...I think the bit with them always making the honorable choice might have been necessary as part of the whole "desperate straits" that the Light has been in. A battle between the Light & the Shadow, with all the importance of moral choices hinted at through the series, is about doing good stuff, rather than tactically clever things. I think a major mistake of Jordan's was the failure to emphasize that aspect of the battle. There are hints, like the Pattern being made out of life-threads or the fate of Aridhol or Min's recurring vision of lights fighting darkness, but it is not explicitly detailed how the situation vis a vis the Shadow is the cumulative result of everyone's behavior. "Belief and order give strength" and too many moral slipups by the important characters would leave the situation too far beyond redeeming.

Jordan always talked about the issue of how the Light is at the very end of their rope with the Shadow way ahead on points, and depending on a miracle to actually have a chance at the Dark One, and that was the situation as I perceived it from the text, but IMO, it was not sufficiently stated for most readers. Part of having their backs to the wall is that they have zero margin of error. By certain contemporary standards of character development, that is a weakness in the story, since they have to go from win to win, but there are too many parallel situations in the series for me to believe that's an accident.

One such example (which I recall writing a post complaining about, on either this board or wotmania) is how none of the good guys have to dirty their hands with their predecessor's blood in order to achieve the power they do. Rand does not have to kill any recalcitrant rulers in order to take power over a particular nation, Elayne does not have to depose Morgase, Egwene does not have to depose Siuan (or for that matter, Elaida, who gets conveniently removed right at the moment the Ajah Heads are most open to considering Egwene's leadership qualifications), Perrin does not have to seize power in the Two Rivers, or fight his in-laws, or depose the long-standing ruler of Ghealdan, Tuon doesn't have to overthrow her sociopathic mother (recall in tGH, she is cited as amusing herself by playing an a'dam equivalent of Russian Roulette with her damane and male courtiers) and Galad does not have to remove the Fain-tainted Pedron Niall. All of those old rulers who were in place when the series started, who were tied into the inadequate status quo, and thus a "part of the problem" who needed to be excised for the protagonists to do their thing, were all conveniently removed by other circumstances, allowing the characters to all climb to the summits of power with relatively clean hands. For all that Rand whines about the dirt he has to do, it's really only to people who have it coming, and very little is morally offensive, just mildly unpleasant for Mr. Nice Guy.

While I might have bemoaned this issue on previous occasions, now I can't help but think it might have been necessary in order to preserve the moral certainty and clear consciences of the leadership of the Light for Tarmon Gaidon. For here on out, Lan, Perrin, Cadsuane, Elayne and Tuon might have to make a lot of unpleasant-but-necessary moral choices in their positions as rulers of the world, but they needed to go into the Last Battle with pure hearts and clear consciences.