Like I explained before, Valerie's shtick is 2-fold even from the start, on the surface she's a guardsman who shares that her beauty was a problem for her in whatever academy/church she comes from, but this isn't what is actually going on. She is immediately contrasted with Svetlana, who explains that she basically has no choice but to follow Oleg in whatever he plans to do, namely the inn atm. Which led me to believe that Valerie is ...not exactly lying, but doesn't have a very clear idea of the full picture. From her perspective, she was indeed worshiped as an idol of beauty and protected because of that, but she wouldn't be there if her family wasn't wealthy or influential in the first place, so she managed to escape from there, probably with quite a lot of cash because why wouldn't she take it, to try to be whatever she wants to be. So it is because of her heritage and beauty that she actually manages to become what she wants to, as opposed to Svetlana, who isn't as wealthy but would probably like to not be an innkeeper, especially since I presume her sister is in with the bandits. At least I detected a bit of that in her dialogue.
This is not an SJW stereotype, quite the contrary. She isn't a stronk womyn, she is a privileged girl who managed to cheat the system due to wealth and looks, and as Desiderius points out, she isn't even a good fighter. If this character isn't personally interesting to you, that's a completely different matter.
You will have to let me pay attention to this arc, because as I told you yesterday I had not considered it. I will keep an eye open for it and let you know if I find it interesting. The contrast between Val's and Svetlana's situations is indeed interesting. I like things like that.
Whether these games NEED to get the tanking character (who should be a man?) right is a dubious claim. What if you are a tank yourself? You are presuming that everyone plays the same way you do.
It doesn't matter if I am a tank, PKM parties work well with 2 tanks. The tanks are very emotionally engaging to the player, because it is a very crucial job. Often, when the tank goes, the whole party goes. Bioware and Obsidian have realized this and have paid the needed attention to the position.
Generally, I would advise against taking too many risks with the tank characters. There are other companions for such risk taking. You seem to be assuming that there are no general rules because everyone has their own tastes, but it is not the case. There are rules, and whenever we break them we have to be ready to pay the price.
And this is the source of most of your complaints, that they don't align with whatever you think is the archetype of an RPG, you project that onto other people and blame the game/developers/companions for not sticking to that and not catering to "the big chunk of the population" of which you assume you are a part. Glossing over the fact that that's an argument from popularity of course. This argument is just baffling to me tbh, you are simply blaming the game for not catering specifically to you and how you usually play RPGs. What if I told you I usually play a bald female character or as grotesque of a character as I can manage? You'd say I'm free to do whatever I want, but in your proposed scenario nobody would ever cater to me, yet you expect games to cater to you.
I have tried to explain this to you before, and this discussion has happened earlier with other posters too. It is not a highly kept secret what character types appeal to almost everyone. It is what I called "classic archetypes". Hollywood uses them all the time, best seller authors use them all the time. They are similar to the chord progressions of the (pop) music industry, they work for lots of people and everyone knows it. They are known, not secret. When the writers diverge from those archetypes and I happen not to like the end result, it is not my fault. It is by default a risk that the writers took.
Now. Does that mean that the tanks have to be played safe and be boring copies of unoriginal ideas in order to be popular with the audience? For a game like PKM, hopefully not. However, extra attention and care has to be applied so that the characters and story arcs are relatable or interesting, because people ARE going to pay extra attention to the tank. Val diverged from said archetypes a lot, it seems that there are a lot of people who don't like her (as I hear), and her "I hate my beauty" introduction is probably a facepalming moment for most of the audience. It is like the writer tried to make her as unrelatable as possible. The execution of her introduction was a bit crude too. The ball was dropped.
I remember what you said in the beginning of you post, and I will pay attention to see if there is a hidden treasure in Val's case somewhere. I doubt it will change the public's perception of Valerie, but it might change mine.
PS. Playing with accepted archetypes does not have to be painfully boring, btw. Jubilost (intelligent smartass) is fun. Eder (the bro at the front protecting me) was fine, and one of the most popular PoE companions. As Avellone once said (but I will paraphrasing because I am talking from memory), a big thing for the end result is the execution, not just the concept. Ie, almost anything can be made entertaining with the right execution.