one the
elements and reasons many Gamers are attracted to it. It is missing from most
any other game and a lot of Gamers don't seem to consider it or give a hoot about it.
Fine.  
Moving along now ...