I would agree that these are goals with very different qualities, and suggest that both are stale.
If you take 'Perspectivist' aspect of the 'Art of the Self' seriously, then both 'good' and 'amorality' seem to be the wrong way to look at things. Acknowledging the equal goodness of multiple perspectives is not dissolving or removing morality, it is making it into something with more dimensions.
The 'transvaluing' person is not 'amoral': 'Beyond' is not just 'without'. It is easier to get rid of morality by moving backward rather than forward. It is a lot more work to move beyond the known and given sets of values into some situation where they all remain, and can be compared, recombined, etc. (It is likely to be impossible. But possible is just a valuation, and is not necessarily good.)
Yet to find a 'good', by folding all of these up into a single metric is doomed. It means ultimately that you have chosen a given set of values and abandoned some future perspectives to form a static standard. Part of the point of looking at the reversal of valuations over time is to show how power is a dynamic. I necessarily remains fluid, and it does not choose for things to be 'good' without eventually spoiling and becoming 'bad'. There is no 'good' or 'bad' outside relation to some aspect of context and personal nature that is not fixed.
I still hold by the notion that for all the political dressing, Nietzsche is all about aesthetics. Very good art, codified and repeated, is eventually 'good' yet ineffective. You can claim there is some definition of effectiveness that rolls up all the previous definitions of good in art, but then you cannot state it before it changes.