The idea of paladins was that they were virtuous holy warriors. Inquisitors would've been clerics. They're also, again, not by default sanctimonious. Playing them that was is a matter of choice, not requirement.

As far as I know, slaughtering heretics for being heretics isn't really considered a lawful good action in D&D. It's considered lawful evil.

I think there are two kinds of 'evil' if you will.

One that thinks only of the ruler and makes his life easier at the cost of everything else, even his own population. This kind of evil could result in political instability and even uprisings if your security forces aren't up to the task of keeping dissent down.

The other one (and one that isn't really represented in GalCiv) is being evil at the expense of others but in favour of your own people. Your people is the only thing that matters, all else is secondary.

With regards to the OP, there have been threads about the good-evil debate where it has been more or less established that evil is best with neutral being a good second. A few ideas to rectify this have included boosting the bonus for choosing good or to turn ethical dilemma's into opportunities. This means that every choice gives you a bonus of some sort while still following some ethical alignment.

One idea I just came up with is the following:

Being Good in GalCiv II means you look out for others. You can be trusted and you respect others. Evil nations can be relied on to jump on every sign of weakness to stomp all over you.
So how about giving Good nations a decent diplomatic bonus and Evil nations a penalty? As the game works now, Evil nations like each other (+ for ethical alignment) which, in my opinion shouldn't happen. Evil nations don't just band together unless it is called for by opportunity; these nations can't be trusted.
Good nations on the other hand can be trusted and should build a decent amount of goodwill with other nations of a similar alignment. In the end, Good nations should band together and form alliances based on mutual understanding and trust.

This setup would mean that Good nations on their own may not be as powerful as others but they band together, forming a 'bastion of light' against the cold dark heart of space - if you'll allow me to put this more or less poetically.

In short diplomatic influences regarding ethical alignments should look like this:

Evil nations:

- for other Evil nations
- for other Neutral nations
- for other Good nations

Neutral nations:

- for other Evil nations
+ for other Neutral nations (or maybe nothing)
+ for other Good nations

Good nations:

- for other Evil nations
+ for other Neutral nations (or maybe nothing)
++ for other Good nations (I took ++ because being Good is a tough and conscious choice you make).

In the end, Evil nations end up being alone and diplomatically isolated. Neutral nations have some goodwill (through extra trading for example) and can form friendships. Good nations will band together and work towards a common goal.

Anyway, just an idea.

I just had to point this out. Nazi Germany? Imperial Japan?....Don't you think World War II could be considered a form of mob violance? The treaties to end WWII ended the Nazi party, and made figureheads out of the Japanese emperors. (before WWII they were considered divinity, and while some military leaders made them into figureheads, a strong-willed emperor always won over his military counterpart. An Imperial invitation to seppukku was hard to ignore)

To get back to scoring of metaverse games if I may. I know that military victories get some kind of bonus over the other types of victories. Some agrue that this is a reward for sticking it out till the end and beating everyone. I mean, many times an influence victory is just a military one where you just dont bother sending in the last bunch of transports because its just not worth your time by that point.

However, I think that scoring for all vicories should be the same. Going for a military victory over an alliance victory will give you a higher score all by itself; with the larger military, and greater number of planets under your conrtol. So it should not need an "extra credit" bonus.

I like to get higher scores but i dont want to change my end game just to get one. If the game goes the way of alliances then I'll win by alliance. If i control 90% of the galaxy, should i need to declare war on the last race just to not accidentally win by influence and then wait a few weeks for transports to be build and travel to that final cluster i dont own, or the planets that are already in my area but arnt mine?

I guess thats why we have terror stars now.

No, not really. The point is the difference between internal revolt and external invasion. Or to put in in Galciv terms, between morale and foreign relations.

*chuckle* I could point out that a lot of people...important people who worked on the US bomb project were German refugees. Although technically Germany was already beaten by the time we dropped the bomb.