[Roa_Aoife]

The idea of two kills doesn't bother me so much, especially with so many ways to prevent them from happening. What does bother me is the stunning number of ways the wolves can die. I always hate auto-kills by hunters. The idea that the hunter can just take a wolf with them but not risk innocents seems overly weighted, and having not one but two in the same game seems worse. I might allow the master hunter, but the "Hates conspiracies" ought to be the same as the "hates dark deeds" - that is they should take with them whomever they choose, wolf or not. Otherwise, you create wolves that must be overly cautious for fear that a hunter will get them regardless.

To be fair, I've hated smart hunters since the idea came up, and especially since DW I. Hunters are supposed to deliberate over their choices, and think carefully, lest they kill an innocent (or more likely the seer) by mistake. So my opinion is clearly biased.

Still more than one is just too much.

Further more, what exactly do the NG's do besides not get killed themselves? Do the actually protect anyone? For that matter, besides the decisions about lynching, what does the captain do? You make it sound as though not having one at night would be detrimental to the village, but how?

Last question (for now): Is the assassin playing for himself or the village? I think it would be better if he worked for himself. He wins if he's the sole survivor. That doesn't mean he won't hunt for wolves, it just means that he's not solely against them. With so many hunters, I think that seems fair.