I don't know, I think the central premise of the game is "even if 'Evil' is better suited to winning the war, they're not exactly the best qualified to run things in peacetime." I think a lot of the tension in the game will be about choosing between the "Evil" thing to do and what, most probably, will generate the best results. After all, if the realm needs food and a village in the heartland isn't meeting their agriculture quota, you could burn their village to the ground and salt the earth but that wouldn't make anybody less hungry (except for the dead people, who do not feel hunger.) You could brutally subjugate them and put them to the lash, but that's ultimately only a temporary solution, alternatively you could see what their problem is and go about fixing it even though that's not all that "Evil". Even if you work for the "Evil" empire, the problems that governing a kingdom involve really operate at a level independent of metaphysical ethics. People still need to eat, stuff still needs to get made, relatively content people are more productive than miserable people, etc. I kind of suspect one of the twists in the game will be when you finally meet Kyros, and you find out that Kyros has realized that the things that need to be done in order to keep the world running are kind of not-evil-at-all.