i think placing the endings into 'good' and 'bad' is to force a kind of Hollywood or traditional US/Japanese RPG morality onto a game that moves in more subtle strokes.
Kran is absolutely right that the remnant of Verso's soul will be enslaved to keep the canvas world alive, to give Alicia her dream life, to maintain the existences of Lune and Sciel and the others. and an old reconstructed painted Verso playing piano when all he wants to do is die is a kind of double enslavement. very reminiscent of 'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas' by Le Guin / Star Trek SNW's 'Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach'. is the torture of one entity ever justified for the sake of a thousand others'? utilitarianism vs deontology is a debate as old as ethics.
but conversely painted Verso is robbing all those entities of all their agency. their lives may depend on Verso's soul fragment but do their existences not have meaning for not being 'real'? old Blade Runner/Legion debate of 'does this replicant have a soul?' to say nothing of Alicia being thrust back into the life of disability she desires so deeply to escape. the Descendre family may be saved (debatably given Clea storms off presumably to resume her war), but at the cost of so much life, at the cost of Alicia being shackled within her husk of a body again.
i think what's so engaging is that Alicia's and painted Versos's trauma have left them at opposed ends, with no possible compromise, both willing to violate the agency of people they love to get what they want, and affect what they earnestly think is ethically best. and both paths come with innocents hurt, and loved ones saved. some beautiful stuff. love a game like BG3 but it uh is not moving with this kind of sophistication in its endings.