Where are the good guys?

I'm currently reading The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan, which is a fantasy saga that I wouldn't necessarily recommend to anyone, but has me thinking about good and evil and the definition of those terms.

Robert Jordan's writing is notable for his creation of an extensive make-believe world and gazillion characters, but I'd also describe his writing as slow, tedious, and lacking plot development. These books describe an epic struggle between good and evil (that evidently never ends...Jordan died before he finished the series), but the characters, aware of this epic struggle, are mired in petty arguments not only with their allies, but with their friends. It's clear Jordan knows where he wants his characters to end up, but he has a hard time making the journey by any other means than having the characters argue amongst themselves.

It's clear which characters are meant to be "the good guys;"they're mostly all on Rand's (the central character) side. But as I think about the "good" characters, I wonder what really distinguishes them from the bad guys. Both good and bad are manipulative to no end, self-centered, and stuck in never-ending petty arguments. Both groups use their "special powers" to achieve their own purposes and gain advantages for themselves. While the good guys all claim to live for "the Light"--whatever that is, it's left unexplained--many seem to think their own way of following the Light and fighting the Dark Lord is the sure way to success. Therefore, they end up in distrusting factions and acting on partial knowledge. (This train of thought has me considering the correlations to the modern church.)

Each good character also has his/her own code of conduct. The worst thing in Rand's perspective is to kill a woman (or let her be killed), and yet as much as he tries to avoid it, women die because of his actions. Nynaeve's battle is one for courage, and yet her flaming anger works well to hide her cowardice. Egwene says the following about evil in A Crown of Swords: "Do what you must, then pay the price for it, was what she had been taught. It was refusal to admit the debt, refusal to pay, that often turned necessity to evil" (Pg. 230). So according to Egwene, evil isn't in the action, it's in the intention and willingness to own up to it. And as the reader encounters a myriad of characters from various cultures and classes, he/she sees just as many different standards for right and wrong. The Aiel equate carrying a sword with evil, but bigamy is tradition. In Ebou Dar, fighting (and killing) in duels is standard practice, but to tell a lie is a great offense.

So what makes people (or characters) good? Tradition, intention, personal success? The question ties closely to my current study of Romans. The first half of Romans 2 states that there is one standard of righteousness that is based on truth (vs. 2). It also demonstrates that knowing the right thing to do isn't enough; doing the right thing is also required. Romans 2:13 says, "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." By this standard, there aren't any good guys in The Wheel of Time series.