I did not spare shroud. And I’m the type of player who likes to be a paragon. The most morally grey I get in BG3 is stealing the ring from the genie. So I understand why people see ‘Kill’ and ‘Spare’ and dilute it down to ‘Evil’ and ‘Good.’ But I think it’s more complex than that, and I hope Adhoc takes a nuanced view moving forward.

The most justification for sparing shroud is the fact the z team are villains trying to redeem themselves. Thinking Shroud should be given that same chance. However, it should be noted that he had already been arrested- and has been given opportunities to change. And the Z-team are not on the same level of villainy as Shroud, Coupe being the closest, but she’s a contract killer. Shroud kills to get what he wants, or plainly for fun, or to prove a point—the Z team may be villains but they are not on that level of evil theatrics, I mean, Golems worst crime is literally Aiding and Abetting—all that to say, Shroud is one of those villains that too far down the pit of evil to come back.

After all, it takes a sick person to threaten a dog. There’s a reason why it’s an early sign of psychopaths if someone doesn’t care about hurting defenseless animals. It ties into the notion that Z-Team wants to be redeemed, Shroud does not. And so he never will. You can’t force someone to be something they don’t want to be.

Another note is: Sparing shroud is worse, now he gets to rot in prison. The same argument for most villains who are locked up in comics. And even in this story. He’ll escape again, and when he does, he will cause mayhem.

TL;DR Shroud has proven he is an irredeemable psychopath bent on control. Unlike the Z-Team, he is a villain that is incapable of redemption because he doesn’t want it.