I do not confuse righteousness with Good. That is the problem.
Let use another example to bring it back to the OP. The War on Drugs.
This was done to stop the use of drugs in the US. Most everyone would agree that drugs are bad. But the War on Drugs was not good and did not achieve its goals. Drug use was still high and for every bust they did, more came in. And not every drug is as equally bad.
Many countries have had more success with treating the drug users, rather than jailing them or going after the dealers. Or legalizing some of the drugs, the ones that are not addictive. These solutions come from people not being narrow minded on the problem, but willing to explore the entirety of the problem to find something to make it better.
In my experience, a righteousness person that believes all drugs are bad would not even look at these solutions. Drugs are bad, they need to be stopped. But they are ignoring all the suffering they cause in pursuing getting rid of the drugs, i.e. the War on Drugs.
That is why just calling the other side evil in righteous anger does not help. It doesn't look at what both sides could agree on doing, or looking at the data and seeing what is possible. It just vilify those you think are wrong and ignoring everything else.
To put it in gaming terms: It is like playing a Paladin and wiping out a large camp of bandits, but not addressing the local economic conditions (high taxes, blight in the fields, etc.) that led them to it so more show up as they lose their farms.