After playing your game a few more times, I’ve come up with two more major suggestions.
First, this concerns all mechanics that use the word "adjacent" or similar concepts. I think it would be better if these mechanics worked in a consistent and intuitive way everywhere. To achieve this, all such mechanics could follow the format: "Attempt to perform an action on adjacent characters." This way, if an action cannot be performed on a character (e.g., corrupting or curing), it simply won’t happen. I also believe this won’t break the balance. Let’s look at some examples.
First, our famous Pooka. Suppose she tries to poison adjacent characters—if those characters are evil, they won’t actually be poisoned, but the player will perceive their lies as poisoning, which could add extra confusion. Another example involves the Alchemist. He might attempt to cure an adjacent evil, and the evil's lies could similarly mislead the player.
The key takeaway is that all such mechanics should work in a similar way, making the game much clearer overall.
Second, the health system. I feel that being able to kill one villager per level with no consequences is a very big advantage. Situations often come down to 50/50 chances, and having one "safe" kill can be a huge deciding factor. Perhaps the health system could be changed to 1 health pool for the entire run, but with enough health for 3-4 safe kills. Additionally, the more health you have left by the end of the run (if it’s turn-limited), the more points you earn. This makes every kill an important and meaningful decision. The cost of mistakes becomes higher, raising the stakes and tension.
Other than that, I still absolutely love playing your game—it’s incredibly interesting and engaging! Wishing you further progress and a speedy release on Steam!