• 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:
For the Feudal monarchy, it was both because that form of Monarchy is otherwise missing form the options, and because it thematically fits with a "Purist" column: Direct Democracy, where every person votes on every issue, is the purest form of Democracy. Technocracy, where a small group trained to administrate properly leads is the purest form of Oligarchy. Feudal Monarchies, which is effectively a single ruler, ruling over single rulers, ruling over single rulers, seems to me to be the purest form of Monarchy.

This all works....assuming that column IS a purity column which I don't think it is. I think its more of Individualistic/Materialistic column. But honestly we have no idea, of what it is. All the other columns are relatively clear but the middle...
 
I would say Im 100% sure that column 3 (C3) are materalistic focused because it would be strange if technological focused goverments are left out.

I think C5 are not stuck with an ideology/ethos, they are focused on flexibility.

I would say that it would be extremely strange if not column 3 is not materialistic focused because given how important the technology system is the chance of the game having technological/materialistic focused goverment is basically 100%.

The hands holding the earth is a symbol of total control over the worlds resources. Hands holding the atom is a symbol of science as well as a symbol of matter as atoms are a building block of matter. The straight arrow are a symbol of progress, that the society is advancing forward.

I have an idea that column 5 could be called flexible, all other types have a very strong focus on military, faith, progress or pacifism. Given our idea that C5 is available in most cases (other then for some fanatics?) I think it would make sense that C5 lacks a focus, it do what is needed at the time while the others are always locked into a certain path.

I don't think it is a single party democracy because that would not be a democracy at all. I think the point with the money bags are to show that money can be turned into anything, the whole point of having money, a very flexible thing. The rotating arrow could mean all options are available.
 
My turn for pointless speculation!

I suspect the columns are focused on ethos, just for convenience

I'm actually going to argue that
Column 5 is Individualist/Materialist/Xenophile: Feudal Monarchy, Plutocracy, Direct Democracy
Column 4 is Pacifist/Xenophile/Collectivist: Enlightened Monarchy, Commune, Moral Democracy
Column 3 is Materialist/Collectivist: Police State [think 1984], Technocracy, Republic
Column 2 is Spiritual/Xenophobic: Divine Monarch, Theocracy, Conclave
Column 1 is Militaristic/Xenophobic: Military Dictatorship, Military Junta, Militocracy [think Heinlein's Starship Troopers]
 
  • 1
Reactions:
For the species name/adjective/etc - can we have a randomize button that will select these from a long (moddable) list of prestocked suggestions? I always prefer this over naming them myself manually, which I sometimes get OCD about. Having a name given by the game helps me jump into the role play more smoothly, and I'd hope there are many names to avoid repetition across games with similar setups.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Incredible dev diary.
 
This was great, DD. Now, not only awaiting Stellaris, but Vicky 3 :)
One quick question: could an empire's species change over time? Let's say I start the Interstallar Dominion with a race of fish folk, and over long millenia, that species is supplanted by a new population of dog folk, but who still identify as citizens of the Insterstellar Dominion, and I would still be playing the same empire. Is this right? I hope so!
They've confirmed vic3?
 
I'm not sure if this has been covered elsewhere, but is it possible to set the gender settings on your species? If you had a matriarchy or patriarchy, could you set it so only female/male rulers get in power? How about gender neutral species or hive minds?

Fantastic DD.
 
I think the thing is that there are only government types not economic types, which is a bit of a shame since the distribution of wealth can be fairly important. Are all your pops comfortable or are some extremely rich and others extremely poor? Stuff like that. But I think things like that will be based on other aspects other than government. So if one wanted to be "communist" they could be a democracy and then have economic policies to best match, but I think our economic politics are going to be fairly limited and we won't have a huge array of sliders and boxes for property rights and finance.

Yes, you can have capitalist democracy or communist dictatorship and then flip it up so you could also have capitalist dictatorship and communist democracy. The funny thing is, communist democracy has yet to happen in real world history. Unless you count the Maoist party rule in Nepal but I'm fairly positive the economy there is still capitalism. The thing is, most of the world are mixed economy. So it'd better to have economy determined by multitude of policies that collectively determines what type it is. For example, add collectivism policy, state owned enterprise policy, etc. and you get communism. but if you switch collectivism with free market but keep state owned enterprise policy and certain policies, you get state capitalism. Each policy would give weight towards one or more economic systems. Whichever economic system gets most weight from policies becomes your official economic system.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Isn't the fact you don't have to care about elections half the point for monarchies, in-game? I actually think of the top row as more of a "Autocratic" line than a "Monarchy" line.

Where did I say you can't have absolute monarchy? You can have either absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy. Europa Universalis 4 and Victoria 2 already offered both. Surely, for monarchies in Stellaris, there could be both absolute and constitutional variants.
 
Yes, you can have capitalist democracy or communist dictatorship and then flip it up so you could also have capitalist dictatorship and communist democracy. The funny thing is, communist democracy has yet to happen in real world history. Unless you count the Maoist party rule in Nepal but I'm fairly positive the economy there is still capitalism. The thing is, most of the world are mixed economy. So it'd better to have economy determined by multitude of policies that collectively determines what type it is. For example, add collectivism policy, state owned enterprise policy, etc. and you get communism. but if you switch collectivism with free market but keep state owned enterprise policy and certain policies, you get state capitalism. Each policy would give weight towards one or more economic systems. Whichever economic system gets most weight from policies becomes your official economic system.
Communist democracy is an oxymoron, Communism according to the communist manifesto is inseprable from violent uprising. Socialism through gradual democratic reforms is called social democracy, and there has been plenty of social democratic parties in power. Diffrence is since they work through gradual reforms none of them has achieved a full on socialist society. Then again neither has any communist uprising, those tend to get stuck in the dictatorship of the proletareat, and unlike communism those countries who have dabbeled in social democracy are all on the top ten richest countries per capita list while the formerly communist ones score very badly (russia for an example has a median standard of life worse than india).

Also get your terminology right communism is not the same thing as socialism.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 7
Reactions:
Yes, you can have capitalist democracy or communist dictatorship and then flip it up so you could also have capitalist dictatorship and communist democracy. The funny thing is, communist democracy has yet to happen in real world history. Unless you count the Maoist party rule in Nepal but I'm fairly positive the economy there is still capitalism. The thing is, most of the world are mixed economy. So it'd better to have economy determined by multitude of policies that collectively determines what type it is. For example, add collectivism policy, state owned enterprise policy, etc. and you get communism. but if you switch collectivism with free market but keep state owned enterprise policy and certain policies, you get state capitalism. Each policy would give weight towards one or more economic systems. Whichever economic system gets most weight from policies becomes your official economic system.
We also have no examples of alien governments/economies; it's certainly possible to imagine a species with different mores/beliefs/hardwired behaviors emerging as a communitarian democracy, even if you believe such a thing to be impossible for humans.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Where did I say you can't have absolute monarchy? You can have either absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy. Europa Universalis 4 and Victoria 2 already offered both. Surely, for monarchies in Stellaris, there could be both absolute and constitutional variants.
What I mean is that, at least from what I have gathered so far, the point of Autocracies was that you do not need to care about and be limited by elections. Otherwise, you'd pick a Democracy, going by the in-game classification. Thus, having a single hereditary ruler that is however fundamentally limited by elections and parliaments seems to be somewhat contradictory.
Note that I am not arguind about a constitutional monarchy per se, but about having a monarchy with parliamentary mechanics, as suggested originally.
 
What I mean is that, at least from what I have gathered so far, the point of Autocracies was that you do not need to care about and be limited by elections. Otherwise, you'd pick a Democracy, going by the in-game classification. Thus, having a single hereditary ruler that is however fundamentally limited by elections and parliaments seems to be somewhat contradictory.
Note that I am not arguind about a constitutional monarchy per se, but about having a monarchy with parliamentary mechanics, as suggested originally.
I think it's fair, it's a monarchy where the monarch matters less, becuase he has little power but also the support of a much larger administration than absolute monarchs. It's basiclaly the best of both worlds.
 
Communist democracy is an oxymoron, Communism according to the communist manifesto is inseprable from violent uprising. Socialism through gradual democratic reforms is called social democracy, and there has been plenty of social democratic parties in power. Diffrence is since they work through gradual reforms none of them has achieved a full on socialist society. Then again neither has any communist uprising, those tend to get stuck in the dictatorship of the proletareat, and unlike communism those countries who have dabbeled in social democracy are all on the top ten richest countries per capita list while the formerly communist ones score very badly (russia for an example has a median standard of life worse than india).

Also get your terminology right communism is not the same thing as socialism.

Uh, I never said socialism and communism is a same thing. I knew they are different systems. For example, United Kingdom and much of western Europe today are socialist states but they are not communist like the former Soviet Union. Anyway, examples I gave of capitalist democracy and etc. are just that, examples. Socialism is just a middle ground between capitalism and communism. Socialism and state capitalism are probably kind of similiar but it depends on degree to how much the government intervenes in economy. Some says China today practices state capitalism, other says it practices socialism. Like I said, most of the world's economies are mixed economies. There is no such thing as pure economic systems. The capitalism, socialism, and communism are just general systems that aren't meant to be a one-fit-all approach to most of the world's economies.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Where did I say you can't have absolute monarchy? You can have either absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy. Europa Universalis 4 and Victoria 2 already offered both. Surely, for monarchies in Stellaris, there could be both absolute and constitutional variants.

I think here all the monarchies are "absolutist" and Constitutional Monarchies fall under democracies.
 
Western Europe is not successful because of the government types that have been chosen, but because of the character and creativity of the European people themselves. Consequently, one cannot and should not liken all of their systems to one another. They are run quite differently. Plus....a country like Norway can do well with its socialistic policies because of a small population and lots of natural resources...ie....off-shore oil and high-grade aluminium - that they export for a tidy profit.


*Space Norway for the win*
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Really love this dev diary, reminds me a little of the first Alpha Centauri game. Was think of maybe creating an fanatically Xenophile and a militaristic society. Protectors of refugees, the oppressed and the weak, but also eager to fight those who don't share those values.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Communist democracy is an oxymoron, Communism according to the communist manifesto is inseprable from violent uprising. Socialism through gradual democratic reforms is called social democracy, and there has been plenty of social democratic parties in power. Diffrence is since they work through gradual reforms none of them has achieved a full on socialist society. Then again neither has any communist uprising, those tend to get stuck in the dictatorship of the proletareat, and unlike communism those countries who have dabbeled in social democracy are all on the top ten richest countries per capita list while the formerly communist ones score very badly (russia for an example has a median standard of life worse than india).

Also get your terminology right communism is not the same thing as socialism.

Dangit. You're going to force me to make a serious reply, aren't you.

You absolutely can have a communist democracy. Communism is an economic system Democracy is a political system. You can mix, match, and even blend together pretty much any economic system with any political system. So if you want to make a communist democracy, all you have to is let everyone vote on every political decision while at the same time also having everyone own everything in common.

One thing that is important to point out is that the USSR wasn't ever actually Communist. Communism is the people owning the means of production themselves. It's actually a fairly common economic system in small populations (tribes and such). The Soviet system said the people owned the things, but in reality, it was still pretty much serfdom with new lords.

Now with that out of the way, back to your regular platypus scheduling.
 
  • 19
  • 5
Reactions:
What happens if you try to invest 0 points into the ethics categories? Or do you have to invest some / all of the points that you have?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: