[Draft] Hectic Heraldry

[Liberated American Provinces]

This idea was inspired by the lack of heraldic bodies in most countries as compared to countries like the UK with its very strict laws surrounding heraldry.

[title] Hectic Heraldry

[desc] During your recent visit to Maxtopia, you were prevented from using your personal logo because of its close resemblance to the coat of arms of a prominent Maxtopian family.

[validity] must not have titles of nobility

[option] “Get this elitist propaganda out of here,” says gun-toting, patriot @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Our ancestors didn’t fight to rid of a king for no reason. This is absolutely disrespectful on the part of the Maxtopians. I say we put a new tariff on . . . everything!”

[effect] mean words are met economic sanctions

[option] “You know . . . the Maxtopians were absolutely right,” says your Minister of the Interior who just happens to descend from on the nation's oldest families. “We should follow their lead and establish a College of Arms to record this history and so they can fine all pretenders and throw them in jai . . . In fact, we need a new legislative body just as our noble ancestors did: a new House of Lords.” He pauses, remembering that the issue was caused by you in the first place. "I'm sure we could come up with some totally accurate family tree proving your right to arms."

[effect] the historical nobility has been returned to their position of power

[option] “No need to destroy such wonderful history or enforce such archaic ideas as nobility,” chimes your Minister of Art and Culture. “We can document all of the coat of arms in a publicly accessible library. That way these ‘nobles’ can be satisfied while protecting those who just might not have the right ancestors. It might take a few extra tax dollars but look at West Smalltopia. It’s worked great there.”

[effect] public funds are being diverted to find the best shield drawers

[title] Hectic Heraldry

[desc] After stumbling across a blog with a coat of arms as it’s a logo, a descendant of one of @@NAME@@’s oldest families, has arrived in your office with an ancient-looking manuscript.

[validity] Must not have titles of nobility

[option] “Look at this!” @@RANDOMNAME@@ screams as he pushes the parchment into your face. “These coats of arms are my family’s and only ours! We need a College of Arms to record this history how it is supposed to be . . . and fine all pretenders and throw them in jail if they have to. In fact, we need a new legislative body for just us nobles: a new House of Lords!”

[effect] the historical nobility has been returned to their position of power

[option] “Hey, I just thought it was a cool picture,” says the pale-skinned blogger. “Why can’t we just use whatever we want. We don’t need all this arms-university-whatever-you-call-it stuff. Heck, just get rid of copyright while you’re at it.”

[effect] fake advertisements are at an all-time high

[option] “No need to destroy such wonderful history or prevent people from enjoying it,” chimes your Minister of Art and Culture. “We can document all of the coat of arms in a publicly accessible library. That way these ‘nobles’ can be satisfied without preventing artistic freedom. It just might take a few extra tax dollars but look at West Smalltopia. It’s worked great there.”

[effect] public funds are being diverted to find the best shield drawers

[option] “Get this elitist propaganda out of here,” says gun-toting, libertarian @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Our ancestors didn’t fight to rid of a king for no reason and I don’t need anymore of my money stolen by the government to fund this useless library . . . or any library for that matter!”

[effect] all public libraries have been stripped of funding

Edit: New draft in progress

[Verdant Haven]

From a conceptual perspective, I rather like it. I'm a fan of heraldry and such, even if we don't have it where I am.

I think I would have two primary suggestions for the narrative -

1) I feel like options 1 and 3 sound kind of similar. I do understand the difference - option 1 has the government record arms and punish misuse, while option 3 has the government record arms and ignore misuse - but I don't think it's enough to catch the eye. Perhaps instead of the classic "jail those people!" in option 1, it could be something like building the College of Arms, and creating or re-creating a House of Lords for armigerous families - a full government level decision with some policy power to it (if they didn't have nobility before, they do now!). That would definitely allow the more moderate suggestion of option 3 to stand out as different, and could be played in another direction, like "let's recognize our history, but use it for education and tourism" rather than re-forming the government.

2) For the fourth option, I wouldn't consider "cut all funding for libraries" to be a reasonable result from "don't fund this one specialty archive." A slight tweak to the text to say " I don’t need anymore of my money stolen by the government to fund this useless library... or any library for that matter!" would clear the path to the result you suggest.

If the above distinctions were made, I would then suggest swapping choices 2 and 3 in the order, just for narrative flow.

[Liberated American Provinces]

I feel like options 1 and 3 sound kind of similar. I do understand the difference - option 1 has the government record arms and punish misuse, while option 3 has the government record arms and ignore misuse - but I don't think it's enough to catch the eye. Perhaps instead of the classic "jail those people!" in option 1, it could be something like building the College of Arms, and creating or re-creating a House of Lords for armigerous families - a full government level decision with some policy power to it (if they didn't have nobility before, they do now!). That would definitely allow the more moderate suggestion of option 3 to stand out as different, and could be played in another direction, like "let's recognize our history, but use it for education and tourism" rather than re-forming the government.

Thanks for the suggestions! I completely agree that 1 and 3 seemed to similar. I just wasn't sure which direction to take them though.

For the fourth option, I wouldn't consider "cut all funding for libraries" to be a reasonable result from "don't fund this one specialty archive." A slight tweak to the text to say " I don’t need anymore of my money stolen by the government to fund this useless library... or any library for that matter!" would clear the path to the result you suggest.

Fixed

If the above distinctions were made, I would then suggest swapping choices 2 and 3 in the order, just for narrative flow.

I wanted 3 to seem more like a compromise between 1 and 2 which is why I had it in that position.

[Australian rePublic]

What do you mean one of @@NAME@@'s oldest families? Don't zll families have the same origin?

[Liberated American Provinces]

What do you mean one of @@NAME@@'s oldest families? Don't zll families have the same origin?

It refers to how far they can be traced back. Families which descended from nobility would naturally be able to do this more easily. I was under the impression that this is how the term "oldest families" would be used, but I could be wrong.

[Verdant Haven]

It refers to how far they can be traced back. Families which descended from nobility would naturally be able to do this more easily. I was under the impression that this is how the term "oldest families" would be used, but I could be wrong.

Definitely means that. In the US we see things like that stemming from groups like the Daughters of the American Revolution, or from a noble bent, perhaps the First Families of Virginia. In Australia, the closest equivalent I know would be First Fleeters. Basically, claims not just to having family long ago, but to being able to specifically trace provenance to known individuals of some qualification or prominence.

[-A-A-]

It refers to how far they can be traced back. Families which descended from nobility would naturally be able to do this more easily. I was under the impression that this is how the term "oldest families" would be used, but I could be wrong.

the way you have it is fine.

[Sacara]

The issue seems a little... underwhelming, to be honest. This is something I'd expect in the first 100 or so issues -- not something I would believe that would pass today.

Looking at the premise, some random person, who happens to be from one of @@NAME@@'s oldest families (Is that public knowledge? How would @@LEADER@@ know?), just barges into @@LEADER@@'s office with some ancient looking text (which presumably has not been authenticated) that has the person's coat of arms. I think if you want to keep with the subject, you need to add some story. Why would @@LEADER@@ listen to some random guy?

Option one seems really radical. It proposes that @@NAME@@ creates a college of arms, jail those who pretend to be apart of another family and establish nobility. That's a lot, and I would suggest you make the nobility it's own option that proposes the establishment of nobility. I'm also not convinced on the premise of this option.

Option two: wait, is this issue about people use other families? When was this guy mentioned? When was copyright mentioned?

In option three, what's different about this one as opposed to option one, besides this one not proposing nobility?

Option four is just an overused meme at this point. Also, who says that @@NAME@@ fought a revolutionary war? That's an overly large assumption. Just to note, effect lines begin with a lower case letter and do not end in punctuation.

As a recap, this draft is all over the place, but I wouldn't discard it. You will need to refine it, and I'll help you out if you need further assistance.

[Liberated American Provinces]

This is something I'd expect in the first 100 or so issues

That's where some of the inspiration came from. But I do agree... it is quite lackluster.

Option one seems really radical. It proposes that @@NAME@@ creates a college of arms, jail those who pretend to be apart of another family and establish nobility. That's a lot, and I would suggest you make the nobility it's own option that proposes the establishment of nobility. I'm also not convinced on the premise of this option.

I dont' think that strict regulation of heraldry would be that far-fetched for a government willing to establish nobility. Though I probably could've phrased it better.

Option two: wait, is this issue about people use other families? When was this guy mentioned? When was copyright mentioned?

This guy was meant to be the blogger mentioned in the description. It was kind of a jump to include the copyright, but the option seemed to have no effect otherwise. If I change the description, as suggested, then this option won't be necessary. I'm not sure what to replace with, however.

In option three, what's different about this one as opposed to option one, besides this one not proposing nobility?

As you said, implementing nobility would be a radical proposition. Without nobility in option three, it is very different from option one. It is supposed to represent the sort option a medieval enthusiast would support. That is, they want some official government body to properly document heraldry, but not force the hierarchical structure historically associated with it.

Option four is just an overused meme at this point. Also, who says that @@NAME@@ fought a revolutionary war? That's an overly large assumption.

That is true, but I do feel like there are quite a few issues which use similar assumptions. I meant this option to somewhat balance out the other options by taking a completely different position.

Just to note, effect lines begin with a lower case letter and do not end in punctuation.

Got it. Wasn't aware of that before.

As a recap, this draft is all over the place, but I wouldn't discard it. You will need to refine it, and I'll help you out if you need further assistance.

I probably (definitely) will need further help. This is the first issue I've ever really given any thought in creating.

[Liberated American Provinces]

A second draft has been completed

[Palos Heights]

Spellcheck, needs more humor, and add an option or two more on there. That second option is way too long, and coming from me that's saying something. I think you really need to take a step back here and really conceptualize how this issue should play out. Make a roadmap if that works. You've got a good idea here, and there aren't a lot of feudal-based issues, so I say keep at it and keep working on it!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

[desc] During your recent visit to Maxtopia, you were prevented from using your personal logo because of its close resemblance to the coat of arms of a prominent Maxtopian family.

Hmm. How many world leaders do you know that have personal logos?

I'm pretty sure the British PM doesn't have one. Trump's got his corporate branding of course, but as his logo is pretty much the word TRUMP in an aggressive font, it seems unlikely to resemble any coat of arms.

[Caracasus]

Government seal maybe?

[Verdant Haven]

Could be the government seal, or perhaps the seal of one of your major departments, if it was a minsterial visit rather than a state one. It can definitely be made to work somehow.

[Fauxia]

I think Option 1 is a player sovereignty violation