• 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:
I am really curious as to how Militarist pops will react to a war. will they have higher happiness? a sort of rallying around the flag in the face of a war.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I wonder... are the 3 points final or are the subjekt to change?

Edit: How are the chances that we get the customization screen as sort of an online demo? Just creating the species and so? Pleeeease?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I wonder... are the 3 points final or are the subjekt to change?

Edit: How are the chances that we get the customization screen as sort of an online demo? Just creating the species and so? Pleeeease?

Regarding three points, it's kind of the perfect number for simple yet deep customisation with the way they have set it up. It means you can always go as a fanatically X, Y species, or go slightly into three out of the four things.
 
Here is my explonations how a race is affected by ethos:

Collectivism: A point into collectivism represent a race that shows little interest in individual advancement and such individuals are frowned in this society. Such a race try to put its resources for everyone to use which mean theoretically nobody will be left behind however in practis it is maybe "only" applied on a stellar level. Such race have an easy time to hold together an empire as the resources of the empire comes to everyones use but the lack of individual advancement may mean low efficiency. A fanatical collectivism would be a race that is so focused on this that it is able to even out the resources even on a space empire level but then at the cost of individual star system advancement. It may have very little problem holding togther an empire of arbitrary size but is also noted for being very ineffective.

Individualism: The opposite of collectivism, individualistic society focus on self advancement. Successful individuals will be powerful and in most societies you become successful by being efficient so these empries employ a more effective work force. However because the only way to advance in the society may be to control more resources then other individuals it will lead to an unstable society. An individualistic empire maybe are induvidualistic to a population level while a fanatical individualistic empire are basically individualistic to individual level. While very effective these empires tend to be some of the smallest as the planets are always looking for their independence.

Interesting, though I would not make individualist/collectivist on the efficiency... planned economy is quite efficient in wartime (where there are simplified goals like producing x amount of tanks and y amount of boots for soldiers) indeed the infigting within the society would lead to inefficiencies in the case of limited resources for an individualulistic society (where gains can only be made by losses for others). Scientific progress and/or leader bonuses could be more appropriate (great people are not oppressed by the needs of the grey masses) maybe random exploration bonuses (to simulate somehow the initiative of the people).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Regarding three points, it's kind of the perfect number for simple yet deep customisation with the way they have set it up. It means you can always go as a fanatically X, Y species, or go slightly into three out of the four things.
Personally I'd prefer only limitation on being fanatical in only one aspect. As for everything else, why can't I be xenophobic, individualistic, materialistic and militaristic? What's the logical base for that?
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Pacifist: 2 points
Xenophobe: 1 point
=> fanatical pacifists who hate everyone else. :D
 
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Personally I'd prefer only limitation on being fanatical in only one aspect. As for everything else, why can't I be xenophobic, individualistic, materialistic and militaristic? What's the logical base for that?
Because I would presume it's about the overriding theme of the government. Its probably xenophobic, materialistic and militaristic and the individualism is either driven by genetic traits (mentioned not rebelled) driven by the government but not the ethos (the capitalist oligarchy as an example) or developed amongst the people separate of government focus (free market) I'd say there is always a focus and as long as it can develop and change over time it's fine.
 
I am really curious as to how Militarist pops will react to a war. will they have higher happiness? a sort of rallying around the flag in the face of a war.
89ce8205fef7514a5027db9d05329f91ab27bebc.jpg


:)

Population happiness is in a bad state, Sir - people are already rioting. We are now two weeks at peace we should change that immediately!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If we're going to discuss this further start by readin up on the terminology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

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.
No western europe is social liberal, social liberal is not socialist either. You could say social liberalism follows the spirit of socialism but not it's rules.
The socialist society is a classless society with planar economy and democratic elections. It's the utopic endgoal of any socialist movement, those movements are mainly communism who belives it to best be achieved through violent uprising, and social democracy who belives that it's best achieved through gradual reforms.

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.
No communist is a philosophical view or politcal movement on how to establish a Socialist system socialist is the econmic system you refer to.
Communism:
Revolution to gain power
Dictatorship of the proletareat to rid itself of corrupting influences abd the enemies of the new order
Socialist society which is democratic but is at this point socialist not communist.
Marx invented communism, he did not invent socialism, that was there long before he was. Socialism is a beutiful idea if somewhat Utopian.

Unless you find any democracy in the first two steps then communism is not democratic. The last step is not communism since it's common to all kinds of socialist ideologies (note stalinism is not really socialist since it does not strive for the socialist society).
Communism is not the same thing as socialism, nor the same thing as planar economy, planar economy is part of the socialist society but it's not the only part, a socialist society must also be class less and democratic. Which is why stalinism is not socialist.

Heh. You know, this brings up the question... will all homeworlds be united at start of the game or will we have some worlds that are home to different sovereign states launching their own colonization, i.e. having American and Russian colonies in Solar System and nearby? I imagine for the simplicity's sake, Paradox will probably have all species starting out with united homeworld. It's probably easier to just do world government. For all we know, in future, United Nations could take over all colonization efforts while nations have to contend with each other back home at Earth. :p
I agree that homeworls shouldn't always start united but be split between 1-4 local factions.

While saying "Chinese democracy" with or without context is a good way to get a laugh out of a crowd, the Chinese Communist Party has at least nominally held democratic elections as a core tenet in both theory and practice since 1940 when Mao introduced his philosophy of New Democracy. While pretty much everyone else in the world has scoffed, the reasoning goes that the Local People's Congresses are freely elected and then in turn elect the higher representatives as the voice of their own constituents and with the full support of the individual voters, no matter what each individual would have voted for given the opportunity to do so.

I forget the catchy four character slogan Mao used during the civil war, but it was something like "vigorous dissent, unified action." The idea being that as a collectivist democracy, each voter or representative was supposed to fight for their own position or the position of their constituency as strenuously as possible, but once a vote was held it was their duty to accept the collective will regardless of their previous opinions and accept as if it were their own.

Whether this is merely sham democracy for propaganda or a true collectivist democracy too foreign for other, individualist cultures to recognize as such is perhaps a question better left to aliens who have no foot in either camp. The CPC certainly doesn't do much to dissuade the former interpretation.
Or simply a real socialist society, democracy is a fundamental cornerstone of the socialist society. Maoism and Stalinism calls themselves communist but they never take the final step unto a socialist society not do they show any inclination to, in the end they were just autocrats using the dictatorship of the proletareat as an excuse for holding power.

POPS OMGOMGOMG
And please include communism and fascism, I'd love an interplanetary communist empire
Just go miltarism materialism and collectivism for stalinists.
Go militarism xenopohobia and materialism for fascism.

Fanatical collectivism + materialism, here you go with space commies. Replace materialism with xenophoby - nazi in space.
Commies, that would be the political systme of the soviet union, they barely scraped once of the collectivist barrel, stalin lived in a gilded palace while his people starved.

Pacifist: 2 points
Xenophobe: 1 point
=> fanatical pacifists who hate everyone else. :D
Isolationists.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
I really hope that its possible to gain more points throught the game
 
I want to play a Xenophilliac and Militaristic people. I wonder what that would look like?
Uniting all the peoples of the galaxy under one banner, by force. It's basically imperialism.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
A xenophilic militaristic race would be a race that put great emphasis on the military and is maybe controlled by it. Although it may be extremely aggresive against foreign empire foreign races are very tolerated on the individual level. Think an empire that may hate all other empires but are tolerant to any race and you may have the militaristic xenophilic empire. Conquered races would most likely not be equals to the "ruling race" but they would most likely not become slaves either. Maybe a space version of the Ottoman empire could be considered as a xenophilic militaristic empire.
 
Hmm.. I actually want Militaristic, Individualistic and Spiritual... sadly I can't then get Militaristic on fanatics...
 
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.

Sorry to nitpick, but...

To say that Communism is an economic system is just as false as saying it is a political system. First of all because it is not one system: the system laid out in A Communist Manifesto is quite different from what other people have called communism. You are actually saying the same thing! So communism in itself is just a label, nothing more, nothing less. Therefore the USSR was definitely communist, just differently defined.

Sir Isaiah Berlin for instance laid out quite well that the positive freedom inherent in some communist theories is also the very basis of those. In that sense communism would be an ontological basis on the human condition for other theories, including economical and political ones.

Democracy is also not a political system. It is just a normative basis for legitimacy, which is why you can even find a parliament in North Korea. And your "communist democracy" also just encompasses the concepts of "radical grassroots-democracy" (or probably rather a "council's republic") and "absence of ownership". A "communist democracy" mustn't be defined that way.
 
  • 4
Reactions: