It seems to me that a fair portion of these problems stems from a lack of second place. In the game as written, it's winner take all, everyone else loses, period, no second place. This creates the conundrum what to do when you cannot win.
Some people of course place value on how long they lasted; and may value being second, or third, or any increase in their place.
With VPs and other such win conditions, many nations may be alive at the end, making it positions determined by the win condition measured. Without VPs, positions would most likely be determined by order of death (i.e. staying alive the longest) though in case of concession the ordering would be somewhat unclear.
Proposed test: start a game with VP win condition, with the additional specification that all nations alive at the end receive places of value in the pantheon based on the numbers of VPs they have. (and people alive but with no VPs still get a little something). This may cut down on kingmaking since your own position becomes relevant; or maybe it won't, that's what testing is for.
Would playing as if the game were pantheistic, and ranking matter, cut down on the more objectionable kinds of kingmaking?
Zlefin
Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
Threaded Mode