>Alliances between cabals are most often formed by leadership
>decisions and roleplay and are very much affected by the
>roleplay and actions of the individual members of the cabals
>involved.

In truth, alliances are formed by immortals' decision
in order to fix broken balance.
Of course this decision is going to warped into roleplaying
before passing to a mortal cabal leader.
In practice, the leader either will follow this decision
or will be uninducted ( or demoted ).
While this approach is not as wounderful as we wish,
immortals basically have no choice ( so we as well )
because should they let mortal leaders handle
cabal balance, the game would be instantly ruined.
Leaders aren't perfect, many of them are newbies
who basically can't produce right decision
( in terms of game balance ), some of them are cheaters,
also sometimes they delete or stop showing, so
their cabal becomes stagnant in policy.
You simply can't pass game balance issues to
current cabal leaders/members.
Just imagine, fortress, warlock and sylvan
decide to unite their efforts and wipe all evil from the world.
That will happen promptly should immortals step down
and let mortals manage their cabal policy.

The best thing happens when mortal's wish and immortal's
decision coincides, in this case everbody are happy
and we even don't need rose glasses.
Though sometimes it is not so, thus you see a couple
of pissed and deleted players as a price for hard decisions.

> What I have observed is that these alliances do and
>will shift. Right now the Tower and the Grove are at war and
>Fortress is often caught in the middle, having to choose which
>side to support since they are allied with both. But that
>isn't set in concrete. There are things that happen IC that
>can change this completely, depending on the actions of
>certain individuals in the cabals mentioned. Cabal issues and
>alliances are completely dependent on roleplay of the players
>(and cabal IMMS) involved and should be allowed to develop in
>the way the players see fit. I can say for certain from what
>I have observed as my character IC that the at-hip attachment
>that has been mentioned here and observed in game may not last
>long, then again it could go on for a very long time. IT
>DEPENDS ON ROLEPLAY. Certain recent developments could change
>things drastically or might just go by the wayside.
>
>This is one of the GREAT things about CF...the actions of a
>few players can change things very quickly...a lot depends on
>who does what and who reacts in what way to things that
>happen. It leaves it all up to chance, to fate, to the
>choices of individual players, to the choices of leaders of
>organizations. It's like reading a book where you simply
>can't look ahead and read the ending, you have to wait for the
>collaboration of various writers to make it up as they go
>along. This makes it FUN...don't "fix" it.
>
>My point here is that the current alliance situation does not
>need "fixing" any more than the good/evil flux does, it will
>resolve itself on its own in the long run. And if and when
>the Imperials rank up (and I don't doubt that they eventually
>will), the balance of power will be there again anyway.

From practice, history and experience
the current alliance situation NEEDS "fixing"
And it should be some split in goodies cabals.
As they tend to unite when not "guarded" by immortals.
Because majority of players prefer to be safer
and in numbers.
Two evil cabals who don't cooperate ( again, because
immortals keep them from a such trap )
can't stand against united goodies cabals.
And Nexus doesn't work :) because this cabal is unconvinient
for players ( have to have someone to bond, have to turn
against friends sometimes which isn't fun for many players,
also they have a little to do when the world is balanced ),
so nexans of prefer to log in with other characters
instead of trying to defend a lone necromancer
against a horde of paladins.

>Maybe
>it will be even stronger on the Evil/Imperial side at that
>point, who knows?
>
>I really think that the Empire leaders should also have some
>say as to whether they can ally with Scion or not, too. Maybe
>it is in the current laws that they can't for good reason.
>But shouldn't the laws be subject to change perhaps, maybe by
>a vote of the Council, maybe by a vote of the citizens? Maybe
>whoever becomes Emperor would be able to decide if/when an
>alliance or at least a truce could be made and then ask for a
>vote? Some might vote for (because they want some allies and
>support) while others might vote against (because they like
>taking and holding the sceptre). This way the alliance thing
>could fluctuate and change...which in my opinion makes the
>game fun and keeps it interesting.
>
>