[Submitted] That Heir Ain't Right (old title)

[Altmer Dominion]

Kept the old title in the subject, but submitted under the name "Having a Bad Heir Day".

Draft 3:

[Validity] Issue 596 Activated (Eldest Child Inherits Throne)

[Name] Those Heirs Ain’t Right

[Description] Tragedy struck @@NAME@@ today after the next in line to the throne unexpectedly succumbed to a fatal seizure. Before you’ve even had time to properly mourn, certain members of the nobility seized the opportunity to highlight a myriad of health defects among your most immediate relatives.

[Option] “Your next-eldest heir displays a remarkable number of physical and mental abnormalities,” remarks an unfamiliar physician, presumably hired by your scheming cousin Archibald. “The problem is, @@HE@@’s not alone. There seems to be a similar pattern throughout the dynasty. For the health of @@NAME@@, the line of succession simply must prioritize capability instead of age. Though that criterion narrows down your options considerably, I might have some…suggestions.”
[effect] unsolicited health advice is the first warning sign of a succession dispute

[Option] “This is discrimination!” roars a family tutor, @@RANDONAME@@. “Think about the example you’re setting! You’re not just appointing an administrator—you also have the chance to uplift a role model. Children across the land must be shown that their own conditions are secondary to whatever dreams they might have!”
[effect] classrooms across @@NAME@@ display portraits of the heir

[Option] “While the current hereditary tradition should continue, having your next-in-line assume complete control of the administration would be…unwise.” A darkly-robed advisor glides towards you, curling his mustache. “On account of @@HIS@@—and future—challenges, why don’t you let a more capable hand guide @@NATION@@ from behind the curtain? Let the masses have their inspiration, while the adults take care of actual business.”
[effect] a secretive Cabal known only as “The Council” operates from the shadows

[Option] “Such a problem is nothing new”, notes @@RANDOMNAME@@, a historian. “At one point or another, most ruling dynasties ended up suffering from certain character issues. Tends to be a side effect of keeping it within the family. Um, not that I’m saying that’s what necessarily happened here, @@LEADER@@. Anyway, before this whole house of cards inevitably collapses you really should delegate more responsibility to your people. If @@NAME@@ ends up with crackpots again, at least in that system you can blame the voters.”
[effect] voters' affinity for political dynasties is viewed as a consolation prize among downtrodden monarchists

Draft 2:

[Validity] Issue 596 Activated (Eldest Child Inherits Throne)

[Name] Those Heirs Ain’t Right

[Description]Tragedy struck the Royal Family today after your oldest child unexpectedly succumbed to a fatal seizure. Before you’ve even had time to properly mourn, certain members of the nobility seized the opportunity to highlight a myriad of health defects among your immediate relatives.

[Option] “Your next-eldest heir displays a remarkable number of physical and mental abnormalities,” remarks a physician, presumably hired by your scheming cousin Archibald. “The problem is, @@HE@@’s not alone. Most of your closest relatives, including your children, have similar issues. For the health of @@NAME@@—including your family—the line of succession must prioritize capability instead of age. Though that criterion narrows down your options considerably, I might have some…suggestions.”
[effect] unsolicited health advice is the first warning sign of a succession dispute

[Option] “This is discrimination!” roars a family tutor, @@RANDONAME@@. “Think about the example you’re setting! You’re not just appointing an administrator—you also have the chance to uplift a role model. Children across the land must be shown that their own conditions are secondary to whatever dreams they might have!”
[effect] classrooms across @@NAME@@ display portraits of the heir

[Option] “While the current hereditary tradition should continue, having your next-in-line assume complete control of the administration would be…unwise.” A darkly-robed advisor glides towards you, curling his handlebar mustache. “On account of @@HIS@@—and future—challenges, why don’t you let a more capable hand guide @@NATION@@ from behind the curtain? Let the masses have their inspiration, while the adults take care of actual business.”
[effect] a secretive Cabal known only as “The Council” operates from the shadows

[Option] “Such a problem is nothing new”, notes @@RANDOMNAME@@, a historian. “At one point or another, most ruling dynasties ended up suffering from certain character issues. Tends to be a side effect of keeping it within the family, of course. Before this whole house of cards inevitably collapses, you really should delegate more responsibility to your people. If @@NAME@@ ends up with crackpots again, at least in that system you can blame the voters.”
[effect] monarchists everywhere view the emergence of political dynasties as a consolation prize

Draft 1:

[Validity] Issue 596 Activated (Eldest Child Inherits Throne)

[Name] That Heir Ain’t Right

[Description]Following your eldest son’s unexpected elopement with a Lilliputian gypsy, @@NAME@@ has been left without a heir. Despite hierarchical tradition, certain members of your administration are trying to disqualify your legal next-in-line.

[Option] “With all due respect, I just don’t see this working out”, bluntly declares your Chief of Staff, @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The kid is nice and all, but @@HE@@’s…a little off. Ok, a lot off. I have a strong feeling @@HE@@ won’t be able to effectively manage the daily rigors of the job. You’ve still got a number of your children waiting in the wings—it’s not like there aren’t better options.”
[effect] the road to the throne is paved with forged psychiatrist notes

[Option] “This is discrimination!” roars a family tutor, @@RANDONAME@@. “Think about the example you’re setting! You’re not just appointing an administrator—you also have the chance to uplift a role model. Children across the land must be shown that their own conditions are secondary to whatever dreams they might have!”
[effect] classrooms across @@NAME@@ display portraits of the heir

[Option] “Such a problem is nothing new”, notes @@RANDOMNAME@@, a historian. “At one point or another, most ruling dynasties ended up suffering from certain character issues. Tends to be a side effect of keeping it within the family, of course. Before this whole house of cards inevitably collapses upon itself, you should cut your losses.”
[effect] the tenuous mental state of most public officials prove old habits die hard

[Option] “Why is everyone having this discussion without consulting us?” inquires your heir in question. “What malarkey—we’re fit at a fiddle. What we’re seeing is clearly a plot to deprive us from our rightful place. Execute the agitators and put this whole debacle to rest. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we must get back to a discussion with our family’s pet @@ANIMAL@@. They were the middle of quite an illuminating point, too.”
[effect] @@ANIMAL@@-@@DENONYM@@ debates are prime entertainment among the nobility

[Palos Heights]

You mean Issue 596. Issue 597 is about pain medications.

First and foremost, you have to consider that option 596 allows for the eldest child to be either male or female so your pronouns should be reflective of this. Also, I feel that you could do more to really highlight the reasons why this person is being subject to dishinheriting the throne. "They seem off, really off" is incredibly subjective and it doesn't do enough, in my opinion, to really frame the situation properly. I think for this issue you should take a look at the Pragmatic Sanction and some rulers for whom their genetic heritage made them notable, such as Kaiser Wilhelm II and King Charles II of Spain. Take some cues from them, maybe lead off with the heirs option to really showcase why this is a problem in the first place. I'd also try and tinker with the fallouts so that they reflect what you're trying to do here. You want to reverse issue 596 but, at a glance, your fallouts seem more like they are dealing with mental health more than anything.

Good first issue submission however!

[Altmer Dominion]

You mean Issue 596. Issue 597 is about pain medications.

Derp. Fixed.

First and foremost, you have to consider that option 596 allows for the eldest child to be either male or female so your pronouns should be reflective of this.

Too bad there's not a macro that interchanges son or daughter, as that would have made the initial premise of eldest ___ running off much easier. Otherwise, the "they" pronoun is admittedly quite bland.

I think for this issue you should take a look at the Pragmatic Sanction and some rulers for whom their genetic heritage made them notable, such as Kaiser Wilhelm II and King Charles II of Spain.

As an EU4 player, the Pragmatic Sanction has been quite influential (for better or for worse) in my Holy Roman Empire runs. For the Royals you've highlighted, I initially tried to make an example of their mental deterioration (as you highlighted below). Given that many of them suffered from physical abnormalities as well, that may be a more visible route to take.

Take some cues from them, maybe lead off with the heirs option to really showcase why this is a problem in the first place.

The reason I put the heir at the end was to plant the idea of hearsay, with the Heir trying to cut through the gossip. Having them talk to animals was a bit on the nose, though. What you're saying does make sense, as the initial description of being off was...not the best. Switching the order should help.

I'd also try and tinker with the fallouts so that they reflect what you're trying to do here. You want to reverse issue 596 but, at a glance, your fallouts seem more like they are dealing with mental health more than anything.

Well, that was actually my intention. There's been no shortage of Loony Toons among the annals of history, and the leader was being faced with the possibility his next in line was a crackpot too. Going back to the drawing board, the various ways that inbreeding disabilities presented themselves could be better explored.

Good first issue submission however!

Thanks! I'm hoping my writing will improve as I get more practice.

[Jar Wattinree]

First and foremost, you have to consider that option 596 allows for the eldest child to be either male or female so your pronouns should be reflective of this.

Too bad there's not a macro that interchanges son or daughter, as that would have made the initial premise of eldest ___ running off much easier. Otherwise, the "they" pronoun is admittedly quite bland.

As far as I remember, the macro is @@HIS@@ and that is based upon the @@RANDOMNAME@@ used for the defining character, so you could have a son or daughter be the subject, all depends on what the random name is.

[Singapore no2]

I feel that your draft is better than mine from a narrative point of view.

[USS Monitor]

The [desc] still says "eldest son," even though you used randomized macros elsewhere in the issue.

[Altmer Dominion]

As far as I remember, the macro is @@HIS@@ and that is based upon the @@RANDOMNAME@@ used for the defining character, so you could have a son or daughter be the subject, all depends on what the random name is.

The [desc] still says "eldest son," even though you used randomized macros elsewhere in the issue.

Just to clarify, the "eldest son" in the description and the macros referred to the troubled heir refer to two different people. Based on the gender inclusiveness of 596's hereditary decision, the description in this scenario only took in account one of the two options. My wistfulness regarding son/daughter macro variability was completely rhetorical, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm thinking the premise in the description needs work anyways. Most of 596's options dealt with rectifying (or amplifying) bias towards one gender or another. Since options 1a and 1b result in equality, perhaps the reversal issue can revisit the later options in the issue that push for gender exclusion. If I remove the gender preference in the description, it's possible that this reversal could accommodate a similar matriarchy/patriarchy split. (With each gender advocating for the leader to choose exclusively a son or daughter.)

Well, that's just a thought for the night, take it for what you will. I'll work on a revised draft in the coming week, and see how that pans out.

[USS Monitor]

As far as I remember, the macro is @@HIS@@ and that is based upon the @@RANDOMNAME@@ used for the defining character, so you could have a son or daughter be the subject, all depends on what the random name is.

The [desc] still says "eldest son," even though you used randomized macros elsewhere in the issue.

Just to clarify, the "eldest son" in the description and the macros referred to the troubled heir refer to two different people. Based on the gender inclusiveness of 596's hereditary decision, the description in this scenario only took in account one of the two options. My wistfulness regarding son/daughter macro variability was completely rhetorical, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm thinking the premise in the description needs work anyways. Most of 596's options dealt with rectifying (or amplifying) bias towards one gender or another. Since options 1a and 1b result in equality, perhaps the reversal issue can revisit the later options in the issue that push for gender exclusion. If I remove the gender preference in the description, it's possible that this reversal could accommodate a similar matriarchy/patriarchy split. (With each gender advocating for the leader to choose exclusively a son or daughter.)

Well, that's just a thought for the night, take it for what you will. I'll work on a revised draft in the coming week, and see how that pans out.

This is nowhere near clear enough that your son has been removed from the succession. And it overrides player autonomy to have him removed without a player decision. Some monarchies would try to track him down and bring him back.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I feel that your draft is better than mine from a narrative point of view.

Yeah, gotta agree with you there, Sing, this is a better draft!

Looking forward to see this one develop, but it's already of good quality.

[Trotterdam]

[Option] "Such a problem is nothing new", notes @@RANDOMNAME@@, a historian. "At one point or another, most ruling dynasties ended up suffering from certain character issues. Tends to be a side effect of keeping it within the family, of course. Before this whole house of cards inevitably collapses upon itself, you should cut your losses."
[effect] the tenuous mental state of most public officials prove old habits die hard

I assume that "cut your losses" here means abolishing hereditary monarchy? Is that in favor of non-hereditary dictatorship or democracy? Could stand to be clearer about that.

[Option] "This is discrimination!" roars a family tutor, @@RANDONAME@@. "Think about the example you're setting! You're not just appointing an administrator—you also have the chance to uplift a role model. Children across the land must be shown that their own conditions are secondary to whatever dreams they might have!"
[effect] classrooms across @@NAME@@ display portraits of the heir

[Option] "Why is everyone having this discussion without consulting us?" inquires your heir in question. "What malarkey—we're fit at a fiddle. What we're seeing is clearly a plot to deprive us from our rightful place. Execute the agitators and put this whole debacle to rest. Now, if you'll excuse us, we must get back to a discussion with our family's pet @@ANIMAL@@. They were the middle of quite an illuminating point, too."
[effect] @@ANIMAL@@-@@DENONYM@@ debates are prime entertainment among the nobility

...These options seem to be doing the same thing?

[Caracasus]

If player autonomy is an issue, perhaps the eldest son perished in some freak accident?

[Altmer Dominion]

Draft 2 is up.

Options 2 and 4 in Draft 2 are basically the same as in Draft 1, with some minor scenario and effect edits. However, the new premise should take into account a wider net of political ramifications.

[Trotterdam]

[Description]Following your eldest son’s unexpected elopement with a Lilliputian gypsy, @@NAME@@ has been left without a heir. Despite hierarchical tradition, certain members of your administration are trying to disqualify your legal next-in-line.

[Description]Tragedy struck the Royal Family today after your oldest child unexpectedly succumbed to a fatal seizure. Before you’ve even had time to properly mourn, certain members of the nobility seized the opportunity to highlight a myriad of health defects among your immediate relatives.

The old trigger was certainly funnier, though I guess the new trigger does a more thorough job of explaining why you need a new heir (I guess it was implied that elopement includes abdication?), and ties into the larger narrative by demonstrating the health defects in your family.

One consideration, the health defects many royal families are accused of having are blamed on inbreeding - something which there is no issue establishing @@LEADER@@ has done.

that criteria

"Criteria" is plural. Should be "that criterion" (or "those criteria" if you actually have multiple, which you currently don't).

[Fauxia]

How is it not a player autonomy sin to say that you have a son?

[Altmer Dominion]

The old trigger was certainly funnier, though I guess the new trigger does a more thorough job of explaining why you need a new heir (I guess it was implied that elopement includes abdication?), and ties into the larger narrative by demonstrating the health defects in your family.

How is it not a player autonomy sin to say that you have a son?

Hence, in part, why the description was changed. Unless the question is about having a kid in general? Because I assume that having instituted absolute primogeniture (and, considering the options, qualifying for the issue) in the first place, the player is consenting to their leader having children.

On the topic of the complications between a 'son' or 'daughter', I did put a pronoun macro in two of the options. That's should be fair compromise, considering 596 takes into account both genders. However, there is a pertinent clarification regarding those macros in particular. They aren't tethered to a @@RANDOMNAME@@--is there any guarantee they would act autonomously and sync together? If not, I can go back and try to figure out a fix.

One consideration, the health defects many royal families are accused of having are blamed on inbreeding - something which there is no issue establishing @@LEADER@@ has done.

That's a valid point, and perhaps content for a future issue. Since that option has a historian speaking, perhaps he can immediately correct himself and apologize for insinuating it about the leader in this particular situation. This would still lead to an inference of such by the reader, but place whether the leader actually did it in a grey area.

Or, alternatively, I could remove that specific option unless an issue of that nature appears (if it ever does). If I have time in the near future, I may consider actually doing so.

"Criteria" is plural. Should be "that criterion" (or "those criteria" if you actually have multiple, which you currently don't).

Will fix.

[Fauxia]

Right, I don't understand how having children in general is not an autonomy sin, especially considering there is an issue about having children

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Re: player autonomy and family, it's considered reasonable to determine that a player has brothers or sisters, as while that's fiction that a player might not hold as consistent with his created nation, it's also something that lies outside of the in-character control of the LEADER/protagonist, and hence lies under the realm of shared-ownership story.

However having sons or daughters, or being married, or having particular personality traits or physical features - that is not acceptable for an issue to dictate. The difference here is it is something that the LEADER would be able to decide about him/herself while in-character, so shouldn't be over-ridden.

Its a subtle difference, and more or less draws its boundaries from the agreed social contracts of tabletop roleplaying games. You can tell someone what happens in the world around them, but you can't make decisions for their character.

[Caracasus]

Could re-write parts as a workaround:

[Description]Tragedy struck the Royal Family today after the next in line to the throne unexpectedly succumbed to a fatal seizure. Before you’ve even had time to properly mourn, certain members of the nobility seized the opportunity to highlight a myriad of health defects among other potential heirs.

[Australian rePublic]

Hello. Not a bad little issue you got here. Now let's take a look:
Option 1: Don't assume @@LEADSR@@ has children
Also, who said @@LEADER@@ is royal
Also also, validity, must have a royal family

[Trotterdam]

For better or for worse, #461 already mentions "your eldest child", before you actually make the decision to implement primogeniture (which, as said, clearly implies at least an intent to have a child, even if you don't have one yet).

#432, of course, assumes that you don't currently have a child, but my dislike of that issue is well-documented.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

For better or for worse, #461 already mentions "your eldest child", before you actually make the decision to implement primogeniture (which, as said, clearly implies at least an intent to have a child, even if you don't have one yet).

#432, of course, assumes that you don't currently have a child, but my dislike of that issue is well-documented.

Both these issues are already in my sights for rewriting. You are right though.

Let's not let bad precedent perpetuate bad practice!

[Altmer Dominion]

For better or for worse, #461 already mentions "your eldest child", before you actually make the decision to implement primogeniture (which, as said, clearly implies at least an intent to have a child, even if you don't have one yet).

#432, of course, assumes that you don't currently have a child, but my dislike of that issue is well-documented.

Both these issues are already in my sights for rewriting. You are right though.

Let's not let bad precedent perpetuate bad practice!

I was actually going to ask if Editors were re-evaluating past issues before any changes to this draft were made. The only reason that I thought to include children was due to the way 596 was already explicitly written. If re-writes are already planned, then removing those specific phrases make sense. Good to know for future reference!

Could re-write parts as a workaround:

[Description]Tragedy struck the Royal Family today after the next in line to the throne unexpectedly succumbed to a fatal seizure. Before you’ve even had time to properly mourn, certain members of the nobility seized the opportunity to highlight a myriad of health defects among other potential heirs.

Yep, that makes sense. Thank you.

Based on what I've learned, the next draft should be tidied up soon.

[Altmer Dominion]

Draft 3 updated.

[Fauxia]

For better or for worse, #461 already mentions "your eldest child", before you actually make the decision to implement primogeniture (which, as said, clearly implies at least an intent to have a child, even if you don't have one yet).

#432, of course, assumes that you don't currently have a child, but my dislike of that issue is well-documented.

Both these issues are already in my sights for rewriting. You are right though.

Let's not let bad precedent perpetuate bad practice!

Someone is never going to be a jurist

That’s okay, issue writing is far more worthwhile

[Altmer Dominion]

Since it's been a couple days without comment, and the draft fell off the front page, I'll probably be submitting this shortly. Last call for opinions.