Bad at being good or good at being bad?

The relative nature of being good or bad is always debatable. While Duryodhana is an "evil" character in Mahabharata, for somebody who believes that the throne is rightfully his, he might be the most persistent person ever. On the other hand, Krishna who is the driving force of the story and supports the virtuous couldn't make them win without being somewhat unfair. Would those actions be acceptable if He wasn't God? I wonder what is more taxing - when you are perceived worse than you are or better than you are. Karna, who has all the characteristics of a real hero is denied the respect and status in the society right from his birth by his mother, by his teachers, friend and last but not the least, God himself. Yudhishthira, who is considered the epitome of justice lost his wife and four brothers in the game of dice out of his stance of being fair. But was he fair to Draupadi and the people of Indraprastha or did he mean to be fair to only Duryodhana and Shakuni? Why did 'good' people suffer and couldn't win without unfair means? Is it right to be good and fair and loose or is it right to be good and unfair and win? Should they still be called good?