Rarely do we see Godwin's Law fulfilled in the first post!

Is there anything else than the environment that bothers you? Because to me, the rest of the distinctions between Empire and Kingdom seem rather uncoloured by ethics. If anything, they are more drawing inspiration from political variants such as fascism, socialism and aristocracies.

I agree with the OP. In Age of Wonders races were Good, Neutral or Evil but that really only came into play when you mixed units in a stack. Under that there was a matrix of racial acceptance that really drove the diplomacy. Distant Worlds has both a racial matrix as well as your choice of government to give it its diplomatic acceptance.

I love the good-evil extremes that you find in fantasy. The thing I find unacceptable is the idea that you can find common ground with a faction that wants or needs to destroy everything that is important to you. Even peace is ridiculous in this situation, much more so is intermarriage and alliances! I would have liked a permanent state of war between the two opposites.

As for Godwins Law, I think the Nazis have a very important linguistic function as an extreme example of how bad a government can be. It is something that can happen fairly easily and that we need to guard against continually. The example can be abused, but so can Godwin's Law.

The U.S. was formed by alot of religious christians (Good) that wiped out the savage indians (Bad) - judgement was decided by the winner, in fact rarely is the winner not considered the 'good' side with those that lost being labeled tha 'bad'.  Tarth attacks me cause I"m weak, Magnar attacks me cause I"m weak - bottom line is I"m the good guy & these A******* are the bad guys I don't care what they call themselves.

Count me out on this!

It's perhaps not Good and Evil (as the latest post indicates) but at least the lore is clearly manichean and we'd like to stick to the already-in-the-book lore.

EITHER YOU ARE WITH US OR YOU ARE AGAINST US!

Mandelik, can you give us a brief sketch of how Kingdoms vs. Fallen works in the book? Is Essence part of how reclaiming lands from the Cataclysm works, or did that get cut from the book as well as the game?

The twisted lands of the Fallen have never seemed like a narrative problem to me, but the idea of Kingdom-Empire marriages does seem wrong given the opposing habitat needs.

Well,  considering that regardless of what faction I play, I end up invoking volcanoes and murdering everyone that can be murdered, I really don't see the good vs evil. And I wouldn't call what I do evil... excessive maybe... ridiculously fun, but not consistently evil. Lore wise, I've not actually finished Book 1 yet.

Well, the only thing, think I already mentioned that somewhere, that irritates me about the Empire is this exact destroying of nature while themselves relying on nature.
If the Empire nourished on the pure essence of corruption, or some funky thing like that, then it would make sense, but themselves needing normal food and normal other ressoruces, deliberately destroying the land seems rather suicidal and erratic.

The Empires are not evil.

I'd argue that the Empires are more on the "good side" than the Kingdoms in many respects.  Trying to call the Empires evil is a gross over simplification.  The Kingdoms and Empires are ideologies. Not moralities.

It is funny that people see the Empire as evil and the kings as good. One might as easily say that kingdoms represent light and empires represent dark, but this too is not really reflected in the game play itself. Most of these ethical distinctions seem to be a direct result of our own preconceived notions. Honestly, the OP is correct to say that simply black and white morality is not very interesting, though such moral choices are not really part of the overall game experience.

Word. Even if they aren't (as the creator of the lore, I suppose that you're the ultimate arbiter), the do "seem" that way. Killing the land, using death magic, riding big scary wolves with glowing red eyes.

But, I'm glad to hear that the edges will be greyed a little in FE. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

At the moment i really don't see the point for the massive distinction between the two. All the differences seem at best cosmetic and at worst just arbitrary. I don't see what the fact that only empires can build a +2 mana building says about their philosophy, or how different numbers for the housing buildings make them a fundamentally different gameplay experience.

I get that it's good to have ideological opposition between factions, because it nudges them towards war, which (turtler as i am), i feel bored if i can avoid for the entire game. I also get why neutral was removed, because in GC2 it was kinda overpowered.

But to my mind, everything the game seems to be doing at the moment would be much better served by merging the tech trees into one and adding branching options (ie, choose between technologies that drain power from the land, or that rejuvenate it). If you want to leave a mechanic to create an "us vs them" mentality, then separate that into cultures and give the empires "Eastern" cultures and the kingdoms "Western" cultures.

Racial differentiation is better handled by stats. Multiple tech trees are a kop out to me because the nature of science in your world shouldn't changed based on who you're playing. More than anything, a single tech tree would be easier to balance and allow players to talk to each other far better. And I can play the same faction in different ways.

Brad, have you ever played Sword of the Stars?

Game mechanics aside (though some would be fun for elemental), the way the different races are handled in game really makes for markedly different experiences depending on which side you play, and, which sides you play against.

And not just in the 'these guys historically don't like those guys' kind of way.  Lore is fun, lore is good, but if the only impact lore has on the actual game play is 'these guys don't like those guys' then it will feel as though an opportunity has been missed in using the lore to impact the game play, rather than just set a context in which to play.