And again, when you have Nights already, don't also have pseudo-Nights.
I don't think anybody's advocating that. I'm certainly not advocating that. If you have the Night phase, you might as well use it, and cards like Philosopher's Stone and Scheme could be converted. Maybe even Coin of the Realm could be a Night-Reserve in this way of thinking.
However, introducing Night to the game isn't free, in terms of rules complexity, cognitive load, etc. The question is: does the benefit of the simplification of each of those cards, in aggregate, offset the cost of introducing Night?
I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to bring as much as, or be as intuitive as, Durations, Reserve, Coin Tokens or Debt. And, unlike the hilarious fun you can have with a kingdom that's a sea of orange, or a game where your entire economy is based on coins, it turns out a hand full of Night cards isn't great, and I'm not sure a kingdom full of them is either. A kingdom with a couple of valuable Night cards in it seems to work a lot better than one with heaps of the cheap Night cards.
Playing with a few valuable Night cards runs a lot more smoothly than trying to sort out a mess of Monasteries and Night Watchmen. But then the benefit of a whole new mechanic is less when you play with fewer cards that are using it.
I'll see how I feel once I've played a few more Nocturne games, but my "Ooh" at seeing the previews and eagerness to get my hands on the set has flattened to grudgingly accepting that Night probably on balance makes more sense than achieving the same effect with strange wording on each of several individual cards.
Returning full circle to the point of my original posting, I don't think the first recommended kingdom is at all a good showcase for Nocturne. And I don't think Fool is the only problem with it.