So, onwards to politics.

I'm gonna roll half of this into one quote.

First of all, state names. There's nothing wrong with a state being known by the common name: Montenegro, for example, has its name directly translated in many languages, with the proper name being "Crna Gora", meaning "Black Mountain" (where "Montenegro" comes from Latin for it). However, having a state known by its proper name - let's say, "Crna Gora" - could be a sign of many things, respect and/or fear from other states and cultures being not the least of them. So, if "Elvenheim" or "P'phakhtanyar" are the proper names for their respective states, there would be nothing wrong with having them known as such both to the political elite and the general population, even with some of the names being difficult to pronounce - in which case, a common name might appear, like with München and it's English-language equivalent "Munich", which for a non-German is much easier to pronounce.

...

As a linguist, I always insist on having the name of the state come from the language its people bear. It doesn't make sense to have it the other way, unless common names are used. With the state of C'ae, I do have a question: what does the apostrophe stand for? Language evolves into simplicity, so using side symbols, especially in (what I assume to be) transliteration, would have to be under a strong enough justification. History knows both coming and going of symbols for various sounds even within a single writing system, as evident with the reforms of the Russian language (some subtle, some overt and officially-dictated), where "Ё" /jo/ became a part of the language after people've already been using "IО"/"ЙО" for the same sound and the infamous "Ѣ" /je/ went away under the 1917/1918 Soviet decrees. What justification does the goblin language and/or the transliteration of it into the common tongue that's used for relaying the world's information have for the apostrophe in the name? Besides, how does one pronounce the state name?

I am terrible with (natural) languages, and writing doesn't really come easily to me. Creating constructed languages feels way out of my depth, so I didn't really put much thought into it. I got Quatrarius to give me some jumping off points to learn about linguistics once, but I didn't really manage to internalize what I read.

I would pronounce C'ae as "Sea", but I don't have a linguistic reason to think that. I don't even know what it means right now, which is part of the reason I'm tempted to with just go with names in English.

The subject of the capital of Dal and the seeming apathy of the inhabiting nation seem off to me. You'd never expect your capital city to be blown up, but... what do you do when it's gone and you still have the state to run? You move the capital. If you need officials, you elect them or let them take reign, which sounds like a good possibility in a fantasy world. Things will settle; but if the people remain passive, the state will inevitably fall - either due to entropy or external factors. In other words, I don't believe there could be such a thing as a "fallen kingdom": it's either history or in reform.

I'm starting the campaign about a month after the capital exploded. I'm assuming that with only conventional means to communicate, the chaos hasn't settled into an internal response yet. Particularly given that marshlands would hamper movement. The remaining lords are also discovering that the nation didn't have much military capabilities after relying on a now defunct deity's protection. It'd easy for outside actors that haven't lost their leadership to take advantage advantage of that, which is why Copeth is moving towards invading, and the Goblins are streaming in to claim land.

It's in the process of becoming a failed state, but isn't quite there yet. It might be better to describe it in terms of regional governments that still exist and are trying to reform into a national government.