We somehow have arrived at this situation where good is the single minded selfless optimist and we are all ok with this but the inverse is just blase and needs to be more nuanced. I think this is because if we looked at the good archetype with as much scrutiny we would lose any sort of frame of reference and be forced to realize its all ponderous grayness.
In Act 1 I would disagree. There is plenty of opportunity to do self-serving evil on the good path. In a way, this in of itself is the problem. I am not seeing myself as a selfless saint for helping the Tieflings because;
The evil path however offers you no opportunity to do good. You slaughter a camp of innocent people and lose your best chance of getting cured for nothing, then you get betrayed to boot. In Tyranny I never felt evil either, even when I kicked that commander off the tower. Well written evil makes you feel like the ends justify the means. What ends am I getting to when I side with Minthara? I saddle myself up with a whole lot of senseless murder for a god that I, in character, know is probably a lie.
So the companions, for the most part, who are apparently the 'evil' or lets say 'less good' companions we are given, tend to for the most part (with exception) approve of expediting a resolution to this tadpole problem, this seems to be framed as evil. I played through trying to roleplay as a fairly neutral character, reasoning its best for all involved to simply get healed as fast as possible. This disposition pleased all the bad guys. Did i do an evil playthrough?
According to Larian the answer here is either yes because the evil companions like you or no because you have not murdered enough devilspawn yet. The good or evil you commit up until the binary choice between Minthara or Zevlor is trivial. This is the problem.