[DRAFT] Tears of the Kingdom

[Improper Classifications]

Warning: This issue draft contains story spoilers for Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom.

Read Breath of the Wild, remembered that the new one just came out. While this is not my first time writing an issue, it's my first time with a serious draft, so feedback is appreciated. Now with another draft!

Title - Tears of the Kingdom
Validity - Absolute monarchy, low(ish) patriotism, maybe others - would appreciate input
Description:
Recently, a small opposition group rioted in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@, causing the statue of you there to topple. After confirming with your advisors that the protestors were working in favor of a return to the polls, you’ve met with them to discuss solutions.
Option 1: "These protestors have confirmed what I have said from the beginning - the people crave democracy," seethes the Advisor of the Opposition Sidon @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "@@NAME@@ needs to become a direct democracy while we still can - if even a small portion of the public is willing to topple a statue of you, it won’t be long before they run out of statues and move on to the flesh and blood equivalent.”
Effect - voters have been sent to the domain of the polls
Option 2: "The problem here is not our system of government, it is the way we are handling the people protesting against it," whispers Advisor of Patriotic Affairs Riju @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, staring directly at Sidon. "Perhaps some ‘disappearances’ are in order for the dissenters…if you get what I mean…”
Effect - opponents of @@LEADER@@ have all but disappeared into the Depths
Option 3: "We don’t need to go that far - the citizenry will react to much less," states Advisor of Internal Affairs Yunobo @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "Simply making arrests of anyone who opposes your rule is enough, and we already know who that is."
Effect - any citizen who looks the wrong way at one of @@LEADER@@'s statues is toppled
Option 4: "Whoa, now, all of that seems a little extreme," cries Tulin @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, your Advisor of Agriculture. "What about some good old-fashioned sham elections? If these people get a little taste of democracy, even if it’s fake, they’ll quiet down right away.”
Effect - people who vote anyone other than @@LEADER@@ don’t get to vote at all
Option 5:* “The people of @@NAME@@ love @@RELIGION@@,” preaches Bishop Mineru @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, holding the sacred text of @@RELIGION@@ in her right hand and a scepter in the left, “and by extension love anything related to it. If the monarchy and the church associate themselves with each other, popular support for the monarchy will grow.”
Effect - the church and the monarchy are so close they seem to be the same

Title - Tears of the Kingdom
Validity - Absolute monarchy, low(ish) patriotism, maybe others - would appreciate input
Description:
Following your decision to convert @@NAME@@ to a monarchical system, a small anti-monarchy group has organized protests against you. Recently, a riot incited by one of its members toppled your statue in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@. Your advisors have gathered to help you decide how to proceed.
Option 1: "As usual, these protestors have gotten out of hand," states Advisor of Internal Affairs Yunobo @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, notorious for his anti-free speech stances. "Making mass arrests against people who protest your leadership is the only effective solution. After all, you are the undisputed leader, and a tiny group of squabbling citizens shouldn’t be changing that."
Effect - any citizen who looks the wrong way at one of @@LEADER@@'s statues is toppled
Option 2: "You can't just betray your people like that!" cries Tulin @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, your Advisor of Agriculture. "Look, we want to stay in power as much as you do, but maybe if the people don't view your image as favorably as they used to, you should allow some democracy as a cover for your intent - say, an elected Parliament that goes along with what you say.
Effect - @@LEADER@@'s not the only one calling the shots anymore, but they might as well be
Option 3: "As I warned, this monarchy isn't working out," muses the Advisor of the Opposition Sidon @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "We need to go back to a direct democracy while we still can - if the public is willing to topple a statue of you, it won’t be long before they run out of statues and move on to the flesh and blood equivalent. "
Effect - the voters have returned to the polls after a brief hiatus
Option 4: "Pfft, I've always known the Monarchy was just a cover for your dictatorial intent," whispers Advisor of Patriotic Affairs Riju @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, staring directly at Sidon, "so why not actually make it a dictatorship? Sure, the people won’t be too happy, but it’ll give us the chance we need to covertly murder leaders of the opposition and cement your grip on power permanently.”
Effect - opponents of @@LEADER@@have all but disappeared into the Depths
Option 5:* “The people of @@NATION@@ have strayed too far from the ways of religion,” preaches Bishop Mineru @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, holding the sacred text of @@RELIGION@@ in her right hand and a scepter in the left. “The monarchy should openly swear its fealty to the church, and all of your citizens will thus become truthful, zealous followers of the church.”
Effect - if you aren’t a member of @@RELIGION@@ then you aren’t anything at all
*Requires low secularism

[spoiler=Draft 1]

Title - Tears of the Kingdom
Validity - Absolute monarchy, low(ish) patriotism, maybe others - would appreciate input
Description:
Following @@NAME@@'s reversion to a monarchical system, faith in @@LEADER@@ has reached an all-time low. Recently, a disastrous riot in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@ toppled the statue of @@LEADER@@ in protest to the monarchy. Your cabinet has gathered to decide how to proceed.
Option 1: "As usual, these protestors have gotten out of hand," states Advisor of Internal Affairs Yunobo @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, notorious for his anti-free speech stances. "Cracking down on them is the only effective solution. After all, you are the undisputed leader."
Effect - any citizen who looks the wrong way at one of @@LEADER@@'s statues is toppled
Option 2: "You can't just betray your people like that!" cries Tulin @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, your Advisor of Agriculture. "Look, we want to stay in power as much as you do, but maybe if the people don't view your image as nicely as they used to, you should allow some democracy. Maybe one of those fancy Parliaments like Brancaland has?
Effect - @@LEADER@@'s not the only one calling the shots anymore
Option 3: "As I warned, this monarchy isn't working out," muses the Advisor of the Opposition Sidon @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "We need to go back to democracy while we still can - if the public is willing to topple a statue of you, soon they'll be willing to topple you too."
Effect - the voters have returned to the polls after a brief hiatus
Option 4: "Pfft, I've always thought the Monarchy was just a cover for your dictatorial intent," whispers Advisor of Patriotic Affairs Riju @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, "so we should change the title, maybe secretly murder dissenters, and boom! Instant patriotism boost."
Effect - opponents of @@LEADER@@have all but disappeared into the Depths

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3- it's possible yo have monarchistic democracies. Some of the most democratic countries in the world are monarchies- The Netherlands, Australia, Canada, NZ, Sweden, etc.

[Improper Classifications]

Option 3- it's possible yo have monarchistic democracies. Some of the most democratic countries in the world are monarchies- The Netherlands, Australia, Canada, NZ, Sweden, etc.

I'm aware - the idea is that if people want to continue the monarchy they can choose #2, giving them an elected Parliament (and therefore making the change to a constitutional monarchy), and if they want to go all the way to democracy they can choose #3.

[Improper Classifications]

Giving this a bump for feedback.

[Verdant Haven]

- Presently, this dilemma is pitched as "your choices are wrong." It assumes that a player made the decision to use absolute monarchy, and that this is bad, because people don't like it. One of the key conceits of NationStates is that a majority of your people like whatever you do – Leader is never truly in danger of being toppled. There can certainly be protests from the unhappy minority who want changes, but it should avoid being presented as saying the player's decision was wrong.

- Using the word "Reversion" is making a lot of assumptions about the nation's past, and pitches this as a direct attack on the player's choice rather than on some effect resulting from a choice. This is emphasized by the way the dilemma speaks in the third person about Leader. The player *is* Leader!

- Why are people protesting? What actually is making them upset?

- The options need a lot more details about what they're actually doing. "Cracking down" is a fine suggestion, but in what way? Similar with the others.

[Improper Classifications]

Okay. I think I've sufficiently edited it to accommodate VH's feedback, and so Draft 2 is now here. Further thoughts would be appreciated.

[Improper Classifications]

Still looking for feedback on this.

[Improper Classifications]

This is now on last call for feedback, all of which is appreciated.

[Verdant Haven]

- Nearly everything I said last time continues to hold true. This is pitched as "you made a decision and it's bad." Nothing is presented as being problematic except the actual decision by the player to install a monarchy. That is not a usable issue. There needs to be some problem in the nation that these protestors are actually upset about. For example:

Instead of:

Following your decision to convert @@NAME@@ to a monarchical system, a small anti-monarchy group has organized protests against you. Recently, a riot incited by one of its members toppled your statue in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@. Your advisors have gathered to help you decide how to proceed.

Try something like:

Recently, a group of rioters from a small opposition group toppled your statue in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@. Between their chants and the writing on their smoke-shrouded signs, your advisors were able to ascertain that the crowd had formed to demand access to the ballot box.

- Whatever is used, the options should then revolve around addressing the *problem* being presented, which forms the crux of the dilemma. The crowd doesn't hate that the player decided to be a monarchy. The crowd is trying to avoid a particular consequence of some forms of monarchism (The monarchy decision was already made! This is a decision about what *type* of monarchy).

- Do not assume the nation was previously a democracy. Do not assume the monarchy is recently installed.

- I'm not sure how Option 5 relates to the issue. If this is meant to be about making people love you by wrapping yourself in the cloak of the church, then make that clear. Right now it reads as "People hate monarchy" followed by "Make the monarchy religious so people are religious too." If people hate monarchy, why would they follow the monarchy's choice of religion? Make this about the dilemma.

[Tinhampton]

Nothing is presented as being problematic except the actual decision by the player to install a monarchy. That is not a usable issue. There needs to be some problem in the nation that these protestors are actually upset about.

On that point: this issue is entitled "Tears of the Kingdom" and, by the author's admission, is an attempt to reflect the plot of a game called "Tears of the Kingdom" - the latest entry in the Legend of Zelda franchise - in an issue.

IC says that his memory was jogged after getting an issue called Breath of the Wild. The issue of that name is not, however, an issue about "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild." It is an issue about what happens when you revive an extinct animal so successfully that you need to make a decision about releasing some specimens from captivity. That the first names are hardcoded to resemble Zelda characters is a happy, if planned, coincidence. As far as I can tell, the game called "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" does not touch upon this matter at all.

Simply because there is an issue named after a video game does not mean you have to write an issue about another video game in that series, nor are you obliged to make it even more themed on the video game than the existing issue did with its video game. For an analogy: CWA once wrote an issue called Girls on Film. There is a song by Duran Duran called "Girls on Film." The issue by CWA is about a maid being fired after being caught on camera straying well outside the bounds of her job. The song by Duran Duran, on the off-chance you feel like looking the lyrics up on Genius... is not.

I'm not saying you're wrong to write an issue called Tears of the Kingdom. I'm not saying you're wrong to make it about how you should react to public protests against the monarchy. What I am saying is that you should not feel obliged to make your issue conform to real-world pop culture so much that it loses its train of thought.

[Improper Classifications]

The draft is updated as of two minutes after this post is made, hopefully in compliance of VH's requests. I've also responded to Tin's comment as seen below.

Nothing is presented as being problematic except the actual decision by the player to install a monarchy. That is not a usable issue. There needs to be some problem in the nation that these protestors are actually upset about.

is an attempt to reflect the plot of a game called "Tears of the Kingdom" - the latest entry in the Legend of Zelda franchise - in an issue.
----------------
IC says that his memory was jogged after getting an issue called Breath of the Wild. The issue of that name is not, however, an issue about "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild." It is an issue about what happens when you revive an extinct animal so successfully that you need to make a decision about releasing some specimens from captivity. That the first names are hardcoded to resemble Zelda characters is a happy, if planned, coincidence. As far as I can tell, the game called "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" does not touch upon this matter at all.
----------------
What I am saying is that you should not feel obliged to make your issue conform to real-world pop culture so much that it loses its train of thought.

The reason I wrote "story spoilers" is because I essentially did what the Breath of the Wild issue did, the first-name thing, with four of the main characters in a similar fashion, not because there's massive spoilers for what happens in ToTK, other than a reference to the Depths in one of the effect lines. I've written below a few story spoilers that will explain further.

Tears of the Kingdom is essentially how the ruins of an ancient civilisation rise from the ground and into the sky, plus "gloom" emerges from the depths. The only dissatisfaction with the monarchy is from an all-powerful demon king who literally becomes a dragon, which (last I checked) was not an option in this issue.

I'm not sure how the author of the BotW issue got their idea, but I basically took the title of ToTK and thought, "What would be causing "tears" of the kingdom? Dissatisfaction with the monarchy."

[Verdant Haven]

- This has the opposite challenge of many drafts: most of the options are too short! There's so little being said in options 2-5, it feels a bit like reading a list of bullet points rather than cogent arguments. These could stand to be fleshed out with a bit of additional context from the speakers, to explain why they think their solutions will work. Short can work, but only when it's also complete! This is often done with only one option, to make it stand in counterpoint to lengthier traditional options.

- Options 2 and 3 are similar. "Arresting" people and "Disappearing" people are almost synonymous in some places, so I think it is desirable to use that extra length that's needed to explain more of the difference between proposals.

- Option 4: Sham elections for what? Enlarge this idea.

- Some wording stuff: In the description, "return" to the polls assumes the nation previously had elections. This cannot be assumed. Don't tell leader their purpose and action (you've met with them to discuss solutions) – stick to the situation (Your advisors have reported that...). Effect 1 "domain of the polls" doesn't make any sense. Effect 2 "Depths" should not be capitalized.

- Effect 4: This doesn't feel like it follows from the option. Is it meant to suggest that their vote doesn't count?

- Option 5: This option needs a validity for nations that are significantly religious.