Good vs Good

When I first started playing TTRPGs the campaigns and adventures were always simple in that there was a really huge threat or big-bad evil guy (BBEG). As a hero, your involvement was unambiguous.

Make no mistake, I had fun playing these games but at the same time it felt like something was missing. Then years later I read something that I can no longer attribute because I just can't remember

Great tragedies aren't about good vs evil, they're about good vs good or bad vs bad.

That changed a lot for me and how I looked at games going forward. Because its totally right.

When we have a good vs evil problem, there is an obvious imperative to act. Unfortunately, what is lost is an aspect of character development and agency. The imperative to act removes any meaning to a reason why or the character's relevance to the story.

The action is fun, but it could be anyone.

Take, in contrast, a game where the BBEG isn't actually evil, but a good guy who does bad things. A, "ends justify the means" type. There will come a point, with this setup, where each and every character will have to make a choice. The choice to join the BBEG or try and stop them.

The choice will be dramatic since it will hinge on the character's background, story, and experiences. The choice will mean doing bad things to what they hope is a good end. This choice will be hard.

In practice, you don't have to apply this just to the BBEG, but to any NPC. Robin Hood was a thief and outlaw, after all.

This idea is a way to incorporate drama into your game. You don't have to do it, but when you use this approach it'll leave the party feeling like they had to struggle through something and they may not know if they made the right choice. That could be a powerful addition to your game, and fatiguing if overused.