It took me a couple of reads to get what was going on in the first part and I’m not entirely sure it’s necessary, but I like the second part.  Immunity should come with a price.

The idea of the first part is that at any given time, there are a maximum of three Villagers with Religious Occupations.  First in, first out.

The complicated language is to address situations like:  A becomes Relgious, then B.  Then A stops being Religous.  Then A becomes Religous again.  Then C becomes religious—who pops out: A or B?  (By my example, it would be B because of the “earliest to adopt its _current_ status of Religious Occupation”.

Maximum of two, not three.

The logician in me doesn’t like “a proposal that would, if adopted, cause the death of a Villager”.  This distinction cannot always be made at time of voting.

The prohibition is only on “Town Meeting” proposals, not on regular proposals such as rule changes.  What kind of “Town Meeting” proposal could cause the death of a villager, other than something along the lines of “Let’s lynch X”.

Would an “immediately” between “adopted” and “cause” mollify you, Hix?

What if there’s a Town Meeting to search each villager’s possessions, and lynch anyone found with incriminating evidence?

Maybe “could [rather than would], if adopted, cause the death of a Villager.” would address that situation.

But that would exclude him from voting on just about *any* town meetings. A steep price for immunity, but I like it that way.

I doubt any surviving villagers would care to count the priest as part of their quorum in a life or death situation.

As I’ve just realized that banning religious persons from voting doesn’t affect the required quorum, thus making lynchings considerably more difficult.

Fixing the quorum issue would be a good idea.

fix up the quorum issues as well as defining which call to arms can be voted on, etc.

Or actually, an alternative, rather than they can’t vote in them….in any call to arms which the result would be a death, the priests automatically vote against…