Many of the things mentioned, by various people, don't come across to me as
bad trope characters so much as
tropey chars that may or may not work well. I'm going for very specifically
bad trope characters, ones that are particularly liable to cause Problems for the group. So, as an example, I'd argue the "anti-magic barbarian" trope is salvageable, but the "rage and attack whenever the player gets bored" trope is
not salvageable. Underlined is stuff I've kept from your examples.
- Artificer: Explosive/splash-weapon fanatic "experimenting" on allies
- Barbarian: "Randomly" raging and attacking enemies or even allies (read: "when the player gets bored")
- Bard: Just Horny and Promiscuous
- Cavalier: Mount-obsessed, refuses to enter dungeons without mount
- Cleric: Fake pacifist, only heals in-combat but will smite evil when angered
- Druid: TN slothful backstabber druid of "Balance"
- Fighter: Dark brooding "loner" avoiding IC conversations (except to be dark and brooding)
- Monk: Ice Cream Koan-sprouting faux-mystic kungfu dude
- Paladin: Lawful Stupid Moral Policeman that does more evil than good
- Psion: Mind-reader seventeen steps ahead of everyone else
- Ranger: In denial about actually having friends and liking visits to cities
- Rogue: Greedy Loner with a "dark past"
- Thief-Acobat: Never seen one, no idea. Maybe "Circus clown permanently stuck in pratfall mode"?
- Sorcerer: Cackling maniac throwing around random spells for no reason
- Shaman: New Age Philosophy-spouting faux-mystic cauldron-stirring dude
- Warlock: Insane Evil Doomsday Cultist in love with Patron
- Warlord: Insufferable busybodies who see themselves as "in charge" and "calling the shots."
- Wizard: Haughty ivory-tower academic who always knows the correct way to do everything
You may note that almost all of these involve either refusing to engage with the other players, engaging with them in coercive or abusive ways, or being condescending and dismissive to the other players. That's sort of the core trifecta of Bad D&D Character Tropes: disengaged, demanding, or dismissive. If the player themself is being any of those three things, the character is basically automatically bad. In rare cases, it's possible to pull off the
character being like this if the
player makes clear their intent, but that's a difficult undertaking--usually the best way to pull it off is to make the above be a front, something to keep others at arms' length because of anxiety or self-doubt or genuinely believing that people
shouldn't associate with them.
The only partial exceptions are the Bard, Monk, and Shaman. Monk and Shaman are both at risk of falling into racist stereotypes, and the whole "mystic wisdom" angle is often dismissive in its own right. The promiscuous Bard is basically dragging everyone else along for their sex fantasy, which fits fairly well into the "demanding" part just in an unusual way.
Are Paladin and Cavalier both lawful stupid zealots or only one of them?
I'll be honest, I don't entirely grok Cavalier as its own class idea. If it's religious, it's hard for me to see any daylight between it and Paladin: holy warriors that have a special steed and fight in the name of an oath or commitment. 4e recognized this by making Cavalier a Paladin subclass. If it's nonreligious, it frankly sounds like (as 5e did it) a Fighter subclass, a warrior specializing in mounted combat without the aid of magic or anything supernatural.
But the "bad trope" Cavalier is really simple: player is so enamored with their mount that they'll refuse to play if they aren't allowed to bring it everywhere, and will prioritize that mount over all other considerations, no matter how ridiculous that might end up being. (E.g., refusing to help prevent the end of the world because it means leaving Mr. Ed back in town while you delve into a dungeon.)