• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hi folks!

The topic of the week in this series of dev diaries for Stellaris is what sets empires and species apart from each other. Most obviously, of course, they look different! We have created a great many (ca 100) unique, animated portraits for the weird and wonderful races you will encounter as you explore the galaxy. These portraits are mostly gameplay agnostic, although we have sorted them into six broad classes (Mammalian, Arthropoid, Avian, Reptilian, Molluscoid or Fungoid) which affect the names of their ships and colonies, for example. To give additional visual variety, their clothes may sometimes vary, and when you open diplomatic communications with them the room they are standing in will appear different depending on their guiding Ethos.

stellaris_dev_diary_05_01_20151019_species.jpg


Speaking of Ethos, this is no doubt the most defining feature of a space empire; it affects the behavior of AI empires, likely technologies, available policies and edicts, valid government types, the opinions of other empires, and - perhaps most importantly - it provides the fuel for internal strife in large and diverse empires. When you create an empire at the start of a new game, you get to invest three points into the various ethics (you can invest two of the points into the same ethic, making you a fanatic.)

Collectivist - Individualist
Xenophobe - Xenophile
Militarist - Pacifist
Materialist - Spiritualist


Your Ethos will limit your valid selection of government types, but there are always at least three to choose from; an oligarchy of some kind, a democracy or a monarchy. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, in monarchies there are no elections, and you do not get to choose your successor when your ruler dies (except in Military Dictatorships), and if you die without an heir, all Factions in the empire will gain strength (oh, and there may be Pretender factions in monarchies...) On the other hand, each ruler may build a special "prestige object" in his or her lifetime, named after themselves. For example, military dictators can build a bigger, badder ship, and Divine Mandate monarchs can build a grand Mausoleum on a planet tile. Of course, both ethics and government types usually also have direct effects on the empire.

stellaris_dev_diary_05_02_20151019_ethics.jpg


Keep in mind, though, that there is a clear difference between the empire you are playing and its founding race. Empires and individual population units ("Pops") have an Ethos, but a species as a whole does not. Instead, what defines a species is simply its initial name, home planet class, and portrait (and possibly certain backstory facts.) Each race also starts out with a number of genetic Traits. As with the empire Ethos, you get to spend points to invest in Traits when you create your founding species at the start of a new game.

It is natural for individual Pops to diverge in their Ethics, especially if they do not live in the core region of your empire. This has far reaching consequences for the internal dynamics of empires; how Pops react to your actions, and the creation and management of Factions, etc (more on that in a much later dev diary!) Traits are not as dynamic as ethics, but even they can change (or be changed - this is also something we will speak of more at a later date...)

The traits and ethics of individual Pops of course also affect their happiness in various environments and situations. Naturally, they cannot even live on planets that are totally anathema to them…

That's all for now. Next Week: Leaders and Rulers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Now that you mention it: TOS 1.26 "Errand of Mercy"
The Organians with their leader Ayleborne (what a name) were 100% fanatical Pacifists and Xenophobe. They didn't offer any resistance to Klingon occupation. When Kirk and the Klingons got into a fight though, they disabled every fleet of both parties in the entire universe in the blink of an eye. They just want to be left alone and don't accept any kind of violence.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
it looks like a really good game..When will it come out so that we can all play it ?

When it's ready. It will surely sweeten the waiting time for HoI4.
 
the more I learn, the more I want to learn

it's been a while i was thinking about a 4x game with a bit of victoria for pop's, a bit of EU for diplomacy and a bit of CK for character's.
You male my dreams come true guys. Thanks.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The classless society with direct democracy is the socialist society so yeah I said that. And no your small communes have generally not, they have not brought about the socialist society through revolution and the dictatorship of the proletareat thus they are not communist but generally have agreed to becomme such a commune which makes it a democratic reform intoa scoialist state, thus it's social democracy.
Again as marx said "Communism cannot exist without the violent uprising".
It's because of context... theoretically other species could live in communism without revolution... he was talking about human society, not about theoretical space species...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
When you create an empire at the start of a new game, you get to invest three points into the various ethics (you can invest two of the points into the same ethic, making you a fanatic.)
It's an alpha screenshot, he answered another that it was 3 not 2.

Why did you decide to stop at 3 points? it gives (8*7*6/3=112). With 4 points (8*7*6*5/4=420). With 4 there is more variability. Or maybe give a choice to spend 3 or 4 points? For player and for generation of other <players>.

p.s. Is that so? << With 3 points (8*7*6/(3*2)=56). With 4 points (8*7*6*5/(4*3*2)=70). >>
 
It's because of context... theoretically other species could live in communism without revolution... he was talking about human society, not about theoretical space species...
The revolution is the only thing that separates marxism (the only form of communism that can be rometoly demofratic) from socialism! If they get there without revolution they are nto communis then they're socialist! Communism by definition requires revolution and the dictoatorship of the proletareat. If you get there by democratic means it is social democracy, that's the (original) definition of social democracy: The Socialist state achieved without revolution.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The classless society with direct democracy is the socialist society so yeah I said that. And no your small communes have generally not, they have not brought about the socialist society through revolution and the dictatorship of the proletareat thus they are not communist but generally have agreed to becomme such a commune which makes it a democratic reform intoa scoialist state, thus it's social democracy.
Again as marx said "Communism cannot exist without the violent uprising".

Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's just that the terminology about that is not clear. In Marx, communism is just scientific socialism. Now it's used as a synonim to social democracy, and communism is commonly used to encompass all kinds of egalitarian society, marxist, materialist or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's just that the terminology about that is not clear. In Marx, communism is just scientific socialism. Now it's used as a synonim to social democracy, and communism is commonly used to encompass all kinds of egalitarian society, marxist, materialist or otherwise.
Egilitarian societies? What do you refer to with this word in this case? Egalitarisnism is considered one of the four pillars of liberalism (Egalistarianism, rule of law, free enterprise and democracy, if anyone's intrested), while stalinism and maoism can in no way be said to be egalitarian.

Actually If you'd please explain soem of the other terms you're using becuase those are not terms that I've ever seen used in this context before.
 
Last edited:
Egilitarian societies? What do you refer to with this word in this case? Egalitarisnism is considered one of the four pillars of liberalism (Egalistarianism, rule of law, free enterprise and democracy, if anyone's intrested), while stalinism and maoism can in no way be said to be egalitarian.

I was referring to equality of outcomes - in the marxist sense of "from anyone according to his ability, to anyone according to his needs". In my mother language that's the prominent use of egalitarian, I was forgetting that in English it has a broader meaning.
 
That capitalism picture of a government looks so delicious :cool:
 
I was referring to equality of outcomes - in the marxist sense of "from anyone according to his ability, to anyone according to his needs". In my mother language that's the prominent use of egalitarian, I was forgetting that in English it has a broader meaning.
In english as far as I know egalitarianism is usually one of two things, legal egalistarianism, meaning that all are equals before the law, and egalistarianism as meaning the opposite of discrimination. It's possible it can be used for equality in the sense of everyone having the same amount of everything, but really maoism and stalinism cannot be said to be any of these definitions (and we cannot ignore that by the modern definition of the word these are communist, hence why we invented the concept of Marxism to descibe what marx meant with communism). As for maxism yes it has that endgoal, but as do socialism. I'd say it's kind of inherent somehwere between planar economy and classless society. I know Marx called his socialist state the communist society but I've really never been able to find any diffrences in those endgoals. And I don't seem to be alone in treating the marxist idea of the communist society as the same thing as the socialist state, and the diffrence being merely one of which means are used to bring it about.
 
You know, it's fascinating to read so many different people trying to define communism via real world examples. Thing is beyond small scale, you can't because there never has been.

Yet this thread is full of people trying to define communism in Marxist terms or with Marxist ideas even tho Marx himself acknowledges that communism predated him, and frankly all of recorded history. This should have been obvious from the simple fact that Marx was hired by communists in Europe to write the Manifesto, ie. they existed before he wrote about them.

Communism is simply common ownership of property including the means of production. It's purely economic. You can throw any kind of government you want on top of that economic system. Marxism, on the other hand, is exactly what the people who were attempting to correct my previous post called communism. Marxism is a blend of political, social, and economic structures with the goal of ending class structures, private ownership, and exploitation of labor. It is safe to say that all Marxists are communists, but the inverse is not true.

Additionally, as I said before, the USSR was never communist. I'm sure Lenin's goal of creating a communist state was genuine (cuz his own private writings discuss it quite a bit), but he recognized almost immediately that the Russian people weren't ready to make that big of leap since they'd be skipping capitalism that Marx discussed as an evil, but necessary step on the journey to the revolution. Plus there was the whole lack of the revolution spreading across the rest of Europe that was a huge letdown for him and his Bolcheviks. Heck, by 1921, he wasn't even pretending anymore with the creation of the NEP which allowed capitalist enterprises and prolly saved what was left of the early Soviet economy. Then of course he died, Stalin took over, and serfdom returned with new names.

By the way, if you want to really bore yourself with this, spend some quality time around sociology professors who spout the various tenets of critical theory which started out as radical Marxism (yes, you read the correctly) and eventually morphed into a whole amalgamation of ideas that try to explain why Marxism failed to emancipate the workers.

As a more on-topic note, it'd be awesome, but likely way beyond the scale of Stellaris's governments engine, if we could run our space empires in line with the various communist and Marxist theories and have them follow logical trajectories. For example, could would make a space USSR that would actually survive as a democratic communist utopia even if it had to face an attempt by a Platypus Stalin to transform it into totalitarian elective monarchy? Or better yet, could we be a space czar and see our government overthrown by a charismatic communist leader leading to an actual implementation of democratic communism across the whole empire?
 
  • 11
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hah, I want to do them quite badly as well.. Although my first will probably be a technocracy, but I expect many replays of Stellaris

Council of Ethereals is the right word for them =)

I would think that collectivist 2 is possible, as they arent just working together, but are expected to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Even Shadowsun would be expected to sacrifice herself f it was the greater good. But they definitely need spiritualist for the government as well.

Tau would defiantly only be Collectivist 1. Level 2 would be groups like the Tyranids.
 
You know, it's fascinating to read so many different people trying to define communism via real world examples. Thing is beyond small scale, you can't because there never has been.

Yet this thread is full of people trying to define communism in Marxist terms or with Marxist ideas even tho Marx himself acknowledges that communism predated him, and frankly all of recorded history. This should have been obvious from the simple fact that Marx was hired by communists in Europe to write the Manifesto, ie. they existed before he wrote about them.

Communism is simply common ownership of property including the means of production. It's purely economic. You can throw any kind of government you want on top of that economic system. Marxism, on the other hand, is exactly what the people who were attempting to correct my previous post called communism. Marxism is a blend of political, social, and economic structures with the goal of ending class structures, private ownership, and exploitation of labor. It is safe to say that all Marxists are communists, but the inverse is not true.

Additionally, as I said before, the USSR was never communist. I'm sure Lenin's goal of creating a communist state was genuine (cuz his own private writings discuss it quite a bit), but he recognized almost immediately that the Russian people weren't ready to make that big of leap since they'd be skipping capitalism that Marx discussed as an evil, but necessary step on the journey to the revolution. Plus there was the whole lack of the revolution spreading across the rest of Europe that was a huge letdown for him and his Bolcheviks. Heck, by 1921, he wasn't even pretending anymore with the creation of the NEP which allowed capitalist enterprises and prolly saved what was left of the early Soviet economy. Then of course he died, Stalin took over, and serfdom returned with new names.

By the way, if you want to really bore yourself with this, spend some quality time around sociology professors who spout the various tenets of critical theory which started out as radical Marxism (yes, you read the correctly) and eventually morphed into a whole amalgamation of ideas that try to explain why Marxism failed to emancipate the workers.

As a more on-topic note, it'd be awesome, but likely way beyond the scale of Stellaris's governments engine, if we could run our space empires in line with the various communist and Marxist theories and have them follow logical trajectories. For example, could would make a space USSR that would actually survive as a democratic communist utopia even if it had to face an attempt by a Platypus Stalin to transform it into totalitarian elective monarchy? Or better yet, could we be a space czar and see our government overthrown by a charismatic communist leader leading to an actual implementation of democratic communism across the whole empire?
You're getting socialism and communism mixed up, socialism existed before marx and is what you said communism is. Communism can today refer to any of three difrent ideologies, marxism, stalinism, or maoism.
Socialism can refer to social democracy, or marxism, both which seek to create the socialist state (or as marx perfer to call it the communist society).
Yes marx claimed that the communist struggle existed before him but he was refering to the socialist movement in modern times and before that anyone whom he could interpret that way.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
You're getting socialism and communism mixed up, socialism existed before marx and is what you said communism is.

No. Socialism is a political-economic idea. The most obvious difference is that communism doesn't have an inherent political element to it. Beyond that, socialism doesn't require that property be held entirely in common, just held socially. What I mean is that in a communist society everything is owned by everyone. In a socialist society, that's definitely allowable, but so is group or private ownership if still provides for the common benefit.

And again, Marx absolutely came after communism. He even addressed the only examples humans had of real communist societies in his writings beyond the Communist Manifesto (it might even show up there, but it's been a while since I've read that pamphlet, so I can't be sure). Admittedly, the term 'communist' didn't come into common usage until the time of Marx, but the society he described definitely existed before he wrote about them or his theoretical post-revolution utopia.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: