This is mildly prompted by everyone going suicidal at the end of the latest Experts, but only a little, because it didn't really matter at that point. That just got the topic of godkills on my mind again :P If the idea is to punish a player, then is killing them the only thing worth doing? I forget the exact way it worked out, but in Handicapable (yes, using my own game as an example because it's what I know) AG got himself godkilled by breaking persuasion, which ended up being the kingmaker move that gave another faction the win. And then there's the FUCK TIGER approach, though that's definitely a special case. Anyway, godkills are supposed to be used to remove players who are really hurting the game, not as an extra gambit for players. For instance, in Turnip (surprise, surprise, me talking about my other game :O) there was a role that turned off cardflip. Some players said they would have just gotten themselves godkilled (by posting role PM) to remove the role and help the village. That's the kind of potential abuse of godkills that isn't punishment for bad play, but just giving an extra dimension to their roles. Possible things worth doing instead of godkills for things like breaking PR/silence/persuasion: Hooking - If a character has a night role, then turning them into a vanilla for the night. In the case of someone with no night action, their role's effect can be negated during the next cycle it would be useful (Mayor would have a vanilla vote that day, BPV would be able to be killed at night). Vote effects - Similar to the previous thing, a player's vote would be nullified. In WDNN Mafia, the Silencer role turned a player's vote into -1 if they broke silence. Now, of course either of these options would arguably render a Silencer role pretty useless, since people would still be able to talk if they didn't care about the penalty. But unless the game is NOC, it's not like Silencer is good for anything but negating a vote anyway. Pretty much the same deal for a Post Restrict role, which is really only useful in that it can cause a godkill or out someone in a game with aliases. Or be utterly infuriating, like some of the stupidly complex post restrictions in recent games. But that's another story. Persuaders and Kidnappers would get it worse, because their effects are actually still meaningful. But if negative effects from breaking persuasion are strong enough then it's almost the same as someone being killed. And the persuader would know what effects he's causing if persuasion is broken, while the target may not. I'm not including Freezers because I find them to be obnoxious roles. And also not exactly easy to prove a breach of the restriction all the time. Repeat offenders (someone who completely ignores a restriction and carries on normally) could have negative effects that stack, eventually resulting in that role becoming useful for nothing but talking strategy if vote/ability become permanently negated. Which is essentially the same as a godkill anyway. Also, if the target is unaware of what the effects of him breaking restriction are, but the restrictor is, then the effects can be even more. Using the WDNN, for instance, the target's vote could be reduced by 1 every time he posts, but he wouldn't know it was happening, just that there is a penalty. So if he posts 3 times then his vote is suddenly worth -2, and, should he vote, it could mess up a lynch considerably. Anyway, godkills being eliminated isn't something I ever really expect to happen. But I also think it should be used to remove players who are maliciously trying to ruin a game, not just use their sudden death to their advantage. So if people are going to try and use the penalty for strategy anyway, then it's worth trying out something different as the penalty.