See, I'm in the Pathfinder wrath of the righteous alpha, after playing the evil route in it. I disagree. Alignments provide a framework, it also helps the writers remember there are various forms of evil rather than being a teenage murder hobo. For some reason, the game with alignments and where it's a common complaint that it's restrictive, has for more nuanced decisions and ways to roleplay an evil/good character than the game that got rid it by WOTC's order.
Larian wanted alignments, WOTC said no. The whole point of getting rid of them was the complaint that it's too restrictive, yet in this event we got a basic, boring evil path with no incentive, no setup and the only people it will please are those who just like killing people or who want to have sex with the drow. So much for getting more nuanced characters and writing after being free from a "restrictive" system. This is just my opinion after playing both.
I don't see how alignment has anything to do with it. It's just a matter of how good of a writer are you.
Then Larian are pretty bad writers if this is what they come up with since they are free from the "restrictive" framework. Alignments in my opinion would of made the writers stop and think, "Would a lawful evil or neutral evil character go on a murder spree just because and for the sake of drow boobs?"
Anyway, I can see we would agree to disagree. I don't want to derail the topic.
You are the one who is supposed too ask him/herself why your lawful evil or neutral evil character is going on a murder spree. That is what role-playing is: making decisions in-character.
You don't want to do it, then don't do it and pick another path. You can even ignore the quest if you don't want to deal with it.
