A possible contributor to the high noise level: HNQ+Alignment
There is a meta here about the problem of Hot Network Questions that I hope you'll take a look at to understand how the situation seems to have taken on a life of its own.
The other problem that cropped up which you noted in your last edit,
removed the alignment sentence as it was not relevant to the question
and apparently generated a lot of opinion based answers that not was
being asked for.
was that your GM had raised the alignment issue with you in the course of your interaction. A number of people glommed onto that element, with the predictable result that their answers ran into the problem that a lot of alignment issues raise in this format.
I don't think that removing that necessarily helps us understand the
situation, as it looked to me that the alignment consideration
between the two of you was an integral part of your at table
You have now discovered how prickly the alignment issue can be in questions covering some game systems. I ran into something similar when I first started participating here. That meta helped me get a better feel for where alignment does and doesn't fit on this particular site.
Let me share with you how I experienced your question, as I dropped by during the day, since the situation you raised isn't an uncommon one -- a mismatch of assumptions between player and GM. I was interested to see what the answers would be.
The votes to close should have come sooner, mea culpa
As the answers came rolling in, I noted a number of low quality answers from low-to-no rep users, and I thought to protect the question. It had not been open long enough for that action to be taken, so I made a comment (since deleted) that I thought this needed protection and posted a flag. A mod dropped in (@SevenSidedDie) and replied to my comment with something like "this early in the question's life, if you see a problem a vote to close is the better choice, flag for protection wasn't the right way to go about this." In other words, I'd have served your question better by getting another close vote in sooner, not later.
The point in closing a question, sculpting it, and the opening it again (with caveats on GS/BS as eventually arrived) is to reduce the kind of churn that a question attracts and that is often amplified by the HNQ effect.
A bit later the question did get protected, and then I noticed another comment from @SevenSidedDie that the question was on the HNQ list. I am not sure how long after it was closed the first time, but it isn't uncommon for the HNQ phenomenon to add to the churn, or multiply it, and increase the noise level. Those who voted to close it the first time were correctly protecting the question in that manner.
I tried to help a few of the answers with edits, and in one case helping an answerer with a citation (from the PFSRD), so that their answer wasn't just unsupported "this is how alignment should work" ... but that didn't and couldn't solve the core problem. Most of the answers didn't meet GS/BS standards, and that eventually drives us to the root issue, which is that ...
SE sites are designed to have a better signal-to-noise ratio than anywhere else
When a Question attracts that much noise, it generally needs to be closed as a form of damage control. That's part of why it needed to be closed: too much noise. As NautArch pointed out, that's more the fault of the answerers than of the question.