Wow, lots of good ideas here, thanks for all the input. Will reply more in depth tomorrow.
Tony, sounds like we had similar ideas. I'm about to crash, but I'll PM you tomorrow because I'd love to see what you've got.
Sounds very much like Empire vs Stormcloak subplot in Skyrim to me. I think they did a pretty good job of setting it up so there was no clearly "good" side. You might look to that for some ideas.
Hmm, not a bad idea, thanks.
My advice as somebody that has run a campaign like what the OP is suggesting is, don't do it. If you have a world of grey, then every victory feels less heroic. Players don't pat themselves on the back for choosing the lesser of two evils. They feel that they are not really making a difference and that if everybody is an ahole anyway, why not just be in it for ourselves.
Hmm, that's definitely food for thought. But I almost take it like a challenge. E.g., what if one party is good in terms of x, but bad in terms of y, and the other party is good in terms of a, but bad in terms of b. Does that make any sense? Making the PC's choice reveal their preferences, is what I'm getting at. Also, my thinking was not really so much moral equivalence, as it was appearances. I.e., the king really is evil, but he's evil in a limited way. In his private home, basically, and not so much in how he administers the kingdom; he's evil, but not a tyrant, and he doesn't give the PCs an easy caricature to demonize - quite the contrary. Meanwhile, the rebels aren't so much evil, as they are ruthless terrorists and guerrilla fighters, because the king's forces have them easily overmatched and they see no other way to win. One man's freedom fighter, and all that.
But like I said, you do make a very good point here.
Banana, that's a pretty amazing post there, you a script doctor?
You have a gift.
