• 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 want to play a Xenophilliac and Militaristic people. I wonder what that would look like?

For the greater good!
Warriors.jpg


"It saddens me greatly, that we must take arms agaisnt the peoples of the galaxy. By their deaths, they deny themselves the liberation that is only to be found in total surrender to the greater good" - Aun'Va

They are the Tau from W40k universe
 
Last edited:
  • 10
Reactions:
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.
This is probably the truest thing communism can mean diffrent things thus we should specify if we mean marxism,stalinism, or maoism with it. All of these however include the uprising and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletareat, only marxism sees it as an interim phase while the other two claim it to be the fulfillment of the ideology. This makes them undemocratic, at least in the formation. Marx is fine with that he belived that it was the only way.
Social democrats (the old ideology not the modern parties) however belive that the socialist state is better brought about by gradual democratic reforms, it aims to a collectivistic state formed by democratic means and ending in a democratic society. You can be collectivist and democratic, communist and democratic is more of a grey area, since the most well intentioned communism still includes the dictoatorship of the proletareat.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I honestly hope they will be more careful in their choice of words for the governments. From what now can be gathered they seem to be very biased to the words "monarchy", "olligarchy" and "democracy". I truly like the design decision to provide choices here, divided into three categories based on who, that is how many people, rules. Most of all as it is obviously wrapped around Aristotle's classification of constitutions.

But if you already use Aristotle please use the correct terms! The good (as in not-defected) governments are monarchy", "aristocracy" and "politeia" while the corrupted ones are "tyrannis", "olligarchy" and "democracy". You can't draw a similarity to a prominent philosopher and then use his words all wrong. Honestly this rubs my nose!

Right now we can only see "moral democracy", so maybe they actually do use other terms than those three, but really: what is "moral democracy" even supposed to mean?

Anyway the possible governments should be adequately named and not just a wild concatenation of words.
 
  • 7
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
In other words, a communist democracy is a planetwide commune?
 
So the government types from left to right ny row.

Row one - monarchies and dictatorships.

1. Military dictatorship
2. Theocracy
3. Not sure yet
4. Enlightened monarchy
5. Empire

Row two - this is your oligarchy row.

1. Military junta
2. Shadow council/oligarchy
3. Technocracy
4. Some sort of community type government - commune of X
5. Corporate government.

Row three - this is your democracy row

1. Some sort of elected police state.
2. Some sort of other elected body. No real clue here.
3. Direct democracy
4. Moral democracy
5. Recurring democracy? Rigged, one party state?

That's my best guesses.

Well the columns seem to represent values as such, from left to right:

-Militarism, might is right
-Religious values, god is right
-Scientific Advancement/Utilitarianism, science is right
-Bourgeois Values, Human Rights and liberal democracy and that jazz are right.
-Materialism values, cash is right

and the rows seem to decide how tightly controlled power is. Row one is a monarchy, rule by one person. Row two is rule by a class of people and row 3 is a democracy of some sort. Now combined with values, the first two rows are obvious, ask who has power and how they claim it. With the democracies its a bit trickier. I think all in row 3 are democracies, but the values determine who has the most influence. For example, who sets up political parties, who gives out patronage, et al. Moral Democracy seems closest to what our concept of democracy is.

So the govermnets seem to be, from top left going row by row.

MONARCHIES: Military Dictatorship - God King - Scientific God (Hive Mind like?) - Enlightened Despotism - Old School Empire ( thing Victorian Britain)
OLIGARIES: Military Clique - Theocracy - Technocracy - Bureaucracy (rule by a civic minded class, perhaps more like early English/American democracy?) - Corporate State
Republicies: Militaristic Republic - Clerical Republic - Scientific Republic - Moral Democracy- Capitalistic Republic.

The terms I give aren't precise, but the key is there's two factors to judge. The first is how tightly controlled power is, and the second is on what grounds to people claim power.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well the columns seem to represent values as such, from left to right:

-Militarism, might is right
-Religious values, god is right
-Scientific Advancement/Utilitarianism, science is right
-Bourgeois Values, Human Rights and liberal democracy and that jazz are right.
-Materialism values, cash is right

and the rows seem to decide how tightly controlled power is. Row one is a monarchy, rule by one person. Row two is rule by a class of people and row 3 is a democracy of some sort. Now combined with values, the first two rows are obvious, ask who has power and how they claim it. With the democracies its a bit trickier. I think all in row 3 are democracies, but the values determine who has the most influence. For example, who sets up political parties, who gives out patronage, et al. Moral Democracy seems closest to what our concept of democracy is.

So the govermnets seem to be, from top left going row by row.

MONARCHIES: Military Dictatorship - God King - Scientific God (Hive Mind like?) - Enlightened Despotism - Old School Empire ( thing Victorian Britain)
OLIGARIES: Military Clique - Theocracy - Technocracy - Bureaucracy (rule by a civic minded class, perhaps more like early English/American democracy?) - Corporate State
Republicies: Militaristic Republic - Clerical Republic - Scientific Republic - Moral Democracy- Capitalistic Republic.

The terms I give aren't precise, but the key is there's two factors to judge. The first is how tightly controlled power is, and the second is on what grounds to people claim power.


While I broadly agree with what your saying I think some you have there are very wrong.

The third column for example isn't science entirely it is more likely to be something along the lines of Purity.

Feudal Monarchy - Most pure form of Autocracy - delegated rulership of one.
Technocracy - Rulers born and trained to rule from birth.
Direct Democracy - Voting on every issue with each citizen entitled to a single vote.

I also think the last column is your 'default' options.

Imperial Administration
Corporate Oligarchy
Representative Democracy


Though the first and second columns i can't dispute.

Military Dictatorship
Military Junta
Stratocracy

Divine Mandate
Theocracy
Stratocracy but with clerics not soldiers.


The fourth column I agree with.
 
It might just be a case where you are a Xenophobic empire but your Xenophile pops won't approve.
Yeah that's true.

I still hope it's possible to make your state evolve and become slaver even if it wasn't the case at the beginning of the game, though. If slavery is enabled only for xenophobic empires, I hope it's possible to become xenophobic during the game. It wouldn't make sense to be forced keep the same ideology forever - and it would be in contradiction with other Paradox games, where it's always possible to change religions/cultures etc..., and as Stellaris has pops, I think it's almost certain that"s actually the case.
 
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.)
http://i.imgur.com/28Q6BSB.jpg

But the screenshot only 2 points. One in pacifism. One in xenophile. Total score remained 0 (Ethic Points Left: 0).
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
but really: what is "moral democracy" even supposed to mean?

A empire that is ruled as a democracy with very strong laws and justice system so that most issues can be solved peacefully. It is a very diplomatical form of goverment that only can be used by races who have a very strong concept of laws and diplomacy over just getting what you want with violence thus can only be úsed by pacifist races. The democratic nature protects the people from the government and minorities from majorities.

The third column for example isn't science entirely it is more likely to be something along the lines of Purity.
No I think it all based around materalism as we do definitely have a spiritualism ideology we should very much expect its opposite, materialistic ideology be in the game. The hands holding the earth show the total control over the world's resources as well that you can "hold it" (that it is made up of matter). The same about the atom. The straight arrow mean progress.

I also think the last column is your 'default' options.
I think that column mean goverments that lack an ideology. The are flexible types that can at one time act like a military goverment and then act like a moral based goverment. They are what they are needed to be at the time. I would think that some fanatics would be unable to pick these goverments as they would be to biased to an ideology that flexibility would be impossible.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Do you really use wikipedia to "define" what is and what isn't communism?
WHAT A FCKING SCRUBS...
If you wanna wrong informations you could ask some nazis about that....
Wikipedia is not place where you can find correct informations on such topics....
And even if you think wikipedia is not sided with any of sides of conflict .... it is....
look north korea page with sources that are basicly claims without prove... it's like "it's correct because they say so!"...
 
  • 17
  • 1
Reactions:
While I broadly agree with what your saying I think some you have there are very wrong.

The third column for example isn't science entirely it is more likely to be something along the lines of Purity.

Feudal Monarchy - Most pure form of Autocracy - delegated rulership of one.
Technocracy - Rulers born and trained to rule from birth.
Direct Democracy - Voting on every issue with each citizen entitled to a single vote.

I also think the last column is your 'default' options.

Imperial Administration
Corporate Oligarchy
Representative Democracy



The fourth column I agree with.

Well its all speculation I suppose, but don't forget the 4X Tropes and the Sci-Fi tropes. The whole hive mind/enlightened scientific rule thing is a sci fi stable plus there's usually a science focused path which I think would most likely be the middle one. There's also usually a wealth focused path plus all those evil corporate dystopias people love which fits the last column.
 
A [moral democracy is an] empire that is ruled as a democracy with very strong laws and justice system so that most issues can be solved peacefully. It is a very diplomatical form of goverment that only can be used by races who have a very strong concept of laws and diplomacy over just getting what you want with violence thus can only be úsed by pacifist races. The democratic nature protects the people from the government and minorities from majorities.

And where do you take your definition from? "moral" is hardly the term from which you could derive that or actually anything. Even a militarist, xenophob tyrannis acts morally, the only difference is that you might define their morals as unjust. A "moral" government is actually any government as long as it is in power.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
For the greater good!
Warriors.jpg


"It saddens me greatly, that we must take arms agaisnt the peoples of the galaxy. By their deaths, they deny themselves the liberation that is only to be found in total surrender to the greater good" - Aun'Va

They are the Tau from W40k universe

I would say that the Tau are more of a Xenophile/Collectivist race. They are not that militaristic, as they seek to convince others to join them rather than go fighting them. Maybe add some materialism in the mix to represent their love of science, but I am not sure about it
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What was the release date of Stellaris ?

Steam says early February and the game is currectly in late alpha so not too soon, not too late, if there aren' going to be significant delays (well, it is already late alpha so I don't expect gigantic problems...)

What I am wondering though is how many developer diaries are we going to get. EU4 had 40+ DDs but it was announced in much earlier stage of development. If Stellaris was released 16th February it'd mean there are 'only' around 16 DDs left.

Do you really use wikipedia to "define" what is and what isn't communism?
WHAT A FCKING SCRUBS...
If you wanna wrong informations you could ask some nazis about that....
Wikipedia is not place where you can find correct informations on such topics....
And even if you think wikipedia is not sided with any of sides of conflict .... it is....
look north korea page with sources that are basicly claims without prove... it's like "it's correct because they say so!"...

I am not sure if I am more surprised by your negative attitude, league-of-legends-community insults, your Godwin's Law or you suggesting North Korea is not that bad :p
 
  • 5
  • 1Love
Reactions: