[Baalz]

Yeah, I was thinking that with my suggested changes:

1) Evil would work together better early, but be hesitant to be too tightly coupled and always be jockeying to come out *more* ahead than their allies in any engagement.

2) Evil must kill good, but they also have an incentive to attack neutral because they're defacto immediately at war with neutral as soon as good starts to crumble.

3) Neutral is likely to be bullied by evil due to evil's better coordination (it's a lot more tempting to gang up on a surrounded and unsupported neutral if you can get another evil or two to attack from another direction). This will be counteracted by neutral's ability to bribe - it's better to have a friendly neutral so that items/gems can be exchanged among evil. This is of course balanced by good trying to maneuver so that no neutrals are surrounded and unsupported for exactly this reason.

4) If neutral's 'peace' advantage does manage to get them a ticket to late game, they still need to eliminate one of themselves - so neutrals can't trust each other too far.